No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout298-24 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 298-24 File Number: 2024-1677 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN (APPROVAL): A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code Chapter 167.03 requires Urban Forestry to complete a tree canopy analysis or equivalent study every ten years; and WHEREAS, the last comprehensive Urban Forestry plan was completed in 2012 and, since that time, Fayetteville has seen tremendous growth, changes in species recommendations due to climate change and new tree diseases, and an ever-expanding knowledge of trees; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, City Council approved a contract with PlanIT Geo to prepare a 10-year Urban Forestry Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan was completed in 2024 with the assistance of the City's Urban Foresters and input from the Urban Forestry Advisory Board; the general public, and internal stakeholders including the Parks, Natural Resources, and Cultural Affairs Department; Public Works Department, Development Services Department, and the Sustainability Division; and WHEREAS, the proposed Urban Forestry Management Plan is a visionary document guiding improvements, setting goals, and establishing standards based on the principles of Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover; Maintenance and Management; Tree Preservations and Protection; Funding and Levels of Service; and Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and adopts the Urban Forestry Management Plan, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. PASSED and APPROVED on December 4, 2024 Approved: Attest: Page 1 Resolution: 298-24 File Number: 2024-1677 Attest: `J,AJI,illlfff//// S � Kara axton, City C erk reasurer . I AYE V7L`J!LI_ Gtr0Nl ;° Page 2 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEMO TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council THRU: Ted Jack, Park Planning Superintendent Alison Jumper, Director of Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director Jessica Masters, Development Review Manager Susan Norton, Chief of Staff FROM: John Scott, Urban Forester SUBJECT: Urban Forestry Management Plan 2024-1677 RECOMMENDATION: Urban Forestry staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Urban Forestry Management Plan. BACKGROUND: The City's Urban Forestry efforts have undergone a remarkable transformation since the last plan was completed over a decade ago, in 2012. Significant advancements have been made in adapting the city's tree species selections to account for the impacts of climate change and emerging tree diseases, ensuring the long-term health and resilience of the urban canopy. Continuous research and knowledge -building have further strengthened the city's urban forestry program, equipping decision -makers with the insights required to manage this vital green infrastructure effectively. In accordance with the Unified Development Code's mandate to conduct a tree canopy analysis every ten years, the city has now fulfilled this requirement, laying the groundwork for a new 10-year Urban Forestry Management Plan. This plan was developed through a sample tree inventory, public and internal surveys, benchmarking against industry best practices, and detailed audits. The Urban Forestry Advisory Board was a key stakeholder throughout, ensuring the plan's recommendations aligned with community priorities. Input was also gathered from various municipal departments, including Parks, Natural Resources, Cultural Affairs, Public Works, Development Services, and Sustainability, further strengthening the plan's cross -functional approach. With the city's rapid growth and the evolving landscape of urban forestry, this updated management plan comes at a critical juncture, poised to guide the next decade of the city's tree -focused initiatives. By leveraging the wealth of data and insights gathered through this planning process, the city is well-equipped to strategically enhance its urban forest, delivering tangible benefits to the community through improved environmental quality, increased resilience, and enhanced quality of life. DISCUSSION: The Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) is a visionary document that serves as a guiding framework for improving and enhancing Fayetteville's urban forest. This flexible plan thoroughly evaluates the city's current tree inventory, urban forestry programs, development codes, and maintenance practices while carefully considering various stakeholders' values and priorities. Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 The UFMP establishes ambitious yet achievable goals that increase the city's overall tree canopy cover from the current level of 39.4% to a target of 40.6% over the next 10 years. To reach this goal, the plan outlines a flexible strategy of planting approximately 1,850 new trees annually through a combination of direct plantings and community giveaway programs while also emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining these young trees to ensure their healthy maturation. Fayetteville's urban forest is recognized as a cherished natural asset and an economic resource, providing an estimated $55 million in annual benefits through improved air quality and reduced stormwater runoff. Key Information • 39.4% of Fayetteville was shaded by urban tree canopy cover in 2019. • Tree Goal- 40.6% across the city over a 10-year planning period. • A flexible goal of planting 1,850 trees annually to be achieved through planting and giveaways while focusing on maintaining new trees to maturity. • Fayetteville's urban forest provides an annual estimated benefit of $55 million by improving air quality and reducing stormwater volumes. • A 2022 analysis shows Fayetteville's overall Tree Equity Score is 87 out of 100. The national average score is 85 (as of 2023). The UFMP's visionary approach is grounded in five key principles: • Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover, • Maintenance and Management, • Tree Preservation and Protection, • Funding and Levels of Service, • Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship. Each of these principles is further elaborated upon, with detailed strategies and priority actions outlined to guide the city's efforts in continuously providing high -quality urban forestry services both now and in the future. With a strong focus on equity, resilience, and sustainable management, the Urban Forestry BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: SRF (#3), Urban Forestry Management Plan (#4), Supplements with Table of Content (#5), Urban Forestry Management Plan - Revised Version (#6), Supplements with Table of Content - Revised Version (#7) Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 == City of Fayetteville, Arkansas y 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 - Legislation Text File #: 2024-1677 Urban Forestry Management Plan A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code Chapter 167.03 requires Urban Forestry to complete a tree canopy analysis or equivalent study every ten years; and WHEREAS, the last comprehensive Urban Forestry plan was completed in 2012 and, since that time, Fayetteville has seen tremendous growth, changes in species recommendations due to climate change and new tree diseases, and an ever-expanding knowledge of trees; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, City Council approved a contract with P1anIT Geo to prepare a 10-year Urban Forestry Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan was completed in 2024 with the assistance of the City's Urban Foresters and input from the Urban Forestry Advisory Board; the general public, and internal stakeholders including the Parks, Natural Resources, and Cultural Affairs Department; Public Works Department, Development Services Department, and the Sustainability Division; and WHEREAS, the proposed Urban Forestry Management Plan is a visionary document guiding improvements, setting goals, and establishing standards based on the principles of Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover; Maintenance and Management; Tree Preservations and Protection; Funding and Levels of Service; and Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section l : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and adopts the Urban Forestry Management Plan, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. Page 1 John Scott Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2024-1677 Item ID 10/1/2024 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 9/12/2024 PARKS & RECREATION (520) Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Urban Forestry staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Urban Forestry Master Plan. Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? No Does item have a direct cost? No Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Purchase Order Number: Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Budget Impact: Fund Project Title Total Amended Budget $ - Expenses (Actual+Encum) $ - Available Budget Item Cost $ - Budget Adjustment $ - Remaining Budget V20221130 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Approval Date: r ► fir �ll� •� Ott �, �'' �� w� C' URBAN FORFSTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 2024 mk URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN City of Fayetteville, Arkansas // 2024 Acknowledgments Funding for this effort supported by the City of Fayetteville The City of Fayetteville, AR Contributors • Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs - Urban Forestry • Development Services - Urban Forestry • Public Works - Engineering and Park Maintenance • Other Supporting City Departments and Programs • Fayetteville Urban Forestry Advisory Board • Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee • Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • Fayetteville Planning Commission • City Council • Community members of Fayetteville • GIS Department (Thank you!) Document Design: Brittany Phillips Design Plan Prepared By: Chris Peiffer, Plan/T Geo Plan Edited By: John Scott, Urban Forester City of Fayetteville All other photos unless noted are from the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 2 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS LETTER FROM THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE In Fayetteville, trees are a source of pride and hold a special place in our City's identity. Our urban tree canopy is part of what makes Fayetteville unique and attractive to residents and visitors. The City of Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan will serve as a blueprint to guide Fayetteville during rapid growth, helping to make sure our growing community remains healthy, vibrant and green. A coalition of residents, staff, stakeholders and board members created this plan for Fayetteville by reviewing our past and current conditions and considering what the future holds for Fayetteville. I want to express gratitude to all contributors to the Urban Forestry Management Plan. The direction outlined in this plan will help us maintain and grow our urban forests, which continue to provide direct benefits to our community. MAYOR LIONELD JORDAN A LETTER FROM FAYETTEVILLE'S URBAN FORESTERS Trees and forests are the silent workhorses in our City that provide us with many benefits. Trees give us one of the most basic elements of life: oxygen. Trees shelter us from the sun during the blazing summer months. Trees filter pollutants from the air and give us cleaner air to breathe. Trees absorb rainwater and help with stormwater control when located correctly. Trees help make our lives livable. Scientists are making discoveries about trees every year. Within the last ten years, we have learned that trees communicate with each other. We are learning about the complex web of relationships trees have with each other and other organisms. In the past thirty years, we have learned that trees produce chemicals we absorb in our skin that naturally lower our blood pressure and reduce our anxiety levels. We arejust scratching the surface of what we know about trees. The City of Fayetteville has a unique relationship with trees and tree preservation. The collaboration with our community shows how important trees are to our residents. Trees and our urban forests continue to be a high priority for our residents as illustrated in the survey results from this Plan, the Park and Recreation System Plan, Energy Action Plan, and City Plan 2040. We are thrilled to have a plan that embraces our residents' priorities and will help guide us through future growth. Our City is changing quickly, and these changes impact trees. This plan is a guide to help us continue to grow and change while remembering the importance of trees. Over the past ten years, Urban Forestry staff has strengthened our tree preservation and landscape codes, added flexible elements for development in code, and clarified our Unified Development Code. The Urban Forestry Management Plan has a vision to continue strengthening, clarifying, and adding flexibility to our Tree Preservation and Landscape codes. The Urban Forestry Management Plan will also help focus our efforts to maintain, grow, and enhance our urban forest programs for the next ten years. Fayetteville's award -winning Urban Forestry programs lead the state in innovation, public outreach, technology, and progress. This plan will help continue this progress, strengthen those attributes, and guide us on what we can do for our urban forests. We are excited to continue to serve Fayetteville with award -winning programs by implementing the recommendations of this plan. MELISSA EVANS, URBAN FORESTER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JOHN SCOTT, URBAN FORESTER, PARKS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 �i AMD 4k Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary..............................................................................................................................................................................................................6 KeyFindings............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 AligningCity Priorities.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Iroduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 About Fayetteville Background and History Benefits and Services Provided by Fayetteville's Trees Plan Purpose Challenges Facing Fayetteville's Urban Forest The Time is Now Section2: Current Conditions......................................................................................................................................................................20 Trees That Make Up Fayetteville's Urban Forest Results of the 2022 Public Tree Sample Inventory Current Conditions of the Citywide Urban Forest Current Tree Management in Fayetteville Stakeholder Feedback on Current Conditions Summary of Urban Forest Vulnerabilities US Forest Service Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Audit Section 3: Vision for the Future, Recommendations............................................................................................................. 68 Introduction Plan Vision Statement Guiding Principles and Goals Overview 10-Year Canopy Cover Goal Stakeholder- driven Guiding Principles and Goals A) Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover B) Maintenance and Management C) Tree Preservation and Protection D) Funding and Levels of Service E) Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship Section4: Implementation................................................................................................................................................................................86 Implementation Summary Monitoring Plan Evaluate Monitor Report Revise Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................................................................105 Index.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................108 Appendix& References........................................................................................................................................................................110-134 Appendix A Canopy Goals and Planting Targets EEO Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The quality of life for Fayetteville's community members is strongly improved by its trees (collectively known as the urban forest), as trees make a vital and affordable contribution to the sense of community, enhance and create pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods, provide energy savings, reduce stormwater runoff, and improve air quality. Future climate predictions indicate that heat waves will become more frequent, and the average yearly temperatures are expected to continue to rise. In addition, it is anticipated that the region will experience more frequent extreme weather events and temperature changes, prolonged periods of drought, and shortened or disrupted natural seasons. Fayetteville's urban forest is a key part of the City's climate resilience goals, it: • provides much -needed shade • is one of the most effective mechanisms to cool urban areas • reduces stormwater runoff • increases property values • makes the City more livable Protecting, maintaining, and expanding Fayetteville's urban forest is essential to preserving and improving quality of life for all residents while increasing property values. To plan and manage Fayetteville's urban forest, a baseline assessment of tree canopy cover was conducted in 2019. PURPOSE The City's Urban Forestry Management Plan ("Plan") aims to provide goals and a roadmap for the City to preserve and expand tree canopy cover and maximize the benefits of Fayetteville's urban forest. KEY FINDINGS Fayetteville's programs for urban forest management, community engagement, public tree maintenance, tree ordinances, and the supporting Urban Forestry Advisory Board are critical to meeting the City's commitment to climate change mitigation and adaptation, carbon sequestration, stormwater reduction, water conservation, wildlife habitat enhancement, and service to the community. The following summarizes key findings about the City's tree canopy, its programs, and the community it serves. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 URBAN FOREST KEY FINDINGS 1. 39.41/o of the City was shaded by urban tree canopy cover in 2019 and had a Tree Equity Score of 87 out of 100. The regional average is 77 and the national average is 85 (see page 36 in the Current Conditions section for more details). 2. The citywide urban forest provides an annual estimated benefit of $55 million by improving air quality, health savings, energy savings, and reducing stormwater volume. (Endreny, 2018) 3. A sample inventory of 2,712 public trees and 848 private trees was completed in 2022. The trees are diverse - the top ten species only comprise 44% of all trees. 4. Fayetteville has an estimated 42,000 public trees of which 25,000 are in maintained areas. 5. The 25,000 publicly -maintained trees provide an estimated $2.5 million in ecosystem benefits. MANAGEMENT KEY FINDINGS The urban forest is managed by three different City departments— Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs; Public Works; and Development Services. 1. 1.00 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff is in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs (Park Planning & Urban Forestry Division) and oversees tree plantings, Arbor Day Celebration, the Tree City USA program, specifies new tree plantings in public spaces, is the Staff Leader for the City's Urban Forestry Advisory Board (UFAB), works on Code changes, outreach, budgets, and advises maintenance best management practices. 2. 6.00 FTEs in Park Maintenance in Public Works perform public street tree maintenance. 3. 1.00 FTE in Development Services manages trees as part of private development in accordance with Chapter 167 "Tree Preservation and Protection" within Fayetteville's Unified Development Code and Chapter 177 "Landscape Requirements Code" 4. An estimated 74% of public trees are 12 inches in diameter or less, 75% of trees are in good condition, and the most common maintenance need for public trees is clearance pruning (8%), removals (6%), and watering for tree establishment. 5. Fayetteville's Urban Forest Audit Score (page 65) based on U.S. Forest Service criteria is 73% (completed in 2023). The Audit evaluates and scores 11 categories of sustainable urban forest management categories according to industry standards and best practices. 6. Challenges and shared priorities among City staff and commission members include staffing, ordinance and standards, and infrastructure conflicts with 50% or more of participating staff indicating these as challenges or concerns. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 7 ALIGNING CITY PRIORITIES The Urban Forestry Management Plan complements existing city and regional planning efforts such as the City Plan 2040 comprehensive plan for Fayetteville, the Park and Recreation System Master Plan, Energy Action Plan, and the Climate Action Plan (in development as of 2024). Involvement from stakeholders and residents has been key to development of the Urban Forestry Management Plan and establishing the Plan's priorities. A diverse group of city staff, residents, and community stakeholders provided perspectives on the most important issues faced by the urban forest. Collectively, this group prioritized preserving existing trees and incorporating healthy, climate -tolerant or native trees into the City's built environment, particularly in underserved areas. The Plan's goals reflect these values and priorities. URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES Urban Forest Vision Guiding Principles Healthy Trees, Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover: We value and appreciate Healthy City: the benefits and services provided by the trees in our community. These The vision for Fayetteville's benefits and services should be maximized and equitably distributed urban forest is to cultivate across the City by growing an urban forest that is sustainable and resilient a thriving, diverse, and well- to current and future challenges. maintained tree canopy that enhances the livability, Maintenance and Management: We care for our trees and the health, and sustainability of citywide urban forest to ensure the benefits are available for current our community for current and future generations. Our operations and investments prioritize and future generations. sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and equity. Tree Preservation and Protection: Our existing tree canopy cover and the investments made in planting and caring for the urban forest are preserved through sound but fair policies and regulations that align with shared priorities in the City and best practices. Funding and Levels of Service: The programs and staffing involved with the trees in our community have the resources necessary to meet current and future demands and challenges. Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship: A sustainable urban forest requires a shared commitment from the City and the community. We will foster tree stewardship in our community through equitable and impactful community education and engagement. Table 1. Summary of the vision and guiding principles for Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan aims to achieve 44.4% canopy coverage across the City over a 30- year planning period with a 1.2% increase in the first 10 years. The Plan recommends planting an average of 1,850 trees per year, with a focus on 60% being large -canopy trees at maturity. The other goal is to plant trees the City has the ability to maintain to maturity so these trees can provide the maximum benefits to our environment. The City, developers, and private landowners will collectively contribute to reaching the canopy cover goal. (For goal details see page 72) Tree canopy analysis must be conducted every 10 years to benchmark against our goals and determine what within the management plan needs to be modified to achieve the canopy goals, as required by City Code section 167.03.0. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 i 410 s ., �. �, • • • 4 yf • •� • Section 1: Introduction , - •: In 2022, the City of Fayetteville committed to developing the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan ("Plan") and conducting a tom, �� • ' sample inventory of public trees to support the +� Plan. The Plan was developed with a shared • commitment from the City, its partners, and the community to manage and grow a sustainable and equitable urban forest. ! �� d �.: , • I Introduction City of Fayetteville 0 Washington County 0 State of Arkansas Figure 2. Maps displaying the location of Fayetteville, Arkansas within Washington County. ABOUT FAYETTEVILLE Nestled within the picturesque Ozark Mountains in the northwestern part of the state, Fayetteville, Arkansas, stands as a vibrant and growing community that harmoniously blends urban development with natural beauty. As the heart of Washington County and home to the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville exudes a unique character that attracts residents, students, and visitors alike. Fayetteville is the second most populous city in Arkansas with 93,949 people as of the 2020 U.S. Census. It spans 55.8 square miles and of that area, 39.41/o (22 square miles) is covered by the canopy of trees that comprise Fayetteville's urban forest. Fayetteville's location between the Springfield Plateau and the Boston Mountains within the Ozarks gives rise to a wide variety of land forms and environmental features including native prairie wetlands, steeply sloped and forested uplands, and a variety of streams and water bodies. Overall, Fayetteville's urban forest plays a crucial role in enhancing social interactions, well-being, human health, and community engagement, making Fayetteville a more livable and enjoyable city. Photo showing view of the Ozark Mountains from Fayetteville. Source: Experience Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 10 Photo showing circa 1890 Fayetteville, looking northwest from Mount Sequoyah; fayettevillehistory.org BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Situated in the Ozark Mountains, Fayetteville is known for its natural beauty and diverse wildlife. However, over time, the natural environment in and around Fayetteville has been significantly altered due to human settlement and unchecked development. As urban development happened, the natural environment transitioned to what is referred to as an urban forest, meaning trees in an urban area. However, there still remain heavily forested areas and woodlots along with forested public parks and open space within the City. The following provides an overview of the history of the natural environment which led to the City's urban forest and the focus of this management plan. The earliest settlers in the Fayetteville area were Native American tribes who lived off the land and hunted and gathered food from the natural environment. However, with the arrival of European settlers in the early 19th century, the landscape began to change. The first settlers cleared large areas of land for farming, which led to deforestation and loss of habitat for many species of plants and animals. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrialization began to take hold in Fayetteville. Sawmills and other factories sprang up, leading to further deforestation and pollution of the local waterways. The construction of railroads and highways also had a significant impact on the natural environment, as large areas of land were cleared to make way for these transportation routes. As Fayetteville continued to grow and develop, urbanization became a significant factor in altering the natural environment. The population increased, and more land was needed for housing, development, and infrastructure. This led to further deforestation and loss of habitat, as well as increased pollution and degradation of waterways. Despite these significant changes, Fayetteville has also taken steps to preserve and protect its natural environment. A pivotal moment in Fayetteville's Urban Forestry history came in 2000 when Mary Lightheart protested the removal of trees at a proposed development and climbed into a massive oak tree, living there for three weeks. She and 50 other activists were protesting a new shopping center that would cause the removal of a large stand of oak trees. At the time, the Mayor and City Council approved the project. Two organizations, the League of Women Voters and Sierra Club, sued the City. The activists helped bring light to tree preservation and triggered political change. The following year, a stronger tree preservation ordinance was enacted with a new Mayor. The residents of Fayetteville made it clear that trees are vital to this City. This commitment to the natural environment is carried on by Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan and the City's programs for trees that are detailed in the Current Conditions section. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 11 BENEFITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY FAYETTEVILLE'S TREES A diverse and healthy urban forest works to the benefit of the community, the environment, and the economy. Following is a summary of some of the key benefits and services of trees, nature, and greenspaces in urban areas that was compiled from research to develop Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan. IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE Trees make cities more livable by decreasing summer temperatures and improving well-being. Greater contact with natural environments correlates with lower levels of stress, improved performance, and fewer sick days. Residents in areas with more greenery are three times more likely to be physically active and less likely to be overweight than residents living in areas with little greenery. View the following section for additional details about Fayetteville's urban forest improving the quality of life for residents. Cooler Pavement Diminishes Urban Heat Islands Tree canopy lowers temperatures by shading buildings, asphalt, and concrete. Trees deflect radiation from the sun and release moisture into the air, reducing surface temperatures by as much as 36 degrees. Lower temperatures diminish fumes from heated asphalt and mitigate the urban heat island effect. Improve Air Quality Trees produce oxygen and clean the air by removing pollutants that would otherwise contribute to human health problems such as asthma and other respiratory diseases. Protect Wildlife and Ecosystems Preserving and planting trees provides valuable habitat for wildlife, supports pollinator species, and provides favorable conditions for beneficial soil microorganisms. Save Energy and Lower Energy Costs for Buildings As natural screens, trees insulate homes and businesses from extreme weather, keeping buildings cooler and reducing air conditioning bills. Shade trees planted on a sunny exposure can provide savings of up to 50% in the summer. In winter, evergreen trees provide a barrier to cold winter winds. Conserve Water and Soil A tree's root system draws water into the soil and their canopy slows rainfall, reducing runoff and erosion while removing contaminants. In contrast, impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots allow water to run off unfiltered and at high volumes, increasing the likelihood of flooding and impaired water quality. Other benefits include increased property values, reduced pavement wear, traffic calming, public safety, among others. View a compilation of research on urban forest benefits and services prepared by the Alliance for Community Trees (www.actrees.org). Tree benefits are quantified in the following section. "In light of the ongoing effects of climate change, trees and their associated canopy have innumerable benefits and an urban forest plays a role in carbon sequestration, mitigating stormwater issues, filtering pollutants, increasing property values, improving public health, and reducing the heat island impacts associated with urban areas." FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLAN, 2040 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 12 A CLOSER LOOK AT TREES IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN FAYETTEVILLE Trees come in various forms— shade trees, flowering trees, trees with edible fruit and nuts, and trees with vibrant fall color. All types contribute benefits and services to the urban ecosystem— an ecosystem that brings nature into cities through tree canopy, parks, and interconnected greenspace. Many environmental benefits of trees in urban areas are identifiable and measurable, while other benefits are tangential and experiential, such as the feeling of walking a quiet tree -covered trail. The following provides a summary of the social and human health benefits of trees and greenspaces. The urban forest brings a myriad of social and health benefits to Fayetteville's communities. Park and street trees create a sense of community, offering opportunities for people to come together and engage in various activities. These shared spaces foster a sense of belonging and connection among residents. Additionally, Fayetteville's urban forest provides a respite from the hustle and bustle of city life, offering peaceful retreats where individuals can relax, unwind, and enjoy nature. Research summarized in the following paragraphs shows the presence of trees and greenery in urban areas reduces stress, improves mental well-being, and encourages physical activity, all of which contribute to healthier and happier communities. Moreover, Fayetteville's urban forest creates opportunities for environmental education and volunteering, inspiring residents to learn about nature, participate in tree planting initiatives, and engage in environmental stewardship. INCREASES ENCOURAGES SOCIAL ATTENTION SPANS INTERACTION- I INSPIRES PHYSICAL glob ACTIVITY r �1DT mount ■■ .. ■■■ao Figure 3. Human health and social benefits of trees. IMPROVES MENTAL HELPS CHILDREN HEALTH IMPROVES SOCIAL COHESION LEARN %son., n ■■ . w no ■■ ■■' Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 13 Overall, Fayetteville's urban forest plays a crucial role in enhancing social interactions, well-being, human health and community engagement, making Fayetteville a more liveable and enjoyable city. Studies have found that the amount of trees and vegetation in common spaces such as parks are related to a sense of neighbrohood safety and more social activitiy. In turn, greenery in cities enhances the strength of social ties among neighbors (Kim, et al., 2020). Encounters with nature in cities also lead to enhanced positive attitudes, decreased stress levels, improved attention spans, and better performance on cognitive memory assessments (Wolf, et al., 2020). Tree canopy cover and greenspaces in cities motivate and provide opportunities for people to be physically active. The percentage of greenspace within a two mile radius of a person's home has been associated with the percentage of residents reporting good health, particularly among the elderly and those with lower socioeconomic status —groups that are typically less likely to get sufficient physical activity. Research shows that community residents are three times as likely to be physically active when living in areas with more greenspace (Ulmer, et al., 2016). Opportunities to experience urban nature —whether it's a view of a street tree out a window or actually being outside in nature— are key to the mental well-being of city residents. People are happier, experience a greater sense of well-being, and have reduced stress levels when they live in areas with more greenspace nearby or on a tree canopied neighborhood street (White, et al., 2013). More tree cover near schools also has a positive effect on student performance. Children with challenges concentrating are more focused following a 20-minute walk in an urban park or tree canopy covered sidewalk than they do after walks in other urban settings without trees and greenery (Taylor, et al., 2009). Trees in neighborhoods and parks connect children to nature. The link between time spent in natural settings and health outcomes has been the center of focus for healthcare and insurance industries in recent years. Trees and greenspaces have shown to increase longevity, reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease, reduce anxiety and depression, improve immune function, and reduce stress hormones. A study in 2016 of 108,000 people found a 12% lower rate of non -accidental mortality among those with the most greenery in a 820-foot (250 meters) radius around their homes (James, et al., 2016). In addition, hospital patients placed in rooms with views of nature experienced shorter stays in the hospital compared to patients in rooms that faced other buildings (Mihandoust, et al., 2021). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 14 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF TREES Research over the past several decades provides valuable quantified data on environmental benefits for urban forest researchers, managers, and practitioners. This data can be used to communicate tree benefits to residents and stakeholders and to incorporate trees into infrastructure design such as stormwater management. It can also be used to develop strategies that reduce inequities. A tree canopy assessment conducted by the City in 2020 (with 2019 imagery) determined that 39.41/o of the City (14,000 acres) was shaded by tree canopy. In 2022, a sample inventory of 2,712 public trees and 848 private trees was conducted to make estimates about the composition and structure of public and private tree populations. These datasets were used to calculate the following benefits of the citywide urban forest and public tree population as noted. Citywide Tree Canopy Benefits The citywide tree canopy across public and private land provides an annual estimated benefit of $55 million by improving air quality and reducing stormwater volumes. (Endreny, 2018) Public Tree Benefits The 2022 sample inventory of public trees determined that are 42,000 trees in public spaces, and 25,000 are maintained. The 25,000 publicly maintained trees were used to calculate the benefits and services. Using i-tree tools, it is estimated that the 25,000 provide $71,615 in ecosystem benefits annually. It is estimated that the 25,000 maintained public trees sequester (capture)1.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide annually, worth $33,613. The air quality benefits equate to $23,949 annually in services. $14,056 of stormwater benefits are diverted from the 25,000 trees. Using these three benefits, the 25,000 public trees provide a yearly total of $71,615 in ecosystem benefits (Tree Inventory Summary). CARBON BENEFITS ...... $33,613 AIR QUALITY BENEFITS $23,949 STORMWATER BENEFITS $14,053 TOTAL BENEFITS ...... $71,615 Photo of Eastern towhee habitats are supported by healthy urban forests. Source. Audubon Arkansas Over the lifetime of these trees 0-trees uses 35.7 years), $ 2.5 million in benefits for our 25,000 maintained public trees. The value of the 42,000 public trees is over $4.2 million in ecosystem services benefits. (Tree Inventory Supplement) Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 15 ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS AMOUNT FOR 2712 TREES AVERAGE PER TREE TOTAL FOR 25,000 PUBLIC TREES Overall Monetary Benefit ($) $7,767 $2.86 $71,599.65 Air Quality Monetary Benefit ($) $2,598 $0.96 $23,949.30 CO (Carbon Monoxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 12 0.004480 112.00 CO Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $8 $0.003 $71.72 NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide)Pollution Removed (Ibs) 55 0.02 505.90 NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $11.1 $0.004 $102.69 O3(Ozone) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 1,046 $0.39 $9,643.25 03 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $1,233 $0.45 $11,366.70 PM2.5 (Particulate Matter 2.5 microns) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 28 0.01 257.65 PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit ($ $1,339 $0.49 $12,343.93 SO2 (Sulfur dioxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 21 0.01 189.07 SO2 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $0.01 $0.000004 $0.09 Pollutants Removed (Ibs) 1,169 0.43 10776.27 Carbon Sequestrate=onetary Benefit ($) $3,646 .57 Carbon Sequestered (Ibs) 156,765 57.8 1445102.2 Stormwater Monetary Benefit ($) $1,524.53 T $0.56 $14,053.56 Evaporation (ft3) 289,960 106.9 2672938.6 Interception (ft3) 290,397 107.1 2676967.0 Transpiration (ft3) 613,646 226.3 5656762.4 Potential Evaporation (ft3) 2,500,561 922.0 23050897.7 Evapotranspiration (ft3) 1,892,393 697.8 17444623.9 Runoff Avoided (ft3) 22,804 8.4 210213.8 CO2 Storage (Ibs) 5,348,466 1972.1 49303704.8 CO2 Sto ry Benefit ($) $124,391 $45.87 $1,146,668.05 Carbon Dry Weight (Ibs) 2,917,345 1075.72 26892933.08 C Stora 1,458,672 537.86 13446459.26 "Ibs" = pounds; "gal" = gallons; "ft3"= cubic feet Figure 4. Estimated annual benefits of Fayetteville's public trees Source: USDA Forest Service i-Tree research Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 16 PLAN PURPOSE Caring for and prioritizing the urban forest is an important part of maintaining a sustainable and vibrant city. However, urban forest management must also support the City's goals including economic development, transportation, urban design, and the goals of property owners. In recognition of this, Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances requires `a tree canopy analysis and an Urban Forestry Effects Model study or their current equivalent studies within the current geographical boundaries of the city by December 31, 2012. Thereafter, the city should conduct these studies every ten (10) years: UDC 167.03 The Urban Forestry Management Plan serves as a guide to proactively manage, care for, protect, and expand the City's tree canopy while navigating these competing pressures. The Plan provides a strategic and systematic framework for the sustainable stewardship, enhancement, and utilization of trees within the urban areas of Fayetteville. This Plan serves as a roadmap to guide decision -making and actions related to the urban forest. The key purposes include: Sustainability and Environmental Health: The Plan ensures that the ecological benefits are maintained and enhanced, contributing to the overall environmental health and resilience of the City Quality of Life and Community Well -Being: The Plan provides the strategies to create and maintain accessible and inviting greenspaces that enhance the quality of life and foster community pride. Urban Planning and Design: The Plan aligns with urban planning and design principles, ensuring that tree preservation, planting, maintenance, and removal are integrated into the built environment while reducing or clarifying competing priorities. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: The Plan's overarching goal to increase canopy enables the City to maximize the urban forest's contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Public Safety and Infrastructure: The Plan provides recommendations for public tree maintenance and risk management. Education and Outreach: The Plan includes recommendations for community engagement, outreach, and education to raise awareness about the value of trees, promote responsible stewardship, and support the community in tree planting and maintenance activities. Long -Term Vision: A vision for the urban forest ensures decisions made today have a positive impact on future generations. It provides a framework for adaptive management, allowing for adjustments based on changing conditions and priorities. Coordination and Collaboration: The Plan fosters collaboration among various internal and external stakeholders to ensure a coordinated and holistic approach to urban forest management. Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Creation of the Plan is required by City Code. Recommendations in the Plan improve regulations for tree preservation, protection, maintenance, planting, and compliance. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 17 CHALLENGES FACING Healthy trees can play a significant role in making FAYETTEVILLE'S URBAN FOREST Fayetteville more resilient to weather and climate extremes by sustaining the natural ecosystem health. External Challenges Yet the ability of community trees and forests to Urban forests across the country face common achieve their full potential is often significantly limited stressors including urban heat, poor air quality, weather due to poor tree health stemming from reactive fixes extremes, pressure from development, and invasive instead of holistic solutions, limited training of tree care plants, pests, and diseases. These challenges are often professionals, and insufficient municipal budgets. intensified by conflicting priorities and a shortage of resources. Internal Challenges • Proper and timely management of the trees Fayetteville's urban forest has been growing and in accordance with current best management changing as development and redevelopment occurs in the City. In many ways Fayetteville and the northwest region of the state are fortunate to be such a highly desirable place to live, work, recreate, and study. Rapid growth in northwest Arkansas is predicted and the effects are already being felt. From 2010 to 2020, Washington County's population rose by 21.1% and almost half of that growth was in Fayetteville alone. Specifically, Fayetteville is experiencing a 28% growth rate and is now the second largest city in the state, replacing Fort Smith (NWARPC). According to Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., the Fayetteville -Springdale - Rogers metropolitan area has a 76% population growth projected from 2022 to 2060. Like many cities, the tree canopy cover in Fayetteville is not equitably distributed across the City. As a result, some neighborhoods experience higher surface and ambient temperatures, poorer air quality, and more frequent flooding than neighborhoods with greater canopy cover. Additionally, the lack of access to trees and greenspace impacts residents' physical and mental health, sense of community, and overall well-being. Climate change is an overarching challenge that is compounding the issues facing Fayetteville's trees. In addition to the known pests, diseases, and weather that the native trees have evolved to withstand, the new changes in temperature and weather extremes bring a new onslaught of pests, diseases, and wet/ drought cycles. practices. • The need for updated tree -related regulations that preserve, protect, and grow the urban forest aligned with best practices and City priorities. • Limited financial and operational resources to address the gradual and immediate impacts of climate change. • Concerns regarding the organizational structure and communications with having three groups working in three different departments. • Preparing for emerald ash borer and other emerging tree pests and diseases. • Strategic tree planting programs and initiatives needed to sustain and expand tree canopy and the associated benefits. • Educating and revitalizing community tree stewardship. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 18 3 THE TIME IS NOW It is critical for Fayetteville's environment, economy, and community well-being that the City act now to sustainably manage the urban forest. The City has a Comprehensive Plan for how Fayetteville will grow and change with development. Among other plans in place or in development is the City's Climate Action Plan. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan supports and builds on the goals and policies of these plans and supplements those with vital analyses, studies, metrics, and strategies relating to the City's natural environment and specifically, the urban forest. Undeveloped areas contain native trees and vegetation, fertile soils, vital water resources, natural prairie, and wetlands. Protection and conservation of these critical areas is up to the citizens and the choices made by the City. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan provides the roadmap with goals and supporting recommendations to manage, grow, preserve, and strengthen the urban forest through invigorated partnerships that align with city and community priorities. Section 2 of this Plan is an overview of the current state of Fayetteville's urban forest and will serve as a baseline to measure future progress. Section 3 is an overview of Fayetteville's priorities for the urban forest which were identified through community and stakeholder input which informed the Plan's vision, guiding principles, goals, strategies, and priority actions. Section 4 of the Plan details the implementation and monitoring guidelines and the Appendices section provides additional information and studies to support the Plan and its implementation. Let's begin by exploring Fayetteville's urban forest. Section 2: Current Conditions Trees That Make Up Fayetteville's Urban Forest ]orw �_��� •.. � +may 1 i 1 �•1 '• A �.ZAEO�. PROGRESS FROM 2012 ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS To begin exploring our urban forests, we must review the 2012 recommendations to see our progress over the last ten years. The recommendations in the 2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report were evaluated to develop recommendations for the Urban Forestry Management Plan. The following provides a summary of the status of recommendations in the 2012 report (Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Project 2012 recommendations- Pages 33 and 34). 1. Share this report to promote cohesion among the City, AFC, FNHA, and other partners and community stakeholders: • People are part of the urban forest. This report can be used as a catalyst among urban forest managers and community stakeholders to meet Fayetteville's natural resource goals. Solicit feedback from community partners to refine tree preservation ordinances, tree planting initiatives, and steps to encourage survivability and forest health. Develop best management practices (BMPs), such as maintaining higher canopy cover in ecologically sensitive areas (wetlands), parking lots, schools, and commercial properties. 2024 Update. On Going and Complete. The old and new Urban Forestry Plan will be available online. We regularly meet with our board to discuss ordinance changes and tree -planting initiatives and stress the importance of planting the right tree in the right place for longevity. The Urban Forestry Advisory Board advises staff on ordinance changes and tree -planting initiatives. The board is made up of a diverse group of community stakeholders. We have developed a Best Management Practices to ensure we care for new yearly plantings. We set our planting goals based on what we can maintain and grow to maturity. 2. Monitor, adapt, and enforce existing tree Preservation and Protection ordinances. • Streamline tree -related policies and identify if codes are working against local goals. • Enforce requirements in the Tree Preservation plan, especially the 90% survival rate for forested areas and tree plantings. • Collaborative planning can reduce costs and provide consistency for public works officials, planners, developers, stormwater, and resource managers. 2024 Update. Integrated and Complete. Urban forestry staff continually review policies and codes and regularly adjust to necessary changes. We inspect all projects for a 90% survival rate. We collaborate with planning, sustainability, park maintenance, stormwater engineers, and others throughout the city for many projects. 3. Develop a regional urban tree canopy assessment report in Arkansas. Utilize the information gained from this assessment and others in the state to compile and compare results. Involve interdisciplinary partners in the process and draft an appropriate call to action. 2024 Update. Not applicable. Our latest Urban Forestry Management Plan will be available regionally for other entities to review. This recommendation is outside the scope of staff work. Urban Forestry staff does talk with the NWA Regional Planning Director about trees. Urban Forestry staff would participate in a regional plan if initiated by a larger regional entity like the NWA Regional Planning Commission. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 21 4. Assess tree canopy every 8-10 years to monitor trends and assess the effectiveness of public education & outreach campaigns and the tree preservation ordinance. Tools such as the I -Tree Canopy can be used between comprehensive GIS-based assessments. 2024 Update. Integrated and Complete. Urban Forestry Staff has worked with the GIS department and receives NAIP imagery as it is released; we can get regular canopy updates every two years. GIS has used the standards to give us tree canopy assessments every other year. We received one in 2015, 2017, and 2019 and are getting canopy assessments for 2021 and 2023. We assess the tree canopy every two years. The City's Urban Foresters frequently participates in several public education and outreach campaigns. 5. Disseminate this project's land cover and UTC assessment data broadly. While it is current, encourage its use for applications such as water supply planning, stormwater modeling, land use planning, green infrastructure, and Low Impact Development (LID) design. 2024 Update. Integrated and Complete. The Urban Forestry staff has several tools to help with the above, and we use GIS and the multitude of layers to plan green infrastructure. The staff has included LID features in many of the City's details, and engineering has included LID in the stormwater management of new developments in our city. Our maps are available to everyone. 6. Foster academic partnerships. Recommend that the University of Arkansas become a Tree Campus USA and work with local schools to educate and plant/care for trees. 2024 Update. Complete. We have spoken with several groups at the University of Arkansas to get them to become Tree Campus USA, but we have not succeeded. We keep regular contact with the University's Landscape Architecture department. We have also reached out to the sustainability department at the University of Arkansas. The staff regularly works with all public and private schools in Fayetteville. We have had planting projects with students at Butterfield Elementary, Haas Hall Academy, The New School, and Washington Elementary. We have been involved with the Fayetteville High School Advance Placement science program, which monitors and removes invasive plants at McNair Middle School. We have participated in several regional activities that teach children the importance of trees. 7. Explore all potential partnerships to achieve urban forest goals: public/private including corporate and academic sponsors, council representatives, environmental quality, and stormwater associations, volunteers, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood associations. 2024 Update. Complete. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry has partnered with Compassion Fayetteville, Beaver Watershed, Illinois Watershed Partnership, the Land Trust, Arkansas Urban Forestry Council, and other groups. We have recently started partnerships with several Property Owners Associations. 8. Promote hardy, climate -adapted, and long-lived tree species that are appropriate for Fayetteville's environment to ensure investments in trees achieve maximum benefits. 2024 Update.Active, Integrated and Complete. The City of Fayetteville codified the use of native Ozark trees as the recommended tree species. We have stressed the right tree for the right place. We actively promote using only Ozark native trees and shrubs in development. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 22 We have updated the recommended tree species list and are working on a new one. 9. Target areas for tree planting using the assessment data. • Use results to justify targeted public tree plantings in the public right-of-way and greater private planting in commercial landscaping. • Ground -truth possible planting areas and planting site locations. Make these data sets available on a GIS web map as social assessment tools for residents and businesses. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Over the last five years, we have used Tree Equity Score to locate new planting locations. We also use heat maps and other tools to help us plant trees in the most needed locations. Before that, we have always used income, access to trees, heat islands, and other factors to locate new tree plantings. 10. Create a central repository for monitoring tree planting and tree removals on public and private property, possibly using a web -based application open to the public. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. The Urban Forester in Parks, Natural Resources, and Cultural Affairs receives all planting plans city-wide and tracks how many trees are removed and planted yearly. The staff also created a spreadsheet that monitors how much is removed in the development review process. Staff can track development removal as well. Staff is currently unable to keep up with the data due to workload in Development and hopes for additional staffing soon. Staff cannot track private property owners activities. 11. Ensure consistency in future UTC assessments using comparable image resolution, classification techniques, and QA/QC procedures. LiDAR and 1.5-2.0' multispectral satellite imagery acquired at similar times would provide an ideal data set. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. With NAIP imagery, we can bring regular reports closer together, however, rapid technological advances may not always make this possible. We will continue to try to do this. This field has made many advances over the past ten years, and aerial imagery allows us to compare information. However, the imagery gets more accurate and improves each year. The latest data will be the most accurate. 12. Create or update an existing targeted education and outreach campaign using the ecosystem benefits values. Use the data, maps, tools, and tree benefits to help non -profits, residents, and businesses visualize their role in reaching, maintaining, and expanding Fayetteville's urban forest for social, environmental, and economic benefits that are relevant to them. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. We use trees' benefits and values daily with developers and internal customers. This topic is talked about frequently. We won an award for placing price tags on trees that showed the benefits of each tree. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 23 13. Work on urban forestry goals and design specifications for other environmental planning initiatives such as wetland restoration projects, open space conservation easements, green infrastructure & low impact development (LID) plans, and energy efficiency programs. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Goals are something we continue to assess and focus on for tree preservation. We will have new goals when we complete this document. Forestry is starting to move towards other natural resource management. The foresters worked with the engineering department on specifications for BMPs for stormwater, this included tree preservation, usually near a stream. Staff created mitigation options and codified the options for green roofs, green facades, and other LID features. 14. Assess forest stands at risk from development by overlaying zoning or future land use data and developable slope percent. Quantify and locate areas at risk that, if developed, would impact overall citywide canopy cover goals as the economy improves and development follows. 2024 Update. Modified and Integrated. The staff has not assessed at -risk forests in the city using zoning codes and future zoning. However, staff uses multiple maps when reviewing development projects such as the enduring green network, heat island map, flood plan, Hill Side Hilltop Overlay District, and other available mapping tools. We use these tools to recommend conservation in the form of tree preservation easements and tree preservation on each project. We identify high - priority areas during our reviews of each project. 15. Promote cost-effective professional development in urban forestry. eLearn Urban Forestry is a state-of-the-art online, distance -learning program geared toward beginning urban foresters and those allied professionals working in and around urban and urbanizing landscapes, including service foresters, natural resource planners, landscape architects, City officials and public works employees. eLearn Urban Forestry provides free access to learning modules with a link to the Continuing Forestry Education (CFE) group, where you can get ISA or SAF credit for a small maintenance fee. Visit elearn.sref.info/ for more details. 2024 Update. Integrated and Complete. Urban Forestry staff codified ISA and other entities as a requirement for internal and external foresters. The city supports employees who want to become certified arborists and allows travel for continuing education. Staff continue to meet standard continuing education requirements to maintain credentials. 16. Provide an environment for natural forest regeneration. This study shows that grass, herbaceous, and shrub/briar land cover types naturally regenerate into forests, contributing to the City's overall tree canopy and ecosystem services. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Urban Forestry worked on two forest regeneration projects just last year. The staff has been converting City -owned hay fields into forests and savannas. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 24 CURRENT CONDITIONS When the term infrastructure is used, oftentimes roads, bridges, power lines, and storm drains are most recognized. In addition to these staples of city infrastructure, trees lining streets and shading parks and backyards are to be included. These trees, collectively known as the urban forest, provide essential benefits that help Fayetteville function. Services generated by trees in Fayetteville provide immense value to the City. Like other city infrastructure, urban trees require management and maintenance to succeed. The urban forest is comprised of trees across all city landscapes including streetscapes, parks and open space, trail and waterway corridors, commercial and residential properties, among others. While the Plan primarily addresses public trees, all trees across ownership types and the care of these trees contribute to overall urban forest health, sustainability, and associated benefits. To present an analysis of the current conditions of Fayetteville's urban forest, tree populations in these landscapes are characterized by the type of setting and land ownership type (public or private) and the responsibility for maintenance (City, property owner, or other). In the following section, analyses are first summarized for the public street tree population, and private trees are then incorporated into the summary by describing the citywide urban tree canopy cover. Public trees are comprised of trees along streetscapes, in medians, alleys, parks, open space, and natural areas on City -owned land. The City is primarily responsible for the maintenance of these trees and the Urban Forestry Management Plan focuses on the public street trees. View the illustration below for a summary of the tree types in Fayetteville. RESULTS OF THE 2022 PUBLIC TREE SAMPLE INVENTORY Fayetteville's urban forest is a diverse ecosystem consisting of young and mature trees of varying species, function, and associated benefits. As part of the planning process, a sample inventory was conducted for public trees and private trees (utilizing public rights -of -way for visual assessments). A total of 2,712 public trees were inventoried and research and analysis were applied to estimate the total public tree population. For more detailed information, refer to the Tree Inventory Summary Supplement. �j .tl✓ PUBLIC SPACE TREES Figure 5. Illustration of the types of trees in Fayetteville. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 25 Based on the sample and assumptions, it is estimated that Fayetteville has 25,000 tree that are in maintained areas of public parks and street rights -of -way. I`Kll Lnp— Y , 0 al' WiiSa i Centennial Park O C, e Wall K�•�_, i� r�,9nn�Li�n f;i ;ir,�,:�1•Pary Public Trees Public trees inventoried in 2022 Select City parks for map wayfinding Figure 6. Overview of the sample inventory of public trees completed in 2022. Fnr mnra riPtailarl inwtir)n Law Photo showing a Certified Arborist examining the tree buds to accurately identify the species. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 26 TREE INVENTORY OVERVIEW In October 2022, a sample inventory of public and private trees in Fayetteville was conducted by Certified Arborists accredited by the International Society of Arboriculture. The scope of the public and private tree sample inventory was prepared as part of the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan. The tree inventory was intended to gather data that informs the current extent, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs of the urban forest that can be addressed in the Plan. Note, the sample public and private tree inventory analysis was conducted in October 2022. Due to ongoing tree maintenance and the dynamic characteristics of trees, changes such as condition, tree size, and maintenance needs may have changed since the analysis. Additional summaries and analyses of the sample public and private tree inventories from 2022 are provided in the Tree Inventory Supplement. SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC STREET TREE POPULATION awk x T 7% Princeton elms (Ulmus americans `Princeton') 111 unique public tree species 6% Post oaks (Quercus stellota) 75% of public trees in good condition 6% Willow oaks (Quercus phellos) 55% of public trees are 0 to 6 inches in Figure 7.Overview of the species results of the 2022 sample inventory of public trees. diameter Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 27 INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY ANALYSES AND CITYWIDE ESTIMATES To grow a healthy and diverse urban forest, the public tree population must be well understood and managed. The data from the 2022 sample tree inventory were examined and assessed to determine the species, size, health, structural integrity, quality of the growing space, and maintenance needs, among other key characteristics for management that is representative of the citywide public tree population. For more detailed information, refer to the Tree Inventory Summary Supplement. SPECIES DIVERSITY Species composition data are essential since the types of trees present throughout the City dictate the amount and type of benefits produced, tree maintenance activities required, budget considerations, and influences species selection for future plantings. It is estimated the current public tree population consists of 111 different species and 54 unique tree genera— relatively average in terms of species diversity in the region based on benchmarking research. Princeton elms comprise the highest percentage of trees with 7% of the total tree population, followed by post oaks at 6% and willow oaks with 6%. The top ten most common species make up 441/6 of the total public tree population— slightly lower than average compared to benchmarking research— which is a potential indicator of a healthy level of tree species diversity. If the most common tree species comprise less than half of the population, it may be a sign that the tree population is relatively diverse due to the number of unique tree species and their frequency of occurrence. The remaining 56% of public trees are made up of other species that are primarily pin oaks, blackgums, red maple, northern red oak, baldcypress, and hackberry. Size and Relative Age Distribution The distribution of public tree ages and size classes influences the structure of the citywide urban forest and impacts present and future management costs. An unevenly aged urban forest offers continued flow of ecological benefits and a more uniform workflow allowing managers to more accurately allocate annual maintenance schedules and budgets. To optimize the value and benefits of Fayetteville's trees, the public tree population should have a high percentage of large canopy trees which provide greater ecosystem benefits. On the other hand, there must be a suitable number of younger, smaller trees in the urban forest to account for and eventually replace large and mature trees in decline. Having a healthy percentage of young trees in the urban forest will ensure a sustainable tree population. To compare Fayetteville's urban forest structure to industry -recommended standards, the "ideal distribution" is used (Richards,1983 and 1993). The diameter at breast height ("DBH" measured at 4.5-feet above grade) is used to measure relative age. Overall, based on the sample inventory and estimated public tree population, the size distribution of Fayetteville's public tree population is similar to the ideal age distribution. Generally, an ideal distribution has a larger proportion of small diameter trees compared to larger diameter trees. Specifically, an ideal distribution for public trees consists of: Ideal Distribution of Public Tree Size Classes versus Fayetteville's Distribution Ideal Distribution Fayetteville Distribution Tree in the 0-6 in class/ Young trees 40% 55% Trees that are 6-12 class 25% 19% Trees that are 12-18 class 15% 14% Trees that are 18-24 class 10% 6% Trees that are 24-30 class 6% 4% Trees that are over 30" DBH 4% 2% Table 2. Comparing public tree size classes Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 28 It is estimated that 55% of Fayetteville's public trees are wood and the foliage as well as the structure. in the 0-6-inch class compared to the recommended 40%. In contrast, the City also has less 6-12-inch trees Based on the analysis, it is estimated that three out of (19%) compared to the ideal distribution of 25%. four public trees (75%) are in good condition and 15% are in fair condition with only 5% of trees in poor or dead The remaining size classes are within 49/o of the ideal condition. The dead trees or trees noted for removal percentage. The size and relative age distribution of Fayetteville's public trees indicates the population is relatively young given the City has more small -diameter trees and fewer trees than the ideal percentage for each of the larger size classes. This distribution may be an indication of an increase recently in planting efforts. The City should expect a growing demand for maintenance as the large number of young / small trees mature. V CONDITION Tree characteristics and environmental factors affect the management needs for urban trees. An analysis of the condition can provide an indicator of how well the trees are managed and how they are performing given site -specific conditions. Understanding current and changing conditions plays an important role in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation. Tree maintenance needs are assigned for public safety reasons and by tracking these needs, managers are able to better plan and manage Fayetteville's public trees and the citywide urban forest. The sample inventory of public trees was analyzed and extrapolated to identify potential trends in tree condition and the management recommendations to improve condition or minimize the deterioration of tree condition. Each inventoried tree's health was evaluated by ISA Certified Arborists based on the condition of the Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 should be addressed and planned for immediately. Trees classified as "Fair" or "Poor" should be examined to determine the necessary mitigation or plant health care, if any, to improve their condition. OBSERVATIONS AND DEFECTS Tree observations (or defects) were recorded during the 2022 sample inventory to further describe a tree's health, structure, or location when more detail was needed. A total of 20 observation categories were available for the arborists to note during the inventory. The public trees were noted to have 11 of the 20 categories. For more detailed information, refer to the Tree Inventory Summary Supplement. A total of 1,283 observations were recorded during the tree inventory. Crown dieback was the most frequent observation recorded. It is estimated that 30% of the citywide public tree population has some level of crown dieback and 6% have cavity decay present. Mechanical damage due to lawnmowers, weed trimmers, construction, or other may comprise 5% of the public tree population followed by poor structure with 4%. Of the recordings,17% of the observations or defects may be preventable or mendable meaning the defects or concerns observed are primarily human -caused. For example, poor structure can be prevented or limited with proper young tree pruning, implementing best practices and standards would prevent or reduce the number of improperly pruned trees, and poor root systems can be prevented by choosing quality tree nursery stock, proper planting, and amending soils. Trees with poor location and/or hardscape damage observations could have been prevented by choosing the appropriate species for the site and ensuring adequate root space. Lastly, adequate mulch rings, growing space, grates, and awareness would reduce the count of mechanical damage observations. The data also shows the impacts of deferred maintenance. Also, about 35% of the observations recorded could be addressed or prevented with proactive pruning and/or plant health care. 29 MAINTENANCE NEEDS It is estimated that 8% of the public tree population requires clearance pruning while only 6% require removal, 3% need pruning for clearance around utilities, and 1% require routine pruning or crown cleaning. The low percentage of maintenance needs may be an indicator of the City's current practices of conducting routine proactive pruning of public trees across the City. Newly planted trees should be structurally pruned (training pruned) within five years of planting though it was not an observable need in the recorded sample inventory. Young tree training pruning is performed to improve tree form or structure; the recommended length of young tree pruning cycles is three years since young trees tend to grow at faster rates (on average) than more mature trees. The young tree cycle differs from a routine pruning cycle in that these trees generally can be pruned from the ground with a pole pruner or pruning shear. The objective is to increase structural integrity by pruning for one dominant leader in most cases for most tree species. Young tree training pruning is species -specific, since many trees may naturally have more than one leader. For such trees, young tree training pruning is performed to develop a strong structural architecture of branches so that future growth will lead to a healthy, structurally sound tree. In addition to training pruning, young trees may also require additional maintenance such as added or amended mulch, watering, added or removed stakes and ties, and/or clearance of debris and litter. These needs can potentially be addressed during young tree training pruning. Trees included in the young tree training pruning cycle are generally less than six inches DBH. These younger trees sometimes have branch structures that can lead to potential problems as the tree ages. Potential structural problems include codominant leaders, multiple limbs attaching at the same point on the trunk, crossing/interfering limbs, or dead/diseased/damaged limbs. If these problems are not corrected, they may worsen as the tree grows, increasing risk and creating potential liability. INTERPRETATION OF PRIVATE TREE ANALYSES AND ESTIMATES Though less data was collected for private trees during the 2022 sample inventory, this data is valuable in providing information about the citywide urban forest. A total of 850 private trees were inventoried from the public rights - of -way. Based on industry research and benchmarking of comparable cities, it is estimated that there are 80,000 trees in maintained areas of private property. Using the sample inventory and an analysis that extrapolated the data, it is estimated that most tree species are oaks or Quercus with 19%, maples or Acer with 12%, and pines or Pinus with 9%. The top ten most common tree genera comprise 78% of the private tree population whereas, the top ten most common tree species comprise 57% of the population. The most common tree species include pin oaks (90/6), loblolly pine (80/6), red maple (8%), arborvitae, London planetree, hackberry, eastern redbud, eastern red cedar, Princeton elms, and black cherry. Most private trees are in the 0-6-inch class with 39%, followed by the 12-18-inch class (23%) and trees in the 6-12- inch class with 20%. Only 2% of private trees are greater than 30 inches. Similar to public trees, it is estimated the private tree population is primarily in good condition (70%) with only 4% in poor condition and 2% consist of dead trees. Based on the Certified Arborists observations of private trees from the public rights -of -way, it appears that the most common maintenance needs are pruning for clearance (9%), removing hardware from trees (6%), and utility pruning (2%). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 30 Summary of Tree Inventory Analysis Understanding the extent, structure, condition, characteristics, and maintenance needs of public trees enables Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Program and Transportation Department's right-of-way crews to effectively budget, plan, and address maintenance and planting needs in a sustainable, safe, and equitable manner. A comprehensive citywide public tree inventory is recommended in the Plan, and it is essential that the City maintain the data and routinely update the inventory. For private trees, understanding the extent, health, composition, and other factors provides the Urban Forestry Program with a better picture of the entire urban forest. Challenges such as pests and diseases, invasive plant species, climate resiliency, among other threats to the urban forest can be addressed for private trees by providing resources, education, training, and other support to property owners to support growing a sustainable and resilient urban forest. As stated at the beginning of this section, additional summaries and analyses of the sample public and private tree inventories from 2022 are provided in Tree Inventory Summary supplement. CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE CITYWIDE URBAN FOREST: TREE CANOPY COVER OVERVIEW An assessment of tree canopy cover citywide provides the data and information to develop goals and strategies relating to tree planting, preservation, tree equity, and risk management along with the data to support community outreach and education. These urban tree canopy assessments, referred to as "UTC Assessments" or "Tree Canopy Assessments" and "TCA's" provide the information for long-term planning and serve as a measurement of change and progress over time. This information can be utilized with other city planning efforts for sustainability, equity, human health, climate resiliency, stormwater management, water quality, wildlife preservation and enhancement, air quality improvements, and development guidelines among many others. UTC assessments provide a baseline understanding of existing canopy cover across the entire city. In addition, these assessments provide an analysis of possible planting areas citywide and by various planning boundaries. This assessment for Fayetteville represents an important step in better understanding current conditions of the urban forest, its tree canopy distribution and value, and the importance of urban forestry during planning processes. This baseline assessment should be utilized in measuring progress resulting from implementing this Plan. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 31 URBAN TREE CANOPY (UTC) FINDINGS - OVERVIEW A consultant provided an analysis and a report with recommendations on Fayetteville's tree canopy cover change from 2002 to 2010, and in 2020, the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) Department assessed the existing tree canopy and possible planting areas citywide using imagery from 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The historical imagery and related assessments provide information on the canopy change overtime though this section focuses on the most current assessment from 2019. The summaries below provide an overview of the baseline conditions relating to urban tree canopy cover and possible planting area in the City. For more information on GIS methodology, see GIS Study 2019 UTC Findings - Citywide The City of Fayetteville is 55.8 square miles in size. Tree canopy covers 22.0 square miles of this area (39.4%) according to 2019 imagery Citywide Tree Canopy City Boundary Figure 8. Map displaying the tree canopy mapped from 2019 imagery. Field m Shadow ■ Tree 235% 'Urban 33.2% m Water 1.9% Figure 9. Citywide tree canopy results (2019). Source: City of Fayetteville Urban Tree Possible Shadows Caused Canopy Planting Area by Structures ("Tree") ("Field") ("Shadow") Figure 10. Examples of the land cover classes. Impervious Area ("Urban") Waterbodies ("Water") Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 32 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND VULNERABILITIES By measuring changes in tree canopy cover, city planners, urban forest managers, and policymakers can understand how changes and regulations in the urban landscape are affecting the health and vitality of the City, as well as the quality of life of residents. Secondly, tree canopy cover is a key indicator of urban forest health. Urban forests are dynamic systems that are impacted by a variety of factors, including urbanization, climate change, and invasive species. By analyzing changes in tree canopy cover over time, planners can take action to address the underlying causes of tree canopy loss or tree health decline. Change in tree canopy cover can also be used to inform future policy and decision -making. For example, by tracking changes in tree canopy cover over time, city planners can identify areas where new trees may need to be planted to maintain or increase overall canopy cover. The information can also be used to inform land -use planning and development decisions, such as determining where to locate new parks or green spaces. In Fayetteville, the Urban Forester within Development Services actively monitors and tracks tree canopy cover change through development regulations and is supported by the Urban Forester in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs. Comprehensive worksheets and data are utilized to track on a monthly and yearly basis. The tracking includes forecasting the future canopy growth and loss. In addition to this extensive tracking system, the City completed tree canopy assessments for four time periods- 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The following provides a summary of the canopy cover change that was utilized to inform the long-term canopy goals and priority planting areas discussed in the following section. LAND COVER CHANGE OVER TIME* From 2013 to 2019, the canopy cover decreased from 43.0% to 39.4% and the land cover classified as field decreased from 41.0%to 33.2%. Urban land cover increased by 3.5%going from 20.0% to 23.5%. This is an increase of 1,400 acres or 2.2 square miles of urban land since 2013. The data is representative of the changes occurring in the City over time as development increases. * Note: Technology (e.g., data, imagery, resolution) for canopy assessments continues to improve. The 2019 data is the most accurate. For this comparison, GIS used the same city boundaries from 2013 to 2019. (For more informaion see GIS Study) 50.0% 43.0% 39.4% 41.0% 40.0% 33.2% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Tree Field 20.0% 23.5% 1111 Urban 3.0% 1.9% Water ■ 2013 ■ 2015 ■ 2017 ■ 2019 Figure 11. Examples of the land cover classes analyzed as part of the 2019 tree canopy study. 2.0% 1.6% Shadow Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 33 CANOPY REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 167 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ORDINANCE Chapter 167 of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances regulates and monitors tree canopy cover change in the City. The chapter addresses canopy cover preservation, afforestation, and mitigation and the regulations and procedures vary depending on factors and considerations such as the zoning designation, the type or size of a project, and the quality of the tree canopy removed. The table below summarizes the tree minimum canopy cover requirements by zoning designation that are factored into the canopy goals recommended in the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Note, the zoning designations in the table below are consolidated into generalized categories. Specific zoning designations and details for each are available in Table 1 of Chapter 167.04.C. REGULATING TREE CANOPY COVER Zoning Designation (consolidated) Percent Minimum Canopy Residential (includes single-family, residential office, residential intermediate, multi -family) 15-25% (depending on designation) Neighborhood Services (includes limited and general) 20% (for both sub -categories) Neighborhood Commercial 20% Community Services 20% Thoroughfare (includes commercial and urban thoroughfare) 15% (for both categories) Central Business Commercial 15% Downtown Core 10% Main Street Center 10% Downtown General 10% Neighborhood Conservation 20% Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial 15% General Industrial 15% Institutional 25% Planned Zoning District* (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, "HHOD") 25% (30%) All residential zoning districts and 0-1 districts within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have their percent minimum canopy requirements increased by 5%to a total requirement of either 30% or 25%. Table 3. Minimum canopy requirements by zoning designation according to The Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 34 TREE CANOPY EQUITY Tree canopy is often not distributed equitably across city landscapes and ownership types. The American Forests organization created the Tree Equity Score (TES, www.treeequityscore.org) tool to measure tree equity across 150,000 U.S. neighborhoods and 486 municipalities in urban areas. Each community's TES indicates whether there are enough trees for everyone to experience the health, economic, and climate benefits that trees provide. The scores are based on how much tree canopy and surface temperature align with income, employment, race, age, and health factors. A 0- to-100-point system makes it easy to understand how a community is doing. With the knowledge the score provides, Fayetteville's community leaders, tree advocates, and residents alike can address climate change and public health through the lens of social equity, attract new resources, factor the scores into technical decisions, guide implementation of the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan, and track progress toward achieving tree equity. A score of 100 represents tree equity. Based on a 2022 analysis, Fayetteville's overall tree equity score is 87 out of 100. Based on the nationwide dataset for 197,505 U.S. Census -defined urban areas, the average score is 85 (as of 2023). EQUITY IN TREE CANOPY COVER (TREE EQUITY SCORE TOOL) `-r - - —T- 0 City Boundary 0-63 TES 64-79 TES 80-89 TES 90-99 TES 100 TES Figure 12. Map showing the Tree Equity Scores for Census Block Groups in Fayetteville. Source: American Forests' Tree Equity Score Tool The map above displays the Tree Equity Scores for each U.S. Census Block Group within the City of Fayetteville based on the data inputs listed in the figure above. Compared to other cities in the state, Fayetteville's Tree Equity Score of 87 is the second highest score out of 10 Arkansas cities in the study (see figure on the next page) and has the fourth highest score out of eight U.S. cities commonly used in comparing Fayetteville (see figure on the following page). This score for Fayetteville is based on a combination of metrics listed in the figure above for 47 Census Block Groups (CBG) comprising the City and averaged for a combined total score. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 35 TREE EQUITY SCORE INPUTS Existing Canopy Population Income Employment Density 1 Surface Race Age Health Temperature COMPARISON OF TREE EQUITY SCORES IN ARKANSAS: AVERAGE SCORE: 77 100 87 87 77 77 75 72 70 66 S9 1 11 1 1 1 1 P� 1P� el e Q �c� t ° 0 \10 t� C, �� \ Q .� Figure 13. Tree equity score inputs and Comparison of Tree Equity Scores for select Arkansas cities based on a 2023 study. Source: American Forests' Tree Equity Score Tool *Note, the Tree Equity Score tool utilized data from EarthDefine and found the canopy cover percentage to be 35.6%, the UFMP utilizes the 39.41/o determined by the City. The numbers by EarthDefine are only used for this comparison. For more information about the data sets and input refer to https://www.treeequityscore.org. COMPARISON OF TREE EQUITY SCORES IN SELECT U.S. CITIES: AVERAGE SCORE: 87 93 92 92 87 85 85 82 81 L —0 G\,�'j' G�, Figure 14. Tree Equity Score comparisons for select U.S. cities. Source: American Forests' Tree Equity Score Tool Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 36 TREE EQUITY DISCUSSION In the past few years, regional partners are increasingly acknowledging and confronting the past practices, current perceptions, and accelerating progress to ensure that communities, landscapes, and policies are more intentional about enhancing historically disinvested areas. Driven in part by Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan and other City/regional initiatives, ambitious goals to increase tree canopy in areas of greatest need are taking hold. Although the City would oversee and monitor these canopy goals, the effort would inevitably require extensive support from all City departments, community - based organizations, and others aiming to prepare for a hotter and drier climate while development increases. Figure 15. An example of higher tree canopy cover east (right) of North Gregg Avenue in the center of the image compared to areas west of the route. Source: Google Earth 2021 imagery EASEMENTS City easements refer to the legal rights granted to a city, utilities, or municipality to use certain portions of private property for public purposes, such as the installation of utilities or the construction of public infrastructure like sidewalks or roads. In Fayetteville, city easements can lead to the loss of tree canopy cover if not managed properly or if regulations do not adequately preserve and protect the existing trees. When the City constructs public infrastructure like sidewalks or roads, they may need to remove trees that conflict with the design and function. In some cases, easements may restrict the planting of trees or other vegetation that could interfere with the infrastructure or utilities that are installed. This restriction can limit the ability to plant new trees and thus limit the potential for future tree canopy cover. Also, the installation of underground utilities in City easements can damage tree roots, which can lead to tree decline or death. When trees are damaged or killed due to City easement activities, the tree canopy cover can be significantly reduced. In addition, maintenance activities such as pruning or tree removal may be necessary in easements to ensure the proper functioning of public infrastructure. However, if not done properly, these activities can result in the loss of tree canopy cover. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 37 Easements where canopy is vulnerable were analyzed to determine the existing tree canopy cover within to support the strengthening of regulations, monitoring, and management efforts guided by this Plan. An analysis of tree canopy within Fayetteville's easements was conducted in 2023 utilizing the City's 2019 tree canopy data. The City contains a number of different types of easements ranging from access, avigation, conservation, drainage, utilities (e.g., gas, sewer, and water), grading, landscape, private, sidewalk, telephone, trail, tree preservation, and vacated. The potential for tree canopy gains and losses largely depends on the intended use of the easement, responsible parties, and the regulations. CITY EASEMENT TYPES Conservation Tree Preservation Drainage Utilities V ,'cal 1 Figure 16. Examples of the types of easements found in the City of Fayetteville. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 38 The table and map below describe the easement types vulnerable to canopy loss. Canopy Likely Preserved Canopy At Risk ., Areas to Proactively ("Vulnerable Easements) Preserve Canopy Access, Null, Avigation, Drainage, Access, Landscape, Sidewalk, Trail, Conservation, Tree Preservation Utilities, Grading, Landscape, Private, Vacated Sidewalk, Telephone, Trail, Vacated Table 4. Potential vulnerability to canopy loss by easement type. c `-u rl c® ` TL J, r i p Fj Iv l..� Q Qo ■ Canopy at risk in City easements O City Boundary Figure 1 Z Canopy cover within vulnerable easements. Acres of Acres of Canopy % Canopy of Impact on Vulnerable Easements in Vulnerable Vulnerable Citywide Easements Easements Canopy Cover 3,981 1,015 25% 2.6% total acres of vulnerable acres of canopy in canopy within potential loss easements vulnerable easements vulnerable easements (39.41/o reduced to 36.8%) Table 5. Summary of vulnerable canopy in City easements. Based on these categories, the vulnerable easements amount to a total of 3,981 acres and within that area, there are a total of 1,015 acres of canopy or 25%. The 1,015 acres of canopy represents 7.2% of the total citywide canopy cover (14,081 acres). This means that if the trees in these easements are not protected and canopy is removed, the City's canopy cover of 39.49/o would be reduced to 36.8%. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 39 NATIVE PRAIRIE Photo of Wilson Springs Preserve, a 121-acre preserve with the largest wetland remnant in Fayetteville and one of the last tall grass prairies in the region. Source: City of Fayetteville Fayetteville's native prairie land is a rare and valuable ecosystem that is home to a diverse array of plant and animal species. Historically, areas of the City were covered in tallgrass prairie, which supported a variety of grasses, wildflowers, and other plants, as well as large grazing mammals like bison and elk. Today, much of Fayetteville's native prairie land has been converted to other land uses, such as agriculture, urban development, and transportation infrastructure. However, there are still some remnant prairie areas in and around the City that provide important habitat for native plant and animal species. One example of a native prairie area in Fayetteville is the Wilson Springs Preserve, a 121-acre site that is the largest wetland remnant in Fayetteville and one of the last tall grass prairies in the region (Northwest Arkansas Land Trust). In considering a plan for Fayetteville's urban forest and goals to increase tree canopy cover, it is important to evaluate areas of the City where it may not be preferable or permitted to plant trees. While some native prairie lands have been lost to development and other areas are being restored, it's important to consider the native habitats and ecosystems and whether they support growing trees that survive and thrive. Based on GIS maps provided by the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust (NWALT) and the City of Fayetteville, there are areas of the City that may lend themselves to prairie restoration. The following map provides an overview of these native prairie lands. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 40 CANOPY COVER IN HISTORIC NATIVE PRAIRIE LAND City Boundary Native prairie (NWALT source) 64-79 TES 80-89 TES 90-99 TES 100 TES Figure 18. Map of the canopy within native and restored prairie land. Total Prairie Acres Total Canopy in Prairies % of Canopy within Prairies 9,769 total native prairie 1,957 total canopy acres in 20% canopy in native prairie land land acres native prairie land Table 6. Summary of the land acres and the canopy cover within native prairie land. Protected Prairie -related Areas Acres* Woolsey Farmstead and Wet Prairie Sanctuary 50 Westside Prairie 40 jL Wilson Springs Preserve 121 ■ Underwood Park 5 (estimated) ■ Callies Prairie 33 Gulley 13 TOTAL 1252 acres Table Z Summary of the protected prairie -related areas. Source: City of Fayetteville * Total acres may include land area that is not prairie, for example, Wilson Springs Preserve and Underwood Park As shown in the map and tables above, the City has nearly 10,000 acres of land that was native prairie land. 20% of the native prairie land contains tree canopy which amounts to 1,957 acres of canopy. Over time, the City and organizations have actively restored and protected or preserved portions of this native prairie land as shown in the previous table. Based on the figures provided by the City, 252 acres of prairie have been restored and/or protected while other native prairie land has been reshaped by development or is vulnerable. In Appendix A priority planting areas are explored with a consideration to preserve or restore native prairie land by not introducing trees into the landscape. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 41 UNIVERSITY AND INSTITUTIONS Aerial phote view of the University of Arkansas campus. Source: University of Arkansas The University of Arkansas located in Fayetteville owns and manages the urban forest within its campus, while the City of Fayetteville manages the urban forest within its jurisdictional boundaries. The goals of managing the urban forest at the University may differ from those of the City. The University may prioritize aesthetics, education, and research, while the City focuses more on public safety, stormwater management, improving air quality, reducing the loss of canopy due to development, and improving human health and well-being. While the urban forest within the University grounds contributes benefits to all city residents, the environment, and local economies, the City does not have authority to determine how canopy is preserved, expanded, or reduced. Therefore, an analysis was conducted to look at the amount of canopy on University grounds and the section of this Plan that discusses priority planting areas considers excluding these areas within the University. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 42 TREE CANOPY COVER WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS University Canoppy Area Canopy % Acres (Ac) 377 campus 22 acres of 6% canopy on acres canopy on campus campus Citywide Acres 35,712 Citywide Canopy Acres 14,081 Citywide Canopy % 39.43% Citywide Canopy Acres Excluding University 14,059 Citywide Canopy % Excluding University 39.37% Table B. Canopy within University of Arkansas property 1: `f Figure 19. Map displaying tree canopy on University of Arkansas property within the urban core. University of Arkansas property in urban core ■ Canopy within University of Arkansas property As shown in the map and table above, an analysis of tree canopy cover within the University of Arkansas (UA) property in the urban core (excludes the UA Department of Food Science properties to the north) was completed as part of the study. A total of 377 acres of University property were mapped and it was found that within those areas, there are a total of 22 acres of canopy resulting in a 6% canopy for the University of Arkansas. Hypothetically, if all trees were to be removed on the University property, the citywide tree canopy cover would be reduced from 39.43%to 39.37%. While the loss is not significant, the benefits the canopy provides to students, visitors, and residents warrant continued coordination and communication with institutions and stakeholders in the community. City development regulations, including for tree preservation, do not apply to the University of Arkansas as it is State property. CURRENT TREE MANAGEMENT IN FAYETTEVILLE The City of Fayetteville has a wide range of existing policies, regulations, and programs that are used to manage the City's urban forest. City departments engaged in Fayetteville's urban forest planning effort each bring important expertise, perspective, and resources to this commitment —to the tune of nearly $700,000 ($6.66 per capita) to manage approximately 42,000 public trees of which an estimated 25,000 trees are in maintained areas of streetscapes, parks, and properties. Fayetteville is a leading city in urban forestry, having been recognized as a Tree City USA for 28 years, the fifth longest running designation in Arkansas. Fayetteville has also received more Growth Awards than any other city in the state, with 10 awards as of 2023. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 43 PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING FAYETTEVILLE'S TREES Count of Department Division Title Certifications FTEs* Development Development 1.00 Urban Forester ISA** Certified Arborist Services Review Parks, Natural ISA Certified Arborist, ISA parks Planning & Resources and 1.00 Urban Forester Municipal Specialist, ISA Urban Forestry Cultural Affairs TRAQ*** Public Works Park Maintenance 6.00 Urban Foresters 3 ISA Certified Arborists Table 9. Summary of the departments and staff involved in urban forest management in Fayetteville. * Full-time employee or full-time equivalent, ** International Society of Arboriculture, *** Tree Risk Assessment Qualification SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES The Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Department was reimagined and restructured in late 2021/early 2022 to give more focus to natural resources, arts, and culture in addition to the quality programming, greenspaces, and facilities it already provides. Prior to restructuring, it was referred to as the Parks and Recreation Department. A new 10-year Park and Recreation System Master Plan was completed in late 2022. This plan identifies themes set forth by the community to guide the growth and development of parks and it supports the goals of this Urban Forestry Management Plan. The City's Urban Forestry Program within the Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Department is overseen by one of the Urban Foresters and supports public street tree maintenance crews, the Urban Forester in Development Services, and the City's Urban Forestry Advisory Board. Development Services' Urban Forester provides services related to development plan reviews and other supporting services. Specifically, the Urban Forester administers, reviews, and monitors regulations within Chapter 167 of Fayetteville's Unified Development Code titled, "Tree Preservation and Protection" and Chapter 177 "Landscape Requirements Code" Public Works has six Urban Foresters in Public Works Park Maintenance for public street tree and park tree management. The Parks Maintenance Division was integrated into Public Works in 2021 and continues to support Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs in operations, facility improvements, and tree activities. Sharing public tree maintenance and management responsibilities across departments can yield many benefits, such as utilizing limited resources efficiently. It is critical that workflows are clear and understood. Fayetteville's urban forest continues to grow and change, public awareness of the City's urban forest and its programs is increasing, and the beneficial impacts of trees to mitigate climate change are understood better than ever. In turn, it is anticipated the service demands will continue to rise, especially as the City implements the Plan's strategies to increase tree canopy cover. As service demand continues to increase so does the need to find methods to increase capacity and efficiency under strained fiscal support. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 44 STAFFING LEVELS FOR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Many cities struggle to maintain adequate staffing and resource allocation. Available resources may cover short- term needs while neglecting important initiatives necessary to sustain long-term urban forest management. Determining and maintaining optimal staffing levels is critical to a program's efficiency. Optimal staffing depends on several factors including the number of public trees, how authority and responsibility is defined in the municipal code, internal and external expectations, customer service (i.e., the public), operations, and existing programs. The City of Fayetteville's commitments to public health and safety, combating climate change, and addressing inequities translates into a growing demand for both long-term initiatives, and the staff to operate them. The growing urban forest will require increased staffing levels to achieve and maintain urban forest goals. Public Works and Development Services need to add full time employess to maintain the current level of services. As the City grows these positions will need to grow. Some capacity and efficiencies for existing workloads can be improved through clarifications of roles, responsibilities, and workflows among City departments and divisions. Periodically examining program structures, staffing needs, and levels of service may identify ways to improve efficiencies, communications, and workflows within and among departments. Cities often consider consolidating their tree programs into one division or section to achieve these outcomes. Establishing a strong organizational structure with clear operating procedures is foundational in reducing future costs and addressing increased service demands. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 45 TREE -RELATED PLANS AND REGULATIONS IN FAYETTEVILLE Evaluating the alignment of existing policies and plans in Fayetteville with urban forest management elements ensures a strong connection among the programs that manage the urban forest and the projects and initiatives that support them. Proper alignment of urban forestry program recommendations reduces the risk of wasting resources and enables success of key projects that support urban forestry goals. Plans cannot live in isolation, therefore, cross-examining various plans and documents brings to light any projects or initiatives that are a misplacement of resources and time. Tree regulations in the City provide the foundation from which tree canopy cover can be preserved, protected, and expanded while aligning with industry standards and best practices. Regulations for trees on private property are the primary tools for urban foresters to guide private landowners and developers in sustainable practices. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 46 RELEVANT PLANS AND STUDIES Several documents and resources were reviewed and indexed as part of the information discovery process to develop the Urban Forestry Management Plan. These documents included: City Plan 2040 (2020 update): The City of Fayetteville adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1970. The plan, and all of its subsequent updates and revisions, seek to establish a framework of goals, policies, and guidelines to direct future physical, economic, and social development. Energy Action Plan (2018): This plan is structured around one overarching goal: reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for activities occurring in Fayetteville. While GHG reduction is the guiding goal, a host of co -benefits accompany these actions. The plan outlines ways that the City can increase energy efficiency, transition to cleaner fuel sources, improve public health outcomes, build more resilient local businesses, among other core principles. Active Transportation Plan (updated February 2023): The plan serves as a guiding document for Fayetteville infrastructure and program development related to active transportation. It outlines a network of sidewalks, trails, and bicycle facilities to provide walkers, cyclists, and other users with clear pathways and connections to important city destinations. Park and Recreation System Master Plan (2023): This plan was in FAYMEVILLE FAYETTEVILLE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN -- development during the planning stage of the Urban Forestry Management Plan. In February 2023, the Park and Recreation System Master Plan was completed. It exemplifies the City's values in providing a thriving park system for all ages, abilities, and activities. The strategic plan will guide the future of Parks and Recreation for the next decade. It evaluated the existing conditions of the park network and identified areas for growth, improvement, and preservation. Climate Action Plan: The goal of the Climate Action Plan will be to inform future policies, programs and actions undertaken by the City and to assist the City in its efforts to remain resilient to the anticipated changes in the climate to preserve the quality of life for those who live, work and play in Fayetteville. The relevant plans and studies are summarized above to demonstrate the parallels among urban forestry and other planning efforts in the City. The Urban Forestry Management Plan's long-term framework aims to complement goals and policies within these City plans and studies that pertain to trees in Fayetteville. This evaluation of existing resources serves to reduce conflicting priorities in the City. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 47 Tree Canopy Assessments (2002, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019) and Studies (2020): 2015 Urban Tree Canopy 2017 Urban Tree Canopy 2019 Urban Tree Canopy Legend Land Clessf[alion _ Tn. .spd- _VA.W Grs _ UDm Land Class Change s_dN _0—^9 _OwW pM(*—F+b) _Owdq+q 1k— T—1 Figure 20. Comparison of canopy in 2015, 2017 and 2019 High -resolution GIS assessments of land cover were completed to identify the extent and opportunities for urban tree canopy cover. The City conducted these assessments based on 2002, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019 imagery to analyze canopy cover change. A consultant provided an analysis and report on the City's tree canopy cover change from 2002 to 2010 (in 2012), and in 2020, the City's GIS Department completed the Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity study, report, and supporting web map for the 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019 time periods to examine the correlations between canopy cover and socioeconomic data. (Tree Study) The difference may be a result of canopy increase, improvements in technology, or as stated in the accuracy assessment for the 2012 UTC Assessment Report "The Producer's accuracy of 92% can be interpreted as up to 8% of the overall landscape may be tree cover but was classified as another land cover category. Conversely, the User's accuracy of 99% indicates that if a pixel is classified in the classification map as Tree Canopy, there is 99% confidence that the pixel is tree canopy in the reference map. When combined, these two figures indicate that 36.0% likely underestimates the true canopy percent (and that the Green Vegetation category probably contains some actual tree canopy). The accuracy assessment uses concepts defined as Quantity and Allocation disagreement (Pontius, et al., 2011) to estimate true land cover percent values based on statistical results" (see the "COF_Classification_Accuracy_Assessment_Document" PDF provided to the City in 2012 for more details). Therefore, 36% is likely underestimating the amount of tree canopy in 2010 by up to 8% meaning the canopy in 2010 could have been as high as 441/o. As shown in the previous figure, Fayetteville has demonstrated a proactive commitment to urban forest management by assessing tree canopy cover over several time periods and implementing the recommendations as resources allow. By monitoring the state of tree canopy cover, the City can better understand the urban ecosystem's health and make informed decisions. Fayetteville has also made strides in public and developer education on the significance of trees within the cityscape. Resources and guidance are provided to ensure responsible tree care and development practices, emphasizing the importance of preserving and enhancing the urban tree canopy. Additionally, the Urban Forestry staff have recognized policies and regulations that need to be updated to align with contemporary urban forestry standards, prioritizing the protection and growth of this vital green infrastructure. Furthermore, Fayetteville has invested in planting resilient tree species, making its urban forest more adaptive to climate challenges. These efforts reflect the City's commitment to enhancing the quality of life for its residents while fostering a greener, more sustainable future. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 48 While Fayetteville's urban forestry efforts have made commendable progress, the 2024 Urban Forestry Management Plan builds on the progress and guides the City toward a long-term vision. The City must continue its commitment to reassessing canopy cover over time and expanding public education efforts to ensure a sustainable and thriving urban tree canopy. By successfully implementing the Plan, Fayetteville can bolster its urban forestry programs and grow a resilient urban forest. TREE ORDINANCES IN FAYETTEVILLE Chapter 167, Tree Preservation and Protection: This preservation ordinance within Fayetteville Code of Ordinances preserves and protects trees and natural areas in the City based on the type of project and its location. The regulations require a tree preservation plan and canopy cover retention or the planting of trees to meet minimum canopy cover requirements by zoning designation for proposed development projects. Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations: In 2007 the Urban Forester (then titled Landscape Administrator) collaborated with other City staff to consolidate landscape requirements found throughout multiple sections of the Unified Development Code into this single ordinance (Chapter 177). The intention of consolidating requirements was to help meet the needs of those applying for development review. The ordinance aimed to meet the following goals: a greener, more attractive city with reduced heat, noise and air pollution; and increased property values. The City of Fayetteville requires developers to include landscaping in their building plans to beautify property, provide shade, and screen the perimeters of parking lots, utilities, incompatible uses, and vehicular use areas. Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual (2016): The original manual was created in 1999, updated in 2006, and was condensed in 2016 in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Division and the Sustainability and Resilience Department. It was then approved by the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. The updated manual's primary purpose is to provide developers, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and contractors with the City's requirements for tree preservation and protection and landscape installation. The manual corresponds with the requirements detailed in the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection and Chapter 177. Landscape Regulations. Figure 21. Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual provides the tree -related regulations and standards for entities involved in private development design and construction. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 49 A cursory review of existing tree -related ordinances in Fayetteville was conducted based on industry tools and resources, comparisons of findings from benchmarking research, input gathered from internal stakeholders, and a cross-examination of regulations compared to industry standards and best practices. This integrated approach aims to balance goals for tree canopy cover, development, and other priorities in the future. Appendix C provides a summary of the evaluation of Fayetteville's tree -related ordinances. SUMMARY OF FAYETTEVILLE'S KEY URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES • The Urban Forestry team in Public Works performs tree maintenance on street trees not adjacent to private property. They also maintain trees in parks and along the trails. • Tree preservation and protection for new development is performed by the Urban Forester in Development Services. Residential reviews are performed by the Urban Forester in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs. • Development Services administers Chapter 167 of the Unified Development Code to ensure Fayetteville maintains, enhances, and preserves trees and the City's natural beauty. • The City's Urban Forestry Advisory Board advises the City Council and the Mayor on urban forestry issues. Tree Preservation and Protection to preserve and expand the City's urban forest. Chapter 177 regulates landscape for developments. • Volunteer opportunities for tree stewardship and education. • Tree City USA accreditation and Arbor Day celebrations. • Amazing Trees of Fayetteville program and online inventory. • Celebration of Trees Event and other events celebrating and educating attendees about Fayetteville's urban forest. • The City has an invasive plant ordinance, encourages Ozark native trees, and discourages trees found to have issues. • Fayetteville Code of Ordinances Chapter 167 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 50 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON CURRENT CONDITIONS Internal and external engagement is critical to the success of an urban forestry management plan. By engaging with Fayetteville's staff, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders, urban forestry staff are given a better understanding of the needs and concerns of the community. Engagement was conducted throughout the development of Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan. The feedback and input gathered was used to shape a plan that is representative of the needs of all stakeholders in the City. The engagement conducted throughout the development of the Plan also helps to build support for Fayetteville's urban forest and to ensure the Plan is implemented effectively. Internal Stakeholder Feedback In August and September 2022, engagement with City staff in various departments to develop the Urban Forestry Management Plan began with an online survey to identify workflows, measures of success, concerns, priorities, and shared goals and outcomes as it relates to trees in the City. A total of 28 of the 59 (47%) invited staff and board / commission members participated in the survey and follow-up interviews as desired. Staff participants represented the departments of Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs; Public Works; Environmental; and Development Services. In addition, members from the Urban Forestry Advisory Board, Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Advisory Board, Environmental Action Committee, Planning Commission, and Keep Fayetteville Beautiful participated. The figure on the following page provides a graphic summary of responses. Most respondents serve as advocates for public trees and park improvements, over 60% support community recreation and engagement, and half are involved with City planning. Over half of the respondents noted the staffing levels as a challenge, along with needed improvements as they relate to ordinances and infrastructure conflicts (50% each). 46% feel there is more to be done in terms of preparedness planning as well as 46% concerned with the sustainability of ecosystems. The respondents noted their top priorities to address in the Plan as procuring funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation and canopy expansion, supporting local businesses and others in the community to cooperatively grow and maintain the urban forest, and increase funding to purchase trees to be planted to support canopy goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 51 4 City Departments represented 5 City Boards, Committees, and Commissions represented 28 out of 59 internal stakeholders participated in the survey To view more information on the project and Fayetteville's urban forest, visit www.fayetteville-or.gov/339/Urban- Forestry ISSUES, CHALLENGES, & CONCERNS Staffing �' Tree (54%) Ordinances (50%) \` / Infrastructure Urban Forest a Conflicts Sustainability \� (50%) 10 (46%) 8 _ _ Preparedness Budgets �-- Planning $ - (46%) 0TJ (39%) PARTICIPANTS Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Department • Public Works Department • Environmental (Sustainability & Resilience) Department Development Services Department • Urban Forestry Advisory Board • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • Environmental Action Committee • Planning Commission • Keep Fayetteville Beautiful PARTICIPANTS' ROLES) WITH TREES IN FAYETTEVILLE Advocate for public tree & park Recreation, , OTHERS improvements community (y engagement Code City enforcement planning (46%) Lmduape • • mainttlgncf ® (4 • Enviom td ;°,tKtK. MOST IMPORTANT URBAN FORESTRY GOALS Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects 29% in the city Improve policies and practices to address threats 39% such as pests, diseases, and climate change Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by 43% purchasing trees to be planted Support private landowners and businesses through 43% cooperative planting programs (e.g., free yard trees) Procure funding to purchase land for tree preservation to reach canopy goals 57% EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT Project Website To support the development of the Urban Forestry Management Plan's vision, goals, and recommended actions, the urban forestry consultants met with Urban Forestry staff to develop strategies for community education, outreach, and engagement. The project team utilized the City's "Speak Up Fayetteville" website (speakup. fayetteville-ar.gov) to share information about the project and opportunities for engagement. To raise awareness and encourage engagement in the project, the website included background information and resources, project timelines, draft outcomes, and the platform for launching the public survey. Media and Messaging Throughout the development of the Plan, information was shared about the project and the City's urban forest through various mediums including news outlets, City website content, press releases, and social media. ® News Weather Sports V!RIFY Fayetteville receives 28th consecutive 'Tree City USA' designation The designation Is given to cities who showcase commitment to effective urban forest management. Figure 23. Example of the outreach conducted throughout the planning process. Lei Community Survey From December 2022 through mid -January 2023, a 14-question online survey was launched on the City's Speak Up Fayetteville website to learn how trees impact the lives of Fayetteville's community members, to gather feedback on canopy goals and priority planting areas, to identify where the City should prioritize resources and investments, and to recognize the benefits and services provided by trees that the community values most. A total of 169 responses were received. The following provides an overview of the engagement garnered from the effort followed by a summary infographic. The majority of respondents own a home in Fayetteville (611/6) and are between 25 and 35 years old (28%). SGEAN uv — Respondents are engaged with their urban forest in that they understand and appreciate trees providing shade and reducing surface temperatures (62%) and would like to see trees planted where there is historically less canopy coverage Urban rarest Mw"ww t Km (50%). The trees planted should be resilient to pests and diseases, changing �""'� -~+- M- -•- •• climates, limited space, and storm events (40%). To improve public tree health, -- -� --�- ---�-� =w respondents support setting and achieving canopy goals that are based on ...�..,__.._._...._...._ reducing heat, improving ecosystems, expanding canopy cover in underserved communities, and increasing the benefits trees provide (741/6). They would also like to see more trees and preservation incorporated into development projects ^_ ---= -� --- —• (66%) and planting trees that can coexist with sidewalks and underground a : o n utilities (41%). Future resources and investments that result from the Plan should be focused on strengthening ordinances for private development Figure 24. The project website for Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 53 (70%), purchasing land for conservation (541/o), planting trees on public property (51%), and partnering with private property owners to plant trees on private property (411/6). To achieve canopy goals, respondents would like to see parks and greenways prioritized (690/6), followed by planting trees along streets (68%), on commercial and industrial property (600/6), and on school and campus grounds (40%). The kinds of trees respondents would like to see planted include trees and priority areas that are climate -based (56%) and location -based using the right tree right place principle and replanting trees that were removed (25%). Most respondents support watering the street trees adjacent to their property during periods of drought (731/6). The success of this engagement effort is largely attributed to the City's commitment to share the survey and conduct outreach. The survey was announced on the City's website, the Speak Up Fayetteville project webpage, social media posts, press releases, news media, and shared throughout relevant partner networks. As noted in the Introduction, Fayetteville's trees face multiple challenges from various sources. The urban forest is vulnerable to changing conditions due to urbanization, extreme weather, and pests and diseases. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 54 169 responses 30% of participants from Ward 3 (northeast area) Survey Timeline: December 2022 - January 2023 To view more information on the project, head to www.fayetteville-ar.gov/339/Urban-Forestry FOCUS AREAS FOR FUTURE INVESTMENTS Strengthening tree code for $ City purchasing land for ANdevelopment conservation 70% 54% Planting trees Partnering with on public property owners property for plantings 51% 41% Improving o conservation O O O Other strategies 31% 22 /o WHERE TO PRIORITIZE RESOURCES TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TREE HEALTH? More resources for public 15% tree management Plant trees that can withstand _ 33% prolonged droughts Plant trees to coexist with 41% sidewalks and utilities More trees and preservation incorporated into development —�66/0 C projects Set canopy goals based on reducing heat, improving ecosystems, 740/ ° and addressing underserved communities HOW OLD ARE SURVEY RESPONDENTS? 75 and older: 1% 65-74: 8% 55-64: 12% O 45-54; 14% O O 25-34: 28% yy 18-24: 12% <18: 1% SUPPORT FOR WATERING PUBLIC STREET TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY DURING PERIODS OF DROUGHT YES 73% N/A UNSURE NO 13% 11% 4% DO YOU SUPPORT PLANTING WHERE TO MORE TREES THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO INCREASE TREE PLANT? CANOPY COVER AND 69% Public ASSOCIATED BENEFITS? Spaces YES NO 68% Streets 60% & InQustrial 40% Schools 98% 2O/ 31% opdeent rtylal WHERE TO PRIORITIZE PLANTINGS Other (5%) No more plantings (1%) Addressing equity (12%) Replanting removed trees (25%) Climate - based locations (56%) URBAN FOREST VULNERABILITIES DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE CHANGE The Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC) estimates that Fayetteville will grow to a population of 142,496 by the year 2040. This will be an increase of an additional 48,547 people added to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimated population of 93,949 in 2020. Planning and anticipating the location, form, and function of land use and growth patterns enables the City and the existing residents to guide where and in what pattern this growth will occur. Relative to neighboring cities, Fayetteville has a large percentage of undeveloped land including swaths of canopy cover and native prairie land. However, according to the City's Urban Forestry Program, Fayetteville lost 35 acres of tree canopy cover in 2022 due to development. While the City's tree ordinances do require tree preservation, protection, and planting to mitigate canopy loss, it is projected that there will be a net loss of 20 acres of canopy solely for those development projects reported in 2022. Additionally, existing urban areas rezoned for more dense development reduce available space for trees and greenspace. Fragmentation Development often results in fragmentation of tree canopy, creating isolated populations that are less likely to cross-pollinate. This can reduce biological and genetic diversity of the ecosystem and change the species composition (Fahrig, 2003). It may also result in the loss of buffering potential, such as vegetative stabilization of stream banks. As sites become fragmented and the amount of ecosystem space is reduced, many plants and animals that rely on connected habitats may disappear from the region (Saunders, et al.,1991). Altered Soils Urban trees must often survive in compacted soils that have been altered for the built environment. A good growing medium for trees contains approximately 50% pore space (which allows the root system access to the air and water it needs to survive) and a layer of organic matter. In contrast, construction soils typically have less than 25% pore space and organic matter combined. Competition for Space Conflicts with hardscapes and utilities often occur when trees are not provided adequate space for root and canopy growth. In rights -of -way, trees may compete for space with signs and streetlights, underground utilities, and overhead electric and telephone lines. As trees outgrow available space, their roots can raise sidewalks as they search for water, air, and growing space. The resulting sidewalk repairs may require removal of the tree or application of alternative sidewalk solutions. The City has regulations and best management practices (BMPs) for addressing these situations. The prevention of future conflicts requires streetscape design that considers the mature size of trees being planted as well as available technologies that allow trees to thrive in this environment. Examples of these unique designs are provided in the graphic below: EASEMENTS ROOT BARRIERS SUSPENDED STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SOILS Figure 26. Examples of the potential streetscape design solutions for preventing or mitigating tree and infrastructure conflicts. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 56 M To prevent and address negative impacts from development, the City of Fayetteville coordinates efforts to ensure projects adhere to City requirements such as tree canopy cover, stormwater management, public safety, and accessibility. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS As the effects of climate change take hold, already stressed trees will decline more rapidly, and healthy trees will have to endure multiple stressors to survive and thrive. The extreme heat and drought will reduce water availability, the plant hardiness zone will shift and introduce invasive plant species, stronger storms will occur resulting in more downed trees and limbs due to the canopy declining, and existing and introduced tree pests and diseases will flourish as trees continue to weaken. If the City does not commit to a long-term proactive approach and disciplined investment to improve the health and reliability of the public trees, Fayetteville will fight a costly, reactive and escalating battle against failing trees— which will have a detrimental impact to public safety, budgets, tree crews, road closures, and utility reliability. The negative environmental, public well-being and scenic impacts will also be significant. With a quarter of Fayetteville's public street trees in fair or worse condition, and with climate change altering the types of species that thrive, the City's tree canopy is at considerable risk. URBAN TREE PESTS AND DISEASES Pests and diseases add to the existing stresses faced by trees in an urban environment. Stressed trees are more vulnerable to insects and diseases, although some pests and diseases pose an equal threat to healthy trees. Climate change can create conditions that are favorable for the spread of pests and diseases. Also, prolonged drought stresses trees causing them to be more susceptible to pests and diseases. Figure 27. Emerald ash borer (EAB) insect (top), dieback (left), larvae (bottom left), borer holes (right), and larvae galleries (bottom right). Source: AR Department of Agriculture Though emerald ash borer (EAB) was found in Arkansas in 2002, it is still a concern for the ash (Fraxinus) trees across the City. From the sample inventory of public trees in 2022, it is estimated that 2% (600 trees) are ash trees. Currently, the City does not treat any ash trees on public land, but ash trees are no longer planted or recommended. The insect attacks and kills healthy as well as stressed trees, causing catastrophic loss to all ash species. Its impact on the structural integrity of host trees can cause these trees to become safety hazards. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 57 Sudden oak death (SOD) is caused by Phytophthora ramorum, a fungus-like microorganism. At least 90 species of trees and woody ornamentals are hosts for SOD. Changing climates may cause SOD to become more widespread and harder to control. The disease produces rapid decline in oaks; death may occur within months to years later. Symptoms include bleeding cankers on the lower trunk. Other symptoms include leaf spots with dark margins and stem cankers. Control of SOD is focused on early detection and eradication of infected plants. Figure 28. Sudden oak death (SOD) wood and bark discoloration (top) and lesions and discoloration of leaves (bottom). Source: AR Department of Agriculture Dutch elm disease (DED) is caused by a fungus (Ophiostoma ulmi) that infects the vascular system of elm (Ulmus) trees. The disease propagates on a number of different elm species but the majority of cases in Arkansas have been found on American elm (Ulmus americana). Figure 29. American elm identifying features (left), leaf flagging symptom of Dutch elm disease (middle), and gallery of bark beetles that are the vector for the Ophiostoma ulmi fungus. Source: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Bacterial leaf scorch (BLS) is a systemic disease caused by the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa that disrupts the transportation of water through the tree. It is commonly transmitted by insects with piercing mouthparts, impacting sycamore, sweetgum, American elm, and various maple, oak, and other tree species. With higher temperatures and drought predicted, the impact of BLS on Fayetteville's trees is likely to increase. A B C D Figure 30. Bacterial leaf scorch observed on oak (A), redbud(B), elm (C), and maple (D) leaves. Source: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 58 There are other pests and diseases to monitor such as thejumping oak gall disease affecting white oak trees, tent caterpillars with a wide range of hosts, oak wilt, red oak borer insect, thousand cankers disease, laurel wilt disease, and the threat of Asian long -horned beetle that prefers maples but also has a wide range of preferred host tree species. Additional information regarding tree pests and diseases can be found at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Urban Heat Like many urban areas, Fayetteville is experiencing the detrimental effects of excessive summer heat. Urban heat is a phenomenon that describes the higher air and surface temperatures in urban areas compared to surrounding rural areas. The temperature difference is largely due to the prevalence of buildings, roads, and other elements of the built environment that absorb and retain heat. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases and reduced tree canopy serve to magnify these impacts. Without strategic intervention, urban heat threatens the well-being and health of the community, particularly vulnerable populations lacking the cooling shade of trees. With urban heat rising, the concern of tree decline is at the forefront of planning in urban areas. To understand Fayetteville's urban forest vulnerability to urban heat, analyses were conducted to measure and project potential impacts on its trees. These impacts include: • Increased stress on trees: Urban heat adds to stress trees are already facing from factors such as air pollution, drought, and pests, making it more difficult for trees to survive and thrive. • Reduced tree growth: Urban heat can slowdown tree growth, which can lead to a decline in the overall health of the urban forest. • Increased tree mortality: Urban heat increases the risk of tree loss, which can lead to gaps in the urban forest. • Reduced air quality: Urban heat tends to hold pollutants in the atmosphere, worsening air quality. This places an additional burden on trees' air purifying capabilities while also having a negative impact on human health and the environment. • Changes in plant communities: Urban heat can lead to changes in the composition of plant communities, as some species are more tolerant of heat than others. This can lead to a loss of biodiversity in the urban forest HOT 75°+ COOL �•� 't' 4011 Figure 31. Illustration of the temperature difference in urban areas due to the urban heat island effect. OOo O�� Changes in Plant Communities Climate change will have a dramatic impact on the tree species that can survive and thrive in Fayetteville. To inform the Plan's recommendations, the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Tree Atlas was utilized to model habitat changes for tree species growing in the southeast region of the United States, which includes Arkansas. However, some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included (Iverson, et al., 2019). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 59 The tables below list tree species that may be found growing in Fayetteville and their predicted vulnerability to habitat loss due to changing conditions. It also includes the proportion of those tree species that are currently in Fayetteville's public tree population based on the 2022 sample inventory. The percentages are then extrapolated to represent a public tree population of 25,000 trees (estimated). SPECIES HABITAT PREDICTED TO INCREASE Predicted Habitat Change Tree Species Common Name Percent of Fayette - ville's Street Trees Species Habitat Predicted to iNCREAS Note: this list is not all inclusive or a recommendation, it is an ever -evolving list. Princeton Elm 7% Post oak 6% Willow oak 6% Blackgum 4% New Harmony Elm 3% Red maple 3% American elm 3% Eastern redbud 3% fir— 2% Eastern red cedar 1% Winged elm 1% Water oak 1% Eastern hophornbeam 1% Honeylocust 1% Flowering dogwood 1% Tulip tree 1% Osage orange 1% Shortleaf pine 1% Black cherry 1% Loblolly pine 0.5% American sycamore 0.4% Pecan 0.3% Overcup oak 0.3% Sweetgum 0.3% American holly 0.2% American hornbeam 0.2% Mockernut hickory 0.2% Southern red oak 0.2% Persimmon 0.2% Southern magnolia 0.1% Blackjack oak 0.1% River birch 0.1% 0.1% Sassafras 0.04% Total 51 % or 12,703 Trees Table 10. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to increase (low emission scenario). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 60 SPECIES HABITAT PREDICTED TO NOT CHANGE Predicted Habitat Change Tree Species Common Name Percent of Fayetteville's Street Trees Species Habitat Pre- dicted to NOT Change Note: this list is not all inclusive or a rec- ommendation, it is an ever -evolving list. Baldcypress 3% Hackberry 3% White oak 2% Black walnut 1% Nuttall oak 1% Mulberry 1% Scarlet oak 0.4% Boxelder 0.3% Shumard oak 0.3% Swamp chestnut oak 0.1% American beech 0.1% Chinkapin oak 0.1% Pignut hickory 0.1% Bitternut hickory 0.04% Black Hickory 0.04% Total 12% or 2,913 Trees Table 11. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas' predicted to not change (low emission scenario). SPECIES HABITAT PREDICTED TO DECREASE Predicted Habitat Change Tree Species Common Name Percent of Fayetteville's Street Trees Species Habitat Predicted to DECREASE Note: this list is not all inclusive or a recommendation, it is an ever -evolving list. Pin oak 5% Northern red oak 3% Sugar maple 3% Serviceberry 2% Bur oak 1% Silver maple 0.4% Shagbark hickory 0.4% American basswood 0.3% Black oak 0.2% Ohio buckeye 0.1% Black locust 0.1% Total 16% or 3,899 Trees Table 12. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 61 51% 12% Figure 32. Summary of the climate change vulnerability of Fayetteville's public street trees. Source: USDA Climate Change Atlas Important Note: The USDA Forest Service Tree Atlas models predict habitat change for 134 native tree species in the eastern United States. The research is then modeled for tree species in the southeast U.S. including Arkansas. Some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included. With limited data currently available on the resilience and vulnerability of native Arkansas tree species, this table provides a glimpse of how the species' composition of Fayetteville's urban forest may change. Web source: www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/atlas/tree/ Habitat Increase No Habitat Change Habitat Decrease 51% 12% 16% or 12,703 public street trees or 2,913 public street trees or 3,899 public street trees Table 13. Summary of the climate change vulnerability of Fayetteville's public street trees. Source: USDA Climate Change Atlas According to the Climate Change Atlas and based on the 2022 sample inventory of Fayetteville's public street trees, 51% or an estimated 12,703 trees are expected to have their growing conditions and habitat improve and increase due to climate change.12% or 2,913 public trees in Fayetteville are predicted to not be impacted by changing climates and 16% or 3,899 trees are predicted to be negatively impacted by climate change and experience habitat loss. SUMMARY OF URBAN FOREST VULNERABILITIES In summary, the key issues or challenges facing Fayetteville's urban forest that are addressed with the Urban Forestry Management Plan include: • Managing the urban forest for sustainability and resiliency • Addressing street tree maintenance needs • Tree risk management • The need for updated tree -related regulations • Development pressure and construction / infrastructure conflicts • Limited resources to address climate change impacts • Strategic tree planting programs and initiatives • Equitably expanding tree canopy cover, associated benefits, and levels of service • Revitalizing and strengthening community tree stewardship Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 62 r a �.�`� ,, :K•�. s f•.5lfr� ELF �i.', �; f �`• •` ''�!r p�w rRi M� �i. � ;�_•RGI�•I��—w'.I 7 � r•�.`J,, ,,t��;1� ��.�" "� � �'".� 4:. � ice'. • ;'�,� A r 9y Af NI US Forest Se cervi Urban Forests Sustainability c h ands Management ,� .� u d't • • ' � ti! I� II s ` r' n •iy tq IV� t �,� � � ��' -� , w `� is ` �,, i • ,C I � � � - . 1 fj Ikr ,, �:. .' bra INDICATORS OF A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST Methodology To assess the current state of Fayetteville's urban forest, the programs that manage it, and the community that shapes and benefits from it, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted using the framework of the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Audit (Abbot, et al., 2015). The framework was adapted from the Model of Urban Forest Sustainability (Clark, et al.,1997) and subsequent iterations. The primary objectives of the evaluation of Fayetteville's urban forest are defined by the authors and adapted by the Fayetteville Urban Forestry Management Plan consulting team: • Engage the full spectrum of the organizations' management team • Provide program direction for ongoing professional training • Conduct a gap analysis of management practices and the health of urban forests • Provide strategic direction to improve the health of the urban forest • Optimize management for environmental justice and equitable distribution of resources A sustainable system can be defined as one that survives or persists. In the context of urban forests, the objective can be stated as attempting to achieve the maximum long-term benefits over the greatest amount of time. Clark's framework provides specific criteria to evaluate sustainability along with measurable indicators. Social and economic factors as well as natural science are considered, as sustainability is often viewed as the "overlap between what is ecologically possible and what is societally desired by the current generation". Recognizing that both conditions will change over time, sustainability is addressed as a process rather than a goal (Clark, et al.,1997). Clark's framework categorizes urban forest sustainability indicators in terms of the trees (or resource), the management, and the people who benefit from the urban forest. Within each category, a series of urban forestry industry standards and best management practices were used to evaluate Fayetteville's current performance level. Indicators were rated as low, medium, or high based on available data and information provided by stakeholders. Assessment results were used to identify areas where Fayetteville's urban forest can be improved and to develop recommendations. The complete Urban Forest Audit for Fayetteville conducted in 2023 is available in Appendix B. The following provides a summary of the evaluation: Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 64 RESULT Based on the analysis of findings from the needs assessment, Fayetteville scored a 73% in terms of urban forest sustainability and management as defined by the U.S. Forest Service, partners, and planning consultants. Based on similar audits completed by the urban forestry consultants, of the 16 audits, the average score is 641/6. The City of Fayetteville scored relatively high when compared to other urban forestry audits completed by the consultants for other communities of similar size. Overall, the City scored highest in Professional Capacity and Training, Community, Green Asset Management, and Risk Management— all of which are at or above 75%. The Urban Forestry Management Plan provides guidance to maintain these strengths and to address shortcomings as opportunities. Fayetteville's Urban Forest Audit Results (2023) 71% 89% M67% =63% =6S% 54% 78% =64% 73% 89% 80% Figure 33. Summary of the 2023 Urban Forest Audit completed for Fayetteville's Plan. URBAN FOREST AUDIT SUMMARY DISCUSSION The main purpose of the urban forest audit is to apply the research and findings gathered throughout the planning effort to inform the Plan's goals, strategic actions, and targets. This audit or "gap analysis" enables the City's Urban Forestry Program to control different aspects of its program with data. This gap analysis identified the shortcomings that the program should overcome and by quantifying them, the program can make improvements. It also enables effective monitoring of Plan goals in that the audit categories and elements can be revisited at key intervals in the implementation process to measure progress and adapt strategies accordingly. For the comprehensive evaluation of all subcategories within the Urban Forest Audit, see Appendix B. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 65 INTERPRETING THE URBAN FOREST AUDIT SCORES The Urban Forest Audit System should serve as a baseline assessment from which progress can be measured and strategies can be adjusted using an adaptive management approach. Overall, Fayetteville scored a 73 out of 100 based on the consultants' evaluation. The scores resulting from the evaluation are informative but should not be considered a definitive assessment or a reason for excessive action due to a currently low score or inaction due to a high score. The following provides an interpretation of the scores for the City to consider when implementing the Plan's corresponding actions. See Appendix B for details regarding scores for each Audit category and the criteria or indicators to improve scores for each category. Category Findings Management The City scored relatively average in this category due to the existing tree ordinances, devel- Policy and opment standards, and the Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual. The Tree -related Plans Ordinances and Regulations section of this Plan summarizes existing tree ordinances and Appendix C Rating of provides a summary of an evaluation of these ordinances based on industry standards and 71% best practices. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes urban forestry and tree canopy as a vital component in addressing climate change. Professional Staff have industry certifications, qualifications, and training. The Urban Forestry Program has Capacity and staff for park and trail tree maintenance and to administer tree preservation and protection Training for new development. In addition, the program works with other departments, partners, and Rating of contractors to plant trees. In recent years, staffing levels increased but capacity should be 89% evaluated periodically to ensure it aligns with the goals of this Plan and the service demands. The City's adopted budgets have specific line items for the Urban Forestry Program and staff. Funding and The City's Tree Escrow accoun historically was the primary funding source for urban for - Accounting estry activities. The figures reported for Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA accreditation Rating of incorporate budgets from other departments but do not include the urban forestry budgets 67% for Public Works' programs responsible for planting trees. Those programs in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs are now funded primarily through the general funds. An Urban Forestry Advisory Board exists to advise on urban forestry matters. Currently, Decision and urban forest management is distributed across three groups in three different departments. Management The delineation of responsibilities is unclear and there is no single department or staff person Authority designated as a point of contact for urban forestry. It is likely that communications and work - Rating of flows could be improved with an adjusted program structure. Unique to other cities, Fayette- 63% ville's Urban Forester in Development Services has direct authority and oversight on tree preservation and protection for new development. Fayetteville completed a sample inventory of public trees and planting spaces along with Tree -related a private tree sample inventory. In addition, the City conducted GIS analyses of urban tree Inventories canopy cover over four time periods and examined the correlation of tree canopy to socio- Rating of demographic data. Also, the Urban Forester actively tracks canopy gains and losses occur- 65% ring on development projects— one of the most robust tracking systems the urban forestry consultants have seen. Within the City, the University of Arkansas has an inventory of its trees through its Arboretum Mapping Project. Tree -related Tracking and reporting of urban forest management activities, this Plan, and urban forestry Plans referenced in the Comprehensive Plan and canopy goals in the Energy Action Plan resulted Rating of in higher than average scores for certain elements within this category. The City completed a 54% Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity Story Map and supporting reports. Risk The Urban Forester in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs is trained in tree risk Management assessments and the City has an adopted standard of care. The City completed a sample Rating of public tree inventory in 2022 to inform management strategies. The City also has an Emer- 78% gency Operations Plan, actively manages invasive plant species and pests and diseases, and has lists and resources for recommended and prohibited trees. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 66 Disaster Planning The City's maintenance staff and contractors address downed trees and limbs and collabo- Rating of rate when extensive response is needed. 64% Standards, Fayetteville has an average rating for this category though its strengths include tree ordinanc- and Best Prac- es, the Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual, Comprehensive Plan, Standard Details tices such as the Tree Preservation detail, clear guidance on the City's website relating to regula- Rating of tions and best practices, tree species lists, and tree protection requirements for construction 73% and development. Fayetteville has been a Tree City USA city consecutively since 1995, demonstrating the value placed on urban forests. This Plan included a public survey and has engaged and informed Community the public through an interactive project website— Speak Up Fayetteville. The City conducts Rating of Arbor Day events, has an Urban Forestry Advisory Board, engages the public through social 89% media, website, and other platforms, addresses service requests, conducts the annual Cel- ebration of Trees event, has an online resource for Amazing Trees in Fayetteville, provides education resources and trainings, and works closely with other community partners. The sample public tree inventory determined there are 54 unique tree genera and 111 unique tree species resulting in no tree species exceeding the recommended diversity thresholds. Green Asset The size classes of public trees are in line with an ideal distribution and the majority (750/0) of Management public trees are in good condition. Also, only 6%of trees are recommended for removal and Rating of the primary maintenance need is clearance pruning (8%). Most importantly, the City's Park 80% Maintenance right-of-way crews proactively prune approximately 4,000 public trees per year resulting in an estimated 5.7-year rotation and the Urban Forestry Program conducts public park and trail tree maintenance. Table 14. Interpretation of the 2023 Urban ForestAudit scores The information provided in the table above describes the current conditions of Fayetteville's urban forest, the programs that manage it, and the community framework. As recommended in the Plan's monitoring methods, the City should use this framework to evaluate implementation progress, report successes, and inform changes to Plan actions. Many of the urban forest audit elements were given a rating of "In Development" as they previously did not exist but are addressed in this Urban Forestry Management Plan. This means that the City is already well underway in advancing its program and its Urban Forest Audit score. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 67 Section I Vision for the Future and Recommendations-�- OFF ilJ'L��jr '� .,r,• C � � �� _.�- J +'�� _, �, ,�Y%, , � ��' 'i�•s f��_�C r ��"` `� 1`�,� �r 1 µ �'} , r.. �` � _ r� .- � • eyt' . .r t � ;Sty . .. .',,. Syr .' • 2.•�!, i 1. �.i.1�! ,i? _�Y� .!ter• ?:'?Y� <. :.r *".1'- _ 4, �M < �•_ k� � '� �.y �. fin- - t.� mow, , �t�� .� !�• � �' i] � � � - ,"/� �' � '�.'` 3. ; ,�'` •,R:, • J;. ��f!.7����i '' r�,a � Fes', �� 'qF� ' ..'' •' •f •tC eY� t Jf r r ,. ' N:, �•nfe1'f :�( ' : L ) • i",• INTRODUCTION This section provides guidance and recommendations for the City of Fayetteville to continue to provide high levels of service now and into the future over the next 10 years. The Urban Forestry Management Plan's recommendations include those that may only take a few months and others that will require a coordinated effort that may need to continue on beyond the 10-year timeframe. PLAN VISION STATEMENT "Healthy Trees, Healthy City: To cultivate a thriving, diverse, and well -maintained tree canopy that enhances the livability, health, and sustainability of our community for current and future generations." Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 69 Vision What does the urban forest and its programs look like 10 years from now? The vision guides direction on where Fayetteville is headed and helps guide recommendations for the future. Guiding Principles What are we aspiring to achieve? These are the aspirations for the Shover the next 10 years. They are key themes for organizing the Plan and include a citywide canopy cover goal. Goals How do we achieve our principles and vision? The goals are specific opportunities for the City to move toward the 10-year vision. Strategies What is the approach to take? Strategies provide the general direction or method to take to achieve the goals. Priority Actions What is the next step? This is the prioritized list of steps to take. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 70 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS A series of guiding principles supported by goals, strategies, and actions are provided to serve as a 10-year roadmap toward the urban forest vision. a a a - GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND GOALS OVERVIEW Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan was designed to guide the City in managing, protecting, and growing its urban forest. The goals, strategies, and priority actions were developed based on research and analysis of available data, extensive internal and external engagement, and an evaluation of urban forest sustainability criteria. The resulting goals and recommendations address the current conditions, existing and potential challenges, and shared priorities described in Section two of the Urban Forestry Management Plan. The Plan's long-term framework supports the shared vision for Fayetteville's urban forest. To achieve the vision for the urban forest, a citywide canopy cover goal 44.4 % over 30 years was established as the cornerstone metric for tracking progress in implementing the Urban Forestry Management Plan. The canopy goal embodies the City's commitment to sustainability and community well-being. This metric can be used by the City for tracking and monitoring the urban forest and it resonates with residents, creating a tangible and shared vision of a lush and vibrant urban environment. Moreover, the canopy cover goal aligns with other goals and priorities in the City such as environmental stewardship, climate change resilience, public health, air quality enhancement, and temperature moderation. By using canopy cover as an overarching measure, Fayetteville ensures a comprehensive approach that not only improves the urban ecosystem but also fosters a sense of pride, unity, and responsibility among its residents. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 71 Fayetteville's Tree Canopy Cover Goal Canopy � 10 Year Goal 39m4% 40.6% 2019 2034 Figure 34. Fayetteville's 10-year canopy goal milestones and targets. The 2023/2024 Urban Forestry Management Plan is a testament to Fayetteville's unwavering commitment to urban forestry. The overall 30-year goal is to increase canopy from 39.4°/o to 44.41/o. The first step in achieving the 30-year goal is to focus on the actions necessary for the next ten years. The ten-year goal is to increase canopy by 1.2% to 40.6%. To reach the 10-year goal, an average of 1,850 trees must be planted annually. The approach to reach this number is flexible and allows adjustments so that staff only plant trees they can be maintained to maturity. Planting trees that will reach maturity is a key aspect of this plan and goal for Urban Forestry staff. There are three contributing tree planting sources: city -led planting, public planting through tree giveaways, and development of tree plantings. City Plantings Public Works Urban Forestry staff has maintained information that lets us know how many trees our maintenance staff can care for each year. Newly planted trees require regular watering, structural pruning, mulching, and mon- itoring for pests and diseases. After 3-5 years, the regular maintenance is lower and requires pruning every few years as needed. We use a 90% survival rate for our newly planted trees. Communication from Public Works Urban Forestry is key to knowing what our annual tree planting will be for the following year. The number of trees planted by the City will fluctuate based on the maintenance capacity of our Public Works Urban Forestry staff. Development Plantings It is estimated from available data that approximately 3,728 trees are planted annually due to development activ- ities. The tree planting numbers presented in this plan are based on a no net canopy loss, meaning the number of trees removed, principally due to development, are replaced. Development activities that remove the canopy must be mitigated to reach the canopy goals, which is part of the standards and purpose in 177.01 B1: "Promoting reason- able conservation and replenishment of valued tree canopy and vegetation." Urban Forestry staff suspects this is insufficient to replace the lost canopy from development. Canopy has increased from 2012 to 2019, possibly due to the replacement canopy from development or more accurate imagery. More data is needed to study this informa- tion. Public Plantings Current tree giveaway programs such as "Celebration of the Trees" and "Invasive Bounty" provide about 1,350 trees annually. The survival rate for the trees given away is around 65%. This rate shows that approximately 75% (Roman 2014) of trees get planted, and minus 10% for our standard survival rate, it comes to a 65% survival rate. Urban Forestry Staff has created a pilot program that works directly with property owners and homeowners' asso- ciations to add trees on streets, in lots, or around detention areas. These programs are currently adding Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 72 approximately 100 trees to the canopy. The survival rate for these trees is estimated at 90% since the homeowners will be planting them directly and maintaining trees on their property. The annual number of these types of plantings is targed to grow. Below is an overview of initial planting efforts. Large trees are targeted for development and city plantings, but a mixture of tree sizes is used in the calculations. For calculations, it is assumed that 60% of trees will be large, 30% will be medium, and 10% will be small. Calculations use an average tree canopy diameter of 40 feet (- 20 years), which equals 1,257 square feet of canopy per tree. The chart below indicates general city-wide efforts before im- plementing this plan and is used for estimating baseline conditions. Planting sources City Planting Citizen Planting (Give Away) Citizen Planting (Neighborhood Planting) Total trees Annual Planting Survival Rate Net trees 450 90% 405 1,350 65% 877 100 90% 90 1,373 The annual goal is 1,850 trees planted, and the City is currently adding 1,373 net trees (survive the first three years) annually. With increased effort, this goal can be achieved. These numbers will grow, as indicated in Appendix A. In five years, staff will reexamine the goals for tree planting as data from development, NAIP GIS Maps and new pro- grams are established, giving more data to update planting goals. Using this integrated approach, along with preservation and mitigating the loss of canopy, the City of Fayetteville can be confident this ambitious goal is achievable. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 73 PRIORITY PLANTING AREAS Maintaining and selecting locations for trees to reach maturity requires careful planning and consideration of the location. The following maps are recommended to be used when selecting tree planting areas, these areas are high priority and can have the biggest impact. Social, economic, and environmental considerations go into locating areas for tree planting projects. Low Tree Canopy (<35%) Tree Equity Score <80 Low Income & Tree Canopy % People of Color Vu Inerable & Exclusion Areas Average Su rface Temperature Figure 35. Scengarios for priority planting areas to achieve canopy goals and the Plan's outcomes. Development & Future Lael nddUse Health Risk Index I-P,. By identifying priority planting areas to achieve the canopy goal, tree planting and maintenance can be strategically targeted where trees will have the most beneficial impact. The figure above provides an illustration of the priority areas for consideration and Appendix A provides the criteria going into the priorities along with larger maps. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 74 STAKEHOLDER- DRIVEN GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND GOALS During the analysis of data, collection of information, and gathering of internal and external stakeholder input, a series of overarching guiding principles emerged that helped to set the Plan's direction and solidify its foundation. The following five principles summarize the community's priorities and are reinforced by the feedback received from internal stakeholder engagement sessions. These priorities along with the Urban Forest Audit and the Indicators of Sustainable Urban Forestry (detailed in Section 2) established the foundation of the Plan. Guiding Principles Goals 00 Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover Goal Al: Increase tree canopy cover citywide begin - in land. ning priority areas and purchased We value and appreciate the benefits and services provided by the trees in our Goal A2: Implement a cooperative tree planting A community. These benefits and services program with businesses, institutions, organizations, should be maximized and equitably dis- neighborhoods, and property owners. tributed across the City by growing an ur- ban forest that is sustainable and resilient Goal A3: Plant trees that are resilient to current and to current and future challenges. future challenges such as climate change and tree pests. Goal 1131: Prioritize public tree maintenance and tree Maintenance and Management risk management. We care for our trees and the citywide Goal 1132: Reduce conflicts between trees and other urban forest to ensure the benefits are infrastructure such as sidewalks and utilities. B available for current and future genera- Goal 1133: Manage harmful tree pests and diseases tions. Our operations and investments that are present or expected to impact the urban for - prioritize sustainability, fiscal responsibili- ty, and equity. est, Goal 1134: Conduct ongoing industry and professional training for City staff interacting with trees in Fayette- ville. Tree Preservation and Protection Goal Cl: Establish or update policies and practices Our existing tree canopy cover and the in- to reduce the urban forest's vulnerability to tree pests, (004 *vestments 4 1 made in planting and caring for diseases, and climate change impacts. Goal C2: Update or amend tree -related ordinances to C **Xa� the urban forest are preserved through sound but fair policies and regulations support the citywide canopy cover goal and other goals that align with shared priorities in the city in the Plan. Goal C3: Monitor and enforce tree -related ordinanc- and best practices. es. Goal 1131: Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation and planting and to achieve other City goals. Funding and Levels of Service Goal D2: Increase funding to purchase trees to be D The programs and staffing involved with the trees in our community have the planted and supporting infrastructure in support of the resources necessary to meet current and canopy cover goal. future demands and challenges. Goal 1133: Evaluate the staffing levels, structure, and re- sources for tree -related programs and adjust as need- ed to meet the goals of the Plan and growing demands of the urban forest. Community Education, Engage- Goal E1: Continue to achieve Tree City USA status ment, and Stewardship and other industry recognitions. M 1,0 A sustainable urban forest requires a E shared commitment from the City and the Goal E2: Create and implement an engagement 000 community. We will foster tree steward- strategy for all demographics and stakeholders in the ship in our community through equitable community. and impactful community education and engagement. Goal E3: Provide inclusive program offerings such as events, education, and training to meet the needs of all. Figure 36. Guiding principals and goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 75 A) EQUITABLE AND RESILIENT CANOPY COVER We value and appreciate the benefits and services provided by the trees in our community. These benefits and services should be maximized and equitably distributed across the City by growing an urban forest that is sustainable and resilient to current and future challenges. Stakeholder Input and Support Experts and stakeholders stressed the importance of setting and achieving local and citywide canopy goals to support the long-term health and sustainability of the urban forest. For example, planted trees must be resilient to drought and extreme weather events while supporting biodiversity in the urban ecosystem. A diverse mix of tree species is necessary to ensure the ability of the urban forest to survive pest and disease outbreaks. Success is predicated on planting trees matched to the site in terms of soils, water availability, space, and desired function. Post -planting care is required for trees to become established and thrive in the urban environment. GOAL Al: INCREASE TREE CANOPY COVER CITYWIDE BEGINNING IN PRIORITY AREAS AND PURCHASED LAND. Goal Al Strategies a) Procure funding to purchase land for the City to preserve and plant trees. b) Review and refine the priority planting areas provided by the Plan. c) Continue to offer free trees to citizens. d) Plant a minimum of 1,850 trees per year for 10 years and reassess citywide canopy cover. e) Coordinate with other City plans and programs. Goal Al Priority Actions Review, refine, and finalize the canopy cover goals and planting priorities. Consider the status of recommenda- tions outlined in the 2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report (see Table 9 in the Urban Forestry Manage- ment Plan). Develop a neighborhood -level and citywide planting plan to achieve the canopy goals. Align efforts with the Cli- mate Action Plan, Energy Action Plan, the 2023 Park and Recreation System Master Plan, and other initiatives. Fully integrate tree plantings into City projects. Use the recommendation to inform the annual tree planting plan for parks as recommended in Goal E3 of the 2023 Park and Recreation System Master Plan. Continue to offer tree care information especially in the priority neighborhoods. Monitor progress toward achieving the canopy goals and planting targets. Use high -resolution imagery to assess and monitor canopy cover every two years. At minimum, reassess canopy cover citywide and by planning boundaries by 2029 for a 10-year canopy change assessment. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 76 GOAL A2: IMPLEMENT A COOPERATIVE TREE PLANTING PROGRAM WITH BUSINESSES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND PROPERTY OWNERS. Goal A2 Strategies a) Identify existing and potential stakeholders. b) Collaborate and share resources to identify program funding opportunities. c) Track progress and recognize successes. d) Conduct pilot programs to determine efficient ways to assist private land owners with tree plantings. Goal A2 Priority Actions Draft a list of existing and potential stakeholders with input from multiple departments. Create a task force or utilize the Urban Forestry Advisory Board to collaborate on program design, priority plant- ing locations, funding, tree selection, and ongoing maintenance. Utilize data management software to track the plantings and recognize partnerships and program success pos- sibly during Arbor Day celebrations. GOAL A3: PLANT TREES THAT ARE RESILIENT TO CURRENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES SUCH AS CLIMATE CHANGE AND TREE PESTS. Goal A3 Strategies a) Use data and research to make decisions on approved tree species for planting. b) Select the right tree for the right site. c) Provide ongoing tree care and monitor the condition of tree plantings. Goal A3 Priority Actions Utilize the Climate Tree Atlas study in the Plan to adjust approve tree species lists. Evaluate the composition of the urban forest to inform changes to tree species selection for planting to maintain diversity. Provide watering and irrigation for public tree plantings. Evaluate measures to improve the enforcement of regulations for post -planting maintenance within Chapters 167 and 177 of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 77 B) MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT We care for our trees and the citywide urban forest to ensure the benefits are available for current and future generations. Our operations and investments prioritize sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and equity. Stakeholder Input and Support The community would like to see more shade trees along streets and sidewalks, recognizing that this will require additional resources. Participants in the engagement to develop the Plan stated that they would like the City to maintain street trees in a routine, proactive manner. City staff are in support of cooperative planting programs with businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals where trees can be planted in yards to shade sidewalks. The staff engaged in the planning effort also support improving policies and practices for better public tree maintenance addressing concerns such as tree pests, diseases, and climate change impacts. GOAL B1: PRIORITIZE PUBLIC TREE MAINTENANCE AND TREE RISK MANAGEMENT. Goal 131 Strategies a) Assess the public tree population for maintenance needs and potential risks. b) Develop a public tree maintenance plan. c) Continue to assess and possibly increase Urban Forestry Staff in Public Works. d) Stay current with industry research, tools, technology, standards, and best practices. e) Focus on planting strategies and designs that produce long-lived trees. Goal 131 Priority Actions Periodically conduct sample inventories or windshield surveys of public trees to identify changes to maintenance and risk management priorities. Create annual work plans and seek funds to implement those plans using the actions within Goal D3. Track maintenance records for public trees. Continue to add assets and management data to data- bases that track total asset management for more efficient maintenance planning. Acquire and maintain industry certifications and trainings for Urban Foresters. Continue to manage invasive plant species on public properties and within public rights -of -way. Sup- port controlled burns to manage invasives and wildlife on public properties. Strengthen or establish public tree risk assessment and mitigation protocols. Analyze the work plans in relation to staffing and possible contracting work. GOAL 132: REDUCE CONFLICTS BETWEEN TREES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS SIDEWALKS AND UTILITIES. Goal B2 Strategies a) Assess public trees for current and potential infrastructure conflicts. b) Identify existing and potential alternative solutions to infrastructure conflicts. c) Coordinate with internal and external stakeholders. d) Ensure trees are planted with the proper soil volume as shown in City details. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 78 Goal B2 Prioritv Actions Establish or improve protocols and checklists for evaluating current and potential infrastructure conflicts which includes potential alternative solutions to the conflict. Establish regular meetings and protocols with internal and external stakeholders for improved coordination during infrastructure and utility planning, design, construction, and maintenance phases. GOAL 133: MANAGE HARMFUL TREE PESTS AND DISEASES THAT ARE PRESENT OR EXPECTED TO IMPACT THE URBAN FOREST. Goal B3 Strategies a) Identify the primary tree pests and diseases of concern. b) Provide information for identifying tree pests and diseases. c) Monitor public trees and the urban forest for tree pests and diseases of concern. d) Create a preliminary emerald ash borer (EAB) plan. Goal B3 Priority Actions Develop and implement an integrated pest management or plant health care plan for public trees. Integrate tree pest and disease education into the community education strategy (Goal E1 - E3). Focus on education and technical assistance with large private landowners. GOAL 134: CONDUCT ONGOING INDUSTRY AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING FOR CITY STAFF INTERACTING WITH TREES IN FAYETTEVILLE. Goal B4 Strategies a) Identify the staff and training needs and secure the annual budget required. b) Conduct internal cross -training and document training materials and protocols. c) Continue involvement with state wide boards and commisisons. Goal B4 Priority Actions Utilize free and available online trainings and materials where appropriate. Support the Urban Forestry Advisory Board in attending the free online Tree Board University program devel- oped by the U.S. Forest Service. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 79 Q TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION Our existing tree canopy cover and the investments made in planting and caring for the urban forest are preserved through sound but fair policies and regulations that align with shared priorities in the City and best practices. Stakeholder Input and Support Preservation and protection of existing trees was identified as a high priority. Existing mature trees have an outsized impact on sustainability, environmental justice, wildlife and ecosystems, and human health. Exploring changes to the tree ordinances was raised in most engagement activities and sessions. Preservation and planting requirements should be robust but not unduly burdensome to developers. They should also be tailored to the biome, e.g., different standards for natural prairies compared to forested areas. Trees planted or protected should survive post -development and be replaced if they die. City staff are in support of procuring funding to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover. GOAL Cl: ESTABLISH OR UPDATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO REDUCE THE URBAN FOREST'S VULNERABILITY TO TREE PESTS, DISEASES, AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS. Goal C1 Strategies a) Quantify the urban forest's role in climate change mitigation. b) Maintain tree regulations to minimize urban forest vulnerabilities. c) Assesss development workloads and increase Urban Forestry Staff in Development Services. Goal C1 Priority Actions Calculate the carbon sequestration, storage, and avoided carbon generated from the citywide urban tree cano- py cover and the public tree population using industry tools such as i-Tree. Utilize the data to build support and inform climate -related plans. Update the Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual with any changes to tree -related ordinances. As needed, update tree lists that prioritize native and climate -resilient tree species. Consider updates based on the diversity of the urban forest and existing/ potential pests and diseases. At minimum, maintain a list of prohib- ited tree species reflective of the latest research and concerns. GOAL C2: UPDATE OR AMEND TREE -RELATED ORDINANCES TO SUPPORT THE CITYWIDE CANOPY COVER GOAL AND OTHER GOALS IN THE PLAN. Goal C2 Strategies a) Monitor and track tree plantings and removals. b) Adopt a no -net -loss policy for public trees. c) Review and implement recommended changes to tree ordinances. Goal C2 Priority Actions Identify the departments, roles, and workflows (i.e., City Engineering and Transportation) and track public tree removals and plantings in a data management program. Analyze the potential causes for canopy cover gains and losses as identified in the canopy assessments of four time periods. Strengthen the mechanisms for tracking tree preservation, removals, plantings, mitigation, and canopy percent- ages for development projects. Use the tracking to inform potential changes to minimum canopy requirements for zoning designations as needed to support the canopy goal. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 80 Review and refine the tree ordinance evaluation worksheet completed as part of the Plan (see Appendix C). Gather feedback from internal and external stakeholders before significant changes to ordinances are made. For example, develop incentives to preserve existing canopy instead of opting for mitigation and consider updating the penalties for illegal removal of protected trees. Conserve open space and protect areas of significant riparian benefit, tree canopy, prairie, and other environ- mental resource through cluster development provisions, density controls, protective easements, and/or other development tools. E ate design standards to be more accommodating to trees and the necessary soil volume while balancing the needs for development. GOAL C3: MONITOR AND ENFORCE TREE -RELATED ORDINANCES. Goal C3 Strategies a) Distribute information and resources regarding changes to tree regulations. b) Establish a protocol when tree regulations are changed. c) Recognize exemplary tree preservation practices and projects. Goal C3 Priority Actions Update information on the City's website and in materials as tree regulations change. Consider developing a protocol for scheduled inspections, random spot checks, and recordkeeping. Develop a program that recognizes exemplary and innovative development projects that preserve and expand tree canopy cover. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 81 D) FUNDING AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The programs and staffing involved with the trees in our community have the resources necessary to meet current and future demands and challenges. Stakeholder Input and Support During engagement exercises, concerns were raised regarding limited resources, staffing, funding, and time to address the current climate challenges. Additional resources in Development Resources, where code compliance officers are located, are needed to inspect, monitor, and enforce tree regulations. Proactive maintenance in Public Works is needed to water, plant new trees, and monitor new trees that will mitigate the impact of climate change. Stakeholders largely supported allocating additional resources to ensure the availability of urban forest resources now and in the future. City staff support increasing funding to purchase trees to plant towards a citywide canopy cover goal. GOAL D1: PROCURE FUNDING FOR THE CITY TO PURCHASE LAND FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING AND TO ACHIEVE OTHER CITY GOALS. Goal D1 Strategies a) Identify potential areas for land acquisition that meets Urban Forestry goals and City goals. b) Coordinate with partners for land acquisition and management. c) Lead by example and distribute information about land acquisition program. Goal D1 Priority Actions Review with internal partners the priority areas for tree planting and preservation to identify opportunities for land acquisition. Consider vacant land as an initial step and utilize the City Plan 2040's Enduring Green Network map and data. Develop a multi -year program and allocate funding for land acquisition. Build support from land trusts and other organizations. Implement best management practices and share information for private landowners to learn about the oppor- tunities for urban forest stewardship on their own property(s). Develop management plans for the properties purchased. GOAL 132: INCREASE FUNDING TO PURCHASE TREES TO BE PLANTED AND SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUPPORT OF THE CANOPY COVER GOAL. Goal D2 Strategies a) Identify the funding gap and funding source(s). b) Communicate the benefits of a robust planting effort. c) Develop and implement a tree planting program aligned with the canopy goal. Goal D2 Priority Actions Determine the funding gap to meet the goal of 1,850 per year. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 82 Quantify the benefits and services provided by the 1,850 trees planted per year to communicate the future value added to Fayetteville's ecosystem, community, and economy. Secure the necessary funding to meet the annual tree planting targets. Provide bi-annual reports on canopy goal progress tojustify continued funding for tree plantings. Develop communications with local tree nurseries concerning the availability of the tree species for planting to reduce costs and address tree species diversity goals. GOAL 133: EVALUATE THE STAFFING LEVELS, STRUCTURE, AND RESOURCES FOR TREE - RELATED PROGRAMS AND ADJUST AS NEEDED TO MEET THE GOALS OF THE PLAN AND GROWING DEMANDS OF THE URBAN FOREST. Goal D3 Strategies a) Track and report program activities and Plan implementation progress. b) Analyze the organization of departments involved with trees in Fayetteville. c) Conduct cost -benefit analyses and evaluate growing service demands and evaluate in house staffing levels, and their ability to meet the goals of this plan. Goal D3 Priority Actions Share with City departments and stakeholders the progress made in implementing the Plan by using the Moni- toring section's guidelines. Successes and shortcomings build awareness and supporting for changes to staffing and program structure(s). Evaluate staffing and contractor resources required to effectively plant trees aligned with canopy goals and to provide post -planting care. Consider the benefits for consolidating tree programs into one department, section, or division to improve effi- ciencies and levels of service. Consider the need and framework for establishing a City section specific to managing natural areas and open space (e.g., wetlands, bottomlands, prairies). Secure funding to implement a tree watering program for newly planted public trees. Continuously explore av- enues to ensure diverse funding sources and advocate for increased operations and capital funding to address priority tree maintenance and care needs. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 83 E) COMMUNITY EDUCATION, ENGAGEMENT, AND STEWARDSHIP A sustainable urban forest requires a shared commitment from the City and the community. We will foster tree stewardship in our community through equitable and impactful community education and engagement Stakeholder Input and Support. Participants reported a perception of conflicting policies and priorities regarding the City's trees. City departments, partners, developers, and the community must have a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities surrounding the urban forest to develop a shared vision for addressing them. A public communications plan stemming from a citywide coordinated effort was seen as a necessary step in bringing clarity to the roles of City departments involved with the urban forest and tree care. Half of the internal stakeholders engaged support bolstering community engagement and volunteer efforts. GOAL E1: CONTINUE TO ACHIEVE TREE CITY USA STATUS AND OTHER INDUSTRY RECOGNITIONS. Goal E1 Strategies a) Continue to track program activities and budgets. b) Explore the opportunities and requirements for other recognition programs. Goal E1 Priority Actions Continue to track and annually report urban forestry activities of all partners and continue to maintain Arbor Day Tree City USA designation. Strive to continue to achieve Arbor Day Foundation Growth Awards and Sterling Tree City status. Achieve an award from the American Public Works Association's Awards Program for innovative programs and outcomes resulting from this Plan. Conduct a follow-up benchmarking exercise toward year 10 of this Plan to compare program budgets and activi- ties to other Tree City USA communities in the region. GOAL E2: CREATE AND IMPLEMENT AN ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR ALL DEMOGRAPHICS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY. Goal E2 Strategies a) Identify and collaborate with stakeholders to draft the strategy. b) Implement the strategy as a coordinated effort. c) Review and adapt the strategy as changes occur. Goal E2 Priority Actions Finalize a community outreach strategy and a communications plan to garner support, spur behavior change, and increase participation from the community. Use the data and recommendations from this Plan. Increase outreach and marketing for improving and expanding tree canopy for the public good. Implement the outreach strategy as a coordinated citywide effort by convening with other City departments and stakeholders. Gather input and feedback from the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. As outlined in the community outreach strategy, gather input and feedback from the public regarding implemen- tation of this Plan and changes to urban forestry programs. Identify existing and potential partners and organizations to support community outreach and engagement that is inclusive and equitable. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 84 GOAL E3: PROVIDE INCLUSIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS SUCH AS EVENTS, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL. Goal E3 Strategies a) Continue to implement programs and services through the lens of environmental stewardship. b) Coordinate with new and existing community and regional partners. c) Develop strategies for open participation that is inclusive. Goal E3 Priority Actions Use the outreach strategy from Goal E2 to identify community groups that represent all neighborhoods. Identify low tree canopy neighborhoods for targeted engagement. Coordinate with partners and secure funding for regular public events, training, and educational materials as outline in the outreach strategy. Make the data and information from this Plan accessible to the public online. Gather feedback for continual improvements to events, education, and trainings. Table 15. Details of goals and strategies Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 85 SectiGmN Impl4me ' , y �, �✓ ice- ���' ��r. '' Q,,; Igo • r tio A* 1 W 3M :0; AA r I AP a _ I YW . i� { t fit.? \ \ i �>, �'r }. �.Y./��r.� -i'\�,,` �� i�• \� � � j; \ IMPLEMENTATION The framework of the goals and actions in the Urban Forestry Management Plan provides the City of Fayetteville with the means to measure progress and adapt to an ever -changing environment and availability of resources. Each of the goals align with the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit System described and summarized in Section 2 of this Plan. The actions are intended to guide the City towards improvements in ranking for each of the nearly 130 elements within the 11 categories of urban forest management. As actions are implemented, the City may conduct new iterations of the Urban Forest Audit to gauge success, evaluate progress, and adjust accordingly. View the Evaluate section (page 100) of the Monitoring Plan for more information. Based on the assessment of Fayetteville's urban forest resource, the programs that manage it, and the community that shapes and benefits from it, the following implementation summary is recommended. Implementing the Plan in this manner will effectively and efficiently address the City's shared challenges and priorities using available resources. As the Plan progresses, more resources will become available to implement the longer -term actions. IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY A) Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover We value and appreciate the benefits and services provided by the trees in our community. These benefits Guiding Principle and services should be maximized and equitably distributed across the City by growing an urban forest that is sustainable and resilient to current and future challenges. Audit Category Policy & Ordinances; Standards & Best Practices Goal A2: Implement a Goal A3: Plant trees Goal Al: Increase tree cooperative tree planting that are resilient to Goals canopy cover citywide program with businesses, current and future beginning in priority areas and institutions, organizations, challenges such as purchased land. neighborhoods, and property climate change and tree owners. pests. Strategies a) Use data and a) Procure funding a) Identify existing and research to make purchase land for the City to potential stakeholders. decisions on approved preserve and plant trees. tree species for planting. b) Review and refine the b) Collaborate and share b) Select the right tree priority planting areas resources to identify program for the right site. provided by the Plan. funding opportunities. c) Provide ongoing c) Continue to offer free trees c) Track progress and tree care and monitor to citizens. recognize successes. the condition of tree plantings. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 87 d) Plant 1,850 trees per year d) Conduct pilot programs for 10 years and reassess to determine efficient ways citywide canopy cover. to assist private land owners with tree plantings. e) Coordinate with other City plans and programs. Review, refine, and finalize Priority Actions the canopy cover goals and planting priorities. Draft a list of existing and Utilize the Climate Tree Consider the status of potential stakeholders Atlas study in the Plan recommendations outlined in with input from multiple to adjust approve tree the 2012 Urban Tree Canopy departments. species lists. Assessment Report (see Table 9 in the Plan). Develop a neighborhood -level and citywide planting plan Evaluate the to achieve the canopy goals. Organize workshops or composition of the Align efforts with the Climate seminars that focus on the urban forest to inform Action Plan, Energy Action importance of the program. changes to tree species Plan, the 2023 Park and selection for planting to Recreation System Master maintain diversity. Plan, and other initiatives. Fully integrate tree plantings Create a task force or utilize into City projects. Use the the Urban Forestry Advisory recommendation to inform Board to collaborate on Provide watering and the annual tree planting plan program design, priority irrigation for public tree for parks as recommended in planting locations, funding, plantings. Goal E3 of the 2023 Park and tree selection, and ongoing Recreation System Master maintenance. Plan. Utilize data management Enforce the post - Continue to offer tree care software to track the planting regulations information especially in plantings and recognize regarding maintenance priority neighborhoods. partnerships and program within Chapters 167 success possibly during Arbor and 177 of Fayetteville's Day celebrations. Code of Ordinances. Monitor progress toward achieving the canopy goals and planting targets. Reassess canopy cover citywide and by planning boundaries by 2029 for a 10-year canopy change assessment. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 88 Maintenance and Management We care for our trees and the citywide urban forest to ensure the benefits are Guiding Principle available for current and future generations. Our operations and investments prioritize sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and equity. Audit Category Green Asset Management; Tree Inventories; Tree Plans Goal 132: Reduce conflicts Goal 133: Manage Goals Goal 131: Prioritize public tree between trees and other harmful tree pests maintenance and tree risk infrastructure such as and diseases that are management. sidewalks and utilities. present or expected to impact the urban forest. Strategies a) Assess then need for more a) Assess public trees for a) Identify the primary diseases public works Urban Foresters. current and potential tree pests and infrastructure conflicts. of concern. b) Develop a public tree b) Identify existing and b) Provide information maintenance plan. potential alternative solutions for identifying tree pests to infrastructure conflicts. and diseases. c) Develop a plan for c) Monitor public trees maintaining trees that are c) Coordinate with internal and the urban forest for planted toward the canopy and external stakeholders. tree pests and diseases goal. of concern. d) Stay current with industry d) Ensure trees are planted d) Create a preliminary research, tools, technology, with the proper soil volume. emerald ash borer standards, and best practices. (EAB) plan. e) Focus on planting strategies and designs that produce long-lived trees. Periodically conduct sample Establish or improve inventories or windshield protocols and checklists Develop and implement surveys of public trees for evaluating current and an integrated pest Priority Actions to identify changes to potential infrastructure management or plant maintenance and risk conflicts which includes health care plan for management priorities. potential alternative solutions public trees. to the conflict. Establish regular meetings Create annual work plans and protocols with internal Integrate tree pest and seek funds to implement and external stakeholders for and disease education those plans using the actions improved coordination during into the community within Goal D3. infrastructure and utility education strategy planning, design, construction, (Goal E1- E3). and maintenance phases. Goal 132: Reduce conflicts Goal 133: Manage Goal 131: Prioritize public tree between trees and other harmful tree pests Goals Continued maintenance and tree risk infrastructure such as and diseases that are management. sidewalks and utilities. present or expected to impact the urban forest. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 89 Track maintenance records for public trees. Continue to Focus on education and Priority Actions add assets and management technical assistance Continued data to databases that track with large private total asset management for landowners. more efficient maintenance planning. Acquire and maintain industry certifications and trainings for Urban Foresters. Continue to manage invasive plant species on public properties and within public rights -of -way. Support controlled burns to manage invasives and wildlife on public properties. Strengthen or establish public tree risk assessment and mitigation protocols. Develop a framework and approach to utilize more biomass resulting from public tree maintenance, removals, and post -storm cleanup. Expand efforts beyond mulching by including logs for wood products for local craftsmen. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 90 •I • On"MIM 7 Our existing tree canopy cover and the investments made in planting and caring for the urban forest are Guiding Principle preserved through sound but fair policies and regulations that align with shared priorities in the City and best practices. Policy & Ordinances; Audit Category Standards & Best Practices; Capacity & Training; Authority Goal 01: Establish or update Goal C2: Update or amend policies and practices to reduce the urban forest's tree -related ordinances to Goal C3: Monitor and Goals vulnerability to tree pests, support the citywide canopy enforce tree -related diseases, and climate change cover goal and other goals in ordinances. impacts. the Plan. a) Assess development a) Distribute information Strategies workloads and increase a) Monitor and track tree and resources regarding Urban Forestry in plantings and removals. changes to tree Development Services. regulations. a) Quantify the urban forest's b) Adopt a no -net -loss policy b) Establish a formal role in climate change for public trees. protocol. mitigation. b) Maintain tree regulations c) Review and implement c) Recognize exemplary to minimize urban forest recommended changes to tree preservation vulnerabilities. tree ordinances. practices and projects. Calculate the carbon sequestration, storage, and Identify the departments, avoided carbon generated roles, and workflows (i.e., Update information Priority Actions from the citywide urban tree canopy cover and the public City Engineering and Transportation) and track on the City's to tree population using industry public tree removals and in materials als as tree regulations change. tools such as i-Tree. Utilize and plantings in a data the data to build support and management program. inform climate -related plans. Analyze the potential causes Consider developing Update the Tree Preservation for canopy cover gains and a protocol for and Landscape Manual with losses as identified in the scheduled inspections, any changes to tree -related canopy assessments of four random spot checks, ordinances. time periods. recordkeeping, an on - site education. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 91 As needed, update tree Strengthen the mechanisms lists that prioritize native for tracking tree preservation, and climate -resilient tree removals, plantings, Develop a program that species. Consider updates mitigation, and canopy recognizes exemplary based on the diversity of the percentages for development and innovative urban forest and existing/ projects. Use the tracking development projects potential pests and diseases. to inform potential changes that preserve and At minimum, maintain a list to minimum canopy expand tree canopy of prohibited tree species requirements for zoning cover. reflective of the latest designations as needed to research and concerns. support the canopy goal. Review and refine the tree ordinance evaluation worksheet completed as part of the Plan (see Appendix C). Gather feedback from internal and external stakeholders before significant changes to ordinances are made. For example, develop incentives to preserve existing canopy instead of opting for mitigation and consider updating the penalties for illegal removal of protected trees. Goal CII: Establish or update Goal C2: Update or amend policies and practices to reduce the urban forest's tree -related ordinances to Goal 03: Monitor and Goals Continued vulnerability to tree pests, support the citywide canopy enforce tree -related diseases, and climate change cover goal and other goals in ordinances. impacts. the Plan. Conserve open space and protect areas of significant riparian benefit, tree Priority Actions canopy, prairie, and other Continued environmental resource through cluster development provisions, density controls, protective easements, and/or other development tools. Update design standards to be more accom modati ng to trees and the necessary soil volume while balancing the needs for development. Establish a policy for reassessing the citywide tree canopy cover at regular intervals to monitor the canopy goal. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 92 Funding and Levels of Guiding The programs and staffing Principle involved with the trees in our community have the resources necessary to meet current and future demands and challenges. Audit Green Asset Management; Category Community Goals Goal D1: Procure funding for Goal D2: Increase funding to Goal D3: Evaluate the staffing the City to purchase land for purchase trees to be planted levels, structure, and resources tree preservation and planting and supporting infrastructure for tree -related programs and and to achieve other City in support of the canopy adjust as needed to meet the goals. cover goal. goals of the Plan and growing demands of the urban forest. Strategies a) Identify potential areas for a) Identify the funding gap and a) Track and report land acquisition. funding source(s). program activities and Plan implementation progress. b) Coordinate with partners b) Communicate the benefits b) Analyze the organization for land acquisition and of a robust planting effort. of departments involved with management. trees in Fayetteville. c) Lead by example and c) Develop and implement a c) Conduct cost -benefit distribute information about tree planting program aligned analyses and evaluate growing the program. with the canopy goal. service demands. Priority Review the priority areas for Determine the funding gap for Develop a mission and vision Actions tree planting and preservation planting 1,850. statement for urban forest to identify opportunities for management in the City that land acquisition. Consider align with the goals in this Plan. vacant land as an initial step and utilize the City Plan 2040's Enduring Green Network map and data. Develop a multi -year program Quantify the benefits and Share with City departments and allocate funding for land services provided by the and stakeholders the progress acquisition. Build support 1,850 trees planted per year made in implementing the from land trusts and other to communicate the future Plan by using the Monitoring organizations. value added to Fayetteville's section's guidelines. Successes ecosystem, community, and and shortcomings build economy. awareness and supporting for changes to staffing and program structure(s). Implement best management Secure the necessary funding Evaluate staffing and practices and share to meet the annual tree contractor resources required information for private planting targets. to effectively plant trees aligned landowners to learn about the with canopy goals and to opportunities for urban forest provide post -planting care. stewardship on their own property(s). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 93 Develop management plans Provide annual reports on Determine the need for for the properties purchased. canopy goal progress to consolidating tree programs justify continued funding for into one department, section, or tree plantings. division to improve efficiencies and levels of service. Goals Goal D1: Procure funding for Goal D2: Increase funding to Goal D3: Evaluate the staffing Continued the City to purchase land for purchase trees to be planted levels, structure, and resources tree preservation and planting and supporting infrastructure for tree -related programs and and to achieve other City in support of the canopy adjust as needed to meet the goals. cover goal. goals of the Plan and growing demands of the urban forest. Priority In the long-term, consider Coordinate with tree nurseries Consider the need and Actions utilizing land acquired for pilot the tree species for planting framework for establishing Continued projects such as testing new to reduce costs and address a City section specific to tree species for the region tree species diversity goals. managing natural areas and and in-house tree production open space (e.g., wetlands, (i.e., tree nursery). bottomlands, prairies). Secure funding to implement a tree watering program for newly planted public trees. Continuously explore avenues to ensure diverse funding sources and advocate for increased operations and capital funding to address priority tree maintenance and care needs. Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship Guiding A sustainable urban Principle forest requires a shared commitment from the City and the community. We will foster tree stewardship in our community through equitable and impactful community education and engagement. Audit Community Category Goals Goal E1: Continue to achieve Goal E2: Create and Goal E3: Provide inclusive program Tree City USA status and implement an engagement offerings such as events, education, other industry recognitions. strategy for all demographics and training to meet the needs of all. and stakeholders in the community. Strategies a) Continue to track program a) Identify and collaborate a) Implement programs and activities and budgets. with stakeholders to draft the services through the lens of strategy. environmental justice. b) Explore the opportunities b) Implement the strategy as b) Coordinate with new and existing and requirements for other a coordinated effort. community and regional partners. recognition programs. c) Review and adapt the c) Develop strategies to remove strategy as changes occur. barriers to participation. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 94 Priority Continue to track and Finalize a robust community Use the outreach strategy from Actions annually report urban forestry outreach strategy and a Goal E2 to identify community activities of all partners communications plan to groups that represent all and continue to maintain garner support, spur behavior neighborhoods. Arbor Day Tree City USA change, and increase designation. Strive to continue participation from the to achieve Arbor Day community. Use the data and Foundation Growth Awards recommendations from this and Sterling Tree City status. Plan. Achieve an award from the Increase outreach and Identify low tree canopy American Public Works marketing for improving and neighborhoods for targeted Association's Awards expanding tree canopy for the engagement. Program for innovative public good. programs and outcomes resulting from this Plan. Conduct a follow-up Implement the outreach Coordinate with partners and benchmarking exercise strategy as a coordinated secure funding for regular public toward year 10 of this Plan to citywide effort by convening events, training, and educational compare program budgets with other City departments materials as outline in the outreach and activities to other Tree and stakeholders. Gather strategy. City USA communities in the input and feedback from region. the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. As outlined in the community Make the data and information from outreach strategy, gather this Plan accessible to the public input and feedback from online. the public regarding implementation of this Plan and changes to urban forestry programs. Identify existing and potential Gather feedback for continual partners and organizations to improvements to events, education, support the implementation and trainings. of the community outreach strategy and support engagement that is inclusive and equitable. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 95 MONITORING PLAN This Urban Forestry Management Plan will be updated every ten years as outlined in the code. Revisions can be made in five years, and canopy data will be collected from GIS every two years and revised periodically. Better data will help reflect changes in the urban forest and incorporate changes in industry standards. Also, community response and industry recommendations should be considered to reach the established goals. This process should be overseen by an urban forestry working group consisting of community members with various skill sets and backgrounds. Examples include the City's Urban Forestry Program, Urban Forestry Advisory Board members, other City staff, and stakeholders. The monitoring of the plan should follow the evaluation, monitoring, reporting, and Revising methodology. Knowing how the City and its partners are doing will require a continual evaluation process. This section presents examples of how to monitor, analyze, and revise the Plan, which will keep stakeholders informed of the status of the Urban Forestry Program. To monitor progress toward implementing the Plan recommendations, an evaluation similar to the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit (details below in the Evaluate section) conducted to develop the initial Plan should be completed. This evaluation will identify progress and shortfalls compared to the baseline audit. In addition, a report card could be created based on the audit's outcomes and distributed to the public periodically. This will measure progress toward implementing the Plan's actions. The Report section provides a suggested structure for measuring and reporting success toward accomplishing each goal. Other indicators to measure progress may need to be developed to ensure a thorough and accurate evaluation. EVALUATE MONITOR BENCHMARKS AUDIT 1 REPORT CARD REPORT REVISE Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 96 EVALUATE The U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit System provides a framework for routine AUDIT evaluations of the urban forest, the programs that manage it, and the community that shapes and benefits from it. The deliverables to this Urban Forestry Management Plan project include guidance for completing an update to the audit completed in 2023 to develop the Plan. This audit system consists of 11 categories of urban forest management, sustainability, and community. Within the 11 categories are approximately 130 subcategories or elements. Each element was ranked or scored based on the consultants' evaluations in 2023 for the Urban Forestry Management Plan. It is recommended the City's urban forestry working group (or similar) complete a bi- annual audit to inform any alterations to actions and strategies. About the Urban Forest Audit The primary objectives of the audit are defined by the Urban Forest Audit System authors and adapted by the City's urban forestry consulting team to engage the full spectrum of the organizations' management team, provide program direction that increases the level of professionalism in management, conduct a gap analysis of management practices and the health of urban forests, provide strategic direction to improve the health of the urban forest, and optimize management for environmental justice and equitable distribution of resources. Urban Forest Audit Process The process of analyzing the urban forest involved extensive information and document gathering and research to identify policies, practices, programs, and standards pertaining to categories of urban forest sustainability and management as defined by Clark et al. (1997), Kenney et al. (2011), and the Forest Service. The categories are listed in Table 16. Each category has a series of subcategories pertaining to the specific category. As an example, the subcategories listed in Table 17 are in the Management Policy and Ordinances category: 1) Management Policy and Ordinances 2) Professional Capacity and Training 3) Funding and Accounting 4) Decision and Management Authority 5) Tree -related Inventories 6) Tree -related Plans 7) Risk Management 8) Disaster Planning 9) Standards and Best Practices 10) Community 11) Green Asset Management Table 16. Categories for evaluation using the U.S. Forest Service's Urban ForestAudit System. 1.01) Climate Change (Sustainability) 1.02) No Net Loss 1.03) Risk Management 1.04) Tree Canopy Goals 1.05) Tree Protection 1.06) Utility 1.07) Human Health 1.08) Wildlife Diversity/Habitat/Protection 1.09) Performance Monitoring 1.10) Private Tree Ordinances 1.11) Public Tree Ordinances 1.12) Development Standards 1.13) High -Conservation Value Forests 1.14) Urban Interface (WUI) Table 1Z List of subcategories within the Management Policy and Ordinances category of the audit Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 97 All available documents and plans were reviewed and tallied in the audit worksheet as part of the information discovery phase. Based on the evaluation of the documents and outcomes of all planning processes (i.e., research, City staff interviews, urban forest benchmarks, data analyses, and community engagement) each subcategory within the 11 categories was "ranked" using the following system: 0) Not Practiced - Component doesn't exist or is not practiced; 0 points 1) In Development - Component is in development as part of or aside from this Plan;1 point 2) Adopted Practice - Component is routinely practiced; 2 points 3) Exceeds Adopted Practice - The component is exceeded; 3 points The points were then totaled for an overall rating to provide a summary of the City's level of achieving each catego- ry of urban forest management and sustainability. Urban Forest Audit Results for Fayetteville 1 Management Policy, Ordinances 50% 67% 20 71% 2 Professional Capacity and Training 100% NA 16 89% 3 Funding and Accounting 75% NA 8 67% 4 Decision, Management Authority 50% 100% 5 63% 5 Tree -related Inventories NA 56% 17 65% 6 Tree -related Plans NA 50% 13 54% 7 Risk Management 83% 50% 14 78% 8 Disaster Planning NA 67% 9 64% 9 Standards and BMPs*** 75% 69% 44 73% 10 Community 100% NA 25 89% 11 Green Asset Management NA NA 16 80% `Standard of Care (SOC) elements represent the minimum group of urban forestry management "best practices" that a municipality should consider for implementation. SOC refers to the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care (i.e., legal obligation of the controlling authority, owner, or manager) to minimize risk. Neither state, regional, nor national minimum management components have been established for SOC but these are interim recommendations for consideration. (NA = not applicable) "Base Practices (BP) elements represent additional urban forest management activities or components that may effectively expand a program beyond the SOC group (see footnote above). These elements are typically precursors to other "non -core" elements in the category. (NA = not applicable) "`Best Management Practices (BMPs) Table 18. Outcomes of the urban forest audit completed in 2023 for Fayetteville's Plan. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 98 Urban Forest Audit Summary Discussion The main purpose of the urban forest audit is to apply the research and findings gathered throughout the planning effort to inform the Plan's goals, strategies, and actions. This audit or "gap analysis" enables the Urban Forestry Program to control different aspects of its program with data. This gap analysis identified the shortcomings that the Urban Forestry Program should overcome and by quantifying them, the program can make improvements. It also enables effective monitoring of Plan strategies in that the audit categories and elements can be revisited at key intervals in the Plan implementation process to measure progress and adapt strategies accordingly. For the comprehensive evaluation of all subcategories within the Urban Forest Audit, see Appendix B. The information provided in the table above describes the current conditions of Fayetteville's urban forest, the pro- grams that manage it, and the community framework. As recommended in the Plan's monitoring methods, the City should use this framework to evaluate implementation progress, report successes, and inform changes to Plan actions. Many of the urban forest audit elements were given a rating of "In Development" as they previously did not exist but are addressed in this Urban Forestry Management Plan. This means that the City is already well underway in advancing its program and its Urban Forest Audit score. 710 89% _ 67 % 63% = 65% 54% 78% - 64% 73 % 89% 80% Figure 3Z Results of the 2023 urban forest audit to utilize in Plan monitoring. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 99 EVALUATE Measuring accomplishment of the actions will require ongoing analysis. The outcomes of the Urban Forest Au- dit System in the Evaluate section can be used to monitor change over time. These benchmark values should be tracked, and a state of the urban forest report should be prepared and distributed to the BENCHMARKS public every 2 to 5 years. Analysis may include an updated public tree inventory, i-Tree bene- fits analyses, or urban tree canopy assessments. The state of the urban forest report should include the benchmark values as reported in the Plan and the Urban Forest Audit System as of 2023, so that the City can measure and compare changes to the urban forest. The report should reflect changes to the audit system that are measured. The following table provides a summary of the benchmark values that can be used to monitor and report on Plan progress. ' 1, �• r !� 1, 6 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 100 Primary Urban Forest Benchmark Values to Measure Plan Progress Tree Equity Score (2022) Urban Tree Canopy Short-term Canopy Goals Long-term Canopy Goals Total Trees to Reach 10-year Goal Total Trees to Reach 30-year Goal Total Public Trees (alive or dead) Total Public Street Trees Total Public Street Planting Sites Total Public Open Space Trees Citywide (U i-C Assessment) Ecosystem Benefits of Public Trees 87 out of 100 39.4% 39.9% by 2029 (1,850 trees/year) 40.6% by 2034 (1,850 trees/year) 44.4% by 2054 (3,000 trees/year) 18,500 trees by 2034 (1,850 trees/year) 91,000 trees by 2054 (3,000 per year avq.) 42,000 (estimated) 25,000 TBD Unknown 2019: 576.5 million (total) 2022: $4.2 million (annual estimate Public Trees (street and park) per Capita 0.44 Budget per Capita $6.66 Urban Foresters (3 departments) 8.00 (2023) Total Public Trees per Staff 5,000 trees for every 1.0 FTE Public Trees Pruned Public Trees Removed Public Trees Planted Number of Volunteers and/or Hours Management Policy and Ordinances Professional Capacity and Training Funding and Accounting Decision and Management Authority Tree -related Inventories Tree -related Plans Risk Management Disaster Planning Standards and Best Management Practices Community Green Asset Management Tree -related priorities Preference for improving public tree health Where to prioritize future investments To be recorded at the end of the year To be recorded at the end of the year To be recorded at the end of the year To be recorded at the end of the vear 71% 89% 67% 63% 65% 54% 78% 64% 73% 89% 80% 62% want trees for shade 74% for setting canopy goals, 66% for more trees and preservation in development 70%for improved tree code for development Table 19. Fayetteville's primary urban forest benchmark values to measure Plan progress. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 101 REPORT REPORT CARD ■ ■ Based on the evaluation of Plan implementation progress, the City's urban forestry (or similar) should track, record, and report on the metrics described below that are measures or indicators of success based on the Urban Forest Audit utilized in developing the Plan's goals. POLICY AND ORDINANCES Urban forest policies are the foundation for preserving the environmental benefits, resiliency, and the character of Fayetteville's urban forest. • List all City -led planning efforts. • Describe related City -led tree planting efforts. • Communicate citywide canopy goals. • List recommended changes to City Code, policies, and manuals. • Distribute any recommended tree list to city staff, partners, and residents. CAPACITY, TRAINING, AND AUTHORITY Fayetteville has the capacity and expertise to provide optimal levels of service for sound urban forest management. • List the existing staff and supporting departments and partners. • Summarize roles and responsibilities of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. • Describe existing and needed certifications, qualifications, and training. • Report the number of volunteers and volunteer hours. BUDGET AND FUNDING Funding and resources enable comprehensive and sustainable urban forest management for the preservation and enhancement of tree benefits. • Report the proportion of public trees to the City population. • Report the number of volunteers and volunteer hours. • List the unfunded urban forestry needs. • Report the budget, and donations. ASSESSMENTS AND PLANNING A thorough understanding of the urban forest ensures data -driven decisions, sustainable and comprehensive planning, and amplified tree benefits. • Report the number of public trees planted, pruned, and removed. • Report the number of trees assessed for risk. • Provide a summary of existing tree canopy cover citywide every two years. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 102 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Sustainable urban forest management and equity is achieved through a partnership with the City and its residents resulting in improved well-being, human health, and local economies. • List existing and potential partners. • Report the number of planting events and trees planted. • Report the history/count of Tree City USA and supporting awards. • Report the number of volunteers, events, and volunteer hours. • Report the results of public surveys. • Report on the activities of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. GREEN ASSET MANAGEMENT Fayetteville proactively manages the public trees, continues to grow and expand a healthy canopy, effectively mitigates climate change impact. List the existing and potential outreach platforms and initiatives. • Report the number of public trees pruned, removed, and planted. • Report the number of mitigation plantings and stormwater plantings. • Report progress towards canopy goals and tree planting targets. • Provide a map of planting areas for upcoming year. • Report on Urban Forestry Audit score every 5 years. Table 20. Evaluation, monitoring, and reporting techniques to achieve the urban forestry goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 103 REVISE ♦ Completion of this Plan is a critical step towards meeting the vision for Fayetteville's urban forest. Continual monitoring, analysis, and reporting will help to keep urban forest partners involved and focused on accomplishing the actions. Plans are typically revised every 10 to 15 years; hence, the Plan will need formal revision to respond and adapt to changes as they de- velop. Formal revision of the Plan should coincide with the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Park and Recreation System Master Plan, Energy Action Plan, Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual, climate/sustainability and stormwater plans, and other relevant planning efforts. Recommen- dations and goals of each should be compared. Revisions to the Plan should occur with major events, such as newly discovered pests or diseases, changes in program budget and resources, or significant changes to industry standards or legal codes. Years 1-5 Year 5 Years 6-70 Year 70 Annual Action Urban Forest Audit Annual Urban Forest Audi Plans and and Plan Action Plans and and Plan Reports Amendments Reports Update Monthly Updated Monthly Updated Activities and Benchmarks and Activities and Benchmarks and Annual Report Plan Actions Annual Report Plan Actions Figure 38. Example of the plan implementation, evaluation, and revision process. Applying the Urban Forest Audit to Revise the Plan The Urban Forest Audit can serve as the tool for the City to effectively Evaluate, Monitor, Report, and Revise the Plan as part of the implementation and monitoring protocols. As found in the 2023 Urban Forest Audit completed to develop the Plan, there are areas of urban forest management where the City is performing at a high level and other areas where improvements are needed. The goals and actions in the Plan address both these strengths and challenges. The following summarizes the relationship of the Plan's actions to the categories in the Urban Forest Audit. Each action in the Plan includes a reference to the Audit's category and subcategory (see Appendix B). 1) In Development 63 25% 49% 2) Adopted Common Practice 62 48% 48% 0) Not Practiced 4 0% 3% Table 21. Summary count of the evaluations completed in the 2023 Urban Forest Audit. Out of the nearly 130 elements (or subcategories) within the Audit, the majority (63 elements or 49%) ranked " 1) In Development" followed by 62 (48%) elements ranked as "2) Adopted Common Practice". Most of the elements given the "In Development" ranking was a result of the outcomes from the Urban Forestry Management Plan or the strategic actions within the Plan to be implemented. As the Plan is being implemented, the status or score of the categories within the audit should change. Fayetteville, Arkansas - Urban Forestry Management Plan - 2024 104 ION^ As a J mammas Conclusion =-� ,�',' Oil 'VA M # ." AM CONCLUSION Trees are an integral part of the community and the ecological systems in which they exist. They provide signif- icant economic, social, and ecological benefits, such as carbon sequestration, reduction of urban heat islands, energy savings, reduction of stormwater runoff, improvement of water quality, enhancement of human health and wellness, and increase the value of properties. Planting and maintaining trees helps Fayetteville become more sustainable and reduces the negative impacts on the ecosystem from urban development. Trees are as necessary as water, infrastructure, and energy to sustain healthy communities. The health of the urban forest is directly linked to the health of the region. The Urban Forestry Management Plan is a roadmap for a strategic approach to manage Fayetteville's urban forest. The Plan contains goals and supporting actions that are critical to the long-term vitality of the forest. However, in order for the Plan to actually have an impact on the forest resource, it requires stewardship and financial resources to begin implementation. Further, it needs to be institutionalized as a document requiring implementation with a sense of urgency to get things started. Completion of the Urban Forestry Management Plan clearly demonstrates that City leadership understands that a healthy urban forest is critical to guaranteeing the long-term health and vitality of the community. In order to accomplish the goals, the City should consider the following commitments: • Recognize that the trees of the urban forest are more than aesthetic enhancements. • Recognize trees as the backbone of the urban ecosystem and an essential part of the com- munity's green infrastructure. • Promote the health and growth of the urban forest by following scientifically established best management practices for tree selection, planting, watering, and pruning. • Promote a robust urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change. • Engage in a continuous process of long-range planning for the growth and maintenance of the urban forest. • Promote public appreciation of the urban forest through educational outreach programs. • Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through community education. • Proceed in a manner that is inclusive and transparent. Successful implementation of actions in this Plan will bring Fayetteville to a higher level of service that is more eq- uitably distributed across the City resulting in a sustainable and thriving urban forest that benefits all residents and future generations— ultimately achieving the Plan vision: Healthy Trees, Healthy City: Fayetteville's urban forest is to cultivate a thriving, diverse, and well -maintained tree canopy that enhances the livability, health, and sustainabil- ity of our community for current and future generations. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 106 a' i Appendices and References 1% tl INDEX Appendix B 2023 Urban Forest Audit Results Appendix C Tree Ordinance Evaluation ............. References............................................................................. List of Tables .116 127 133 Table 1 Summary of the vision and guiding principles for Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan .................8 Table 2 Comparing public tree size class..................................................................................................................................... 28 Table3 Minimum canopy requirements by zoning designation according to Table 1 in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance.........................................................................................................................34 Table 4 Potential vulnerability to canopy loss by easement type.................................................................................................. 39 Table 5 Summary of vulnerable canopy in City easements.............................................................................................................. 39 Table 6 Summary of the land acres and the canopy cover within native prairie land.............................................................41 Table 7 Summary of the protected prairie -related areas.................................................................................................................41 Table 8 Tree canopy on university grounds............................................................................................................................................. 43 Table 9 Summary of the departments and staff involved in urban forest management in Fayetteville ......................... 44 Table 10 USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to increase (low emission scenario).................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 11 USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas' predicted to not change (low emission scenario).................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 12 USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario)....................................................................................................................................................................61 Table 13 Summary of the climate change vulnerability of Fayetteville's public street trees. Source: USDA Climate ChangeAtlas..............................................................................................................................................................................62 Table 14 Interpretation of the 2023 Urban Forest Audit scores........................................................................................................ 67 Table 15 Details of Goals and Strategies.............................................................................................................................................76-85 Table 16 Categories for evaluation using the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit System ....................................... 97 Table 17 List of subcategories within the Management Policy and Ordinances category of the audit ............................ 97 Table 18 Outcomes of the urban forest audit completed in 2023 for Fayetteville's Plan ....................................................... 98 Table 19 Fayetteville's primary urban forest benchmark values to measure Plan progress...............................................101 Table 20 Evaluation, monitoring, and reporting techniques to achieve the urban forestry goals....................................103 Table 21 Summary count of the evaluations completed in the 2023 Urban Forest Audit..................................................104 List of Figures Figure 1 The process to develop Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan....................................................................6 Figure 2 Maps displaying the location of Fayetteville, Arkansas within Washington County...............................................10 Figure 3 A view of the Ozark Mountains from Fayetteville. Source: Experience Fayetteville................................................13 Figure 4 Human health and social benefits of trees................................................................................................................................16 Figure 5. Illustration of types of trees in Fayetteville.............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure6 Overview of Sample Inventory...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7 Overview of the species results of the 2022 sample inventory of public tres..................................................... 27 Figure 8 Map displaying the tree canopy mapped from 2019 imagery.......................................................................................... 32 Figure 9 Citywide tree canopy results (2019). Source: City of Fayetteville.................................................................................. 32 Figure 10 Examples of the land cover class......................................................................................................................................32 Figure 11 Examples of the land cover classes analyzed as part of the 2019 tree canopy study .......................................... 33 Figure 12 Map showing the Tree Equity Scores for Census Block Groups in Fayetteville. Source: American Forests' TreeEquity Score Tool...................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 13 Tree equity score inputs and Comparison of Tree Equity Scores for select Arkansas ......................................... 36 Figure 14 Tree Equity Score comparisons for select U.S. cities. Source: American Forests' ................................................. 36 Figure 15 An example of higher tree canopy cover east (right) of North Gregg Avenue....................................................................... 37 Figure 16 Examples of the types of easements found in the City of Fayetteville........................................................................ 38 Figure 17 Canopy cover within vulnerable easements.....................................................................................................................39 Figure 18 Map of the canopy within native and restored prairie land................................................................................................41 Figure 19 Map displaying tree canopy on University of Arkansas property within the urban core ...................................... 45 Figure 20 Comparison of canopy in 2015, 2017 and 2019..................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 21 Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual provides the tree -related regulations and standards for entities involved in private development design and construction.................................................. 49 Figure 22 Summary of the feedback received from internal stakeholders.................................................................................... 52 Figure 23 Example of the outreach conducted throughout the planning process......................................................................53 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 108 Figure 24 The project website for Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan.................................................................. 53 Figure 25 Infographic summary of the public's priorities and viewpoints regarding the urban forest ............................... 55 Figure 26 Examples of the potential streetscape design solutions for preventing or mitigating tree and infrastructureconflicts.................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 27 Emerald ash borer (EAB) insect (top), dieback (left), larvae (bottom left), borer holes (right), and larvae galleries(bottom right)..................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 28 Sudden oak death (SOD) wood and bark discoloration and lesions and discoloration of leave ....................... 58 Figure 29 American elm identifying features, leaf flagging symptom of Dutch elm disease (middle), and gallery of bark beetles that are the vector for the Ophiostoma ulmi fungus................................................................................. 58 Figure 30 Bacterial leaf scorch observed on oak (A), redbud(B), elm (C), and maple (D) leaves ............................................. 58 Figure 31 Illustration of the temperature difference in urban areas due to the urban heat island effect .........................59 Figure 32 Summary of the climate change vulnerability of Fayetteville's public street trees...............................................62 Figure 33 Summary of the 2023 Urban Forest Audit completed for Fayetteville's Plan ......................................................... 65 Figure 34 Fayetteville's 10-year canopy goal milestones and targets....................................................................................... 72 Figure 35 Scengarios for priority planting areas to achieve canopy goals and the Plan's outcomes .............................. 74 Figure36 Guiding principals and goals................................................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 37 Results of the 2023 urban forest audit to utilize in Plan monitoring......................................................................... 99 Figure 38 Example of the plan implementation, evaluation, and revision process................................................................104 Supplemental Material Contains more in-depth information and data. Supplement 1- Urban Forestry Benchmarks Supplement 2- Canopy Goal Setting and Priority Areas Supplement 3- Tree Inventory Summary Supplement 4- Public Survey Results Supplement 5- Staff & Board Member Survey Results Supplement 6- US Forest Service Urban Forest Audit Supplement 7- Recommended Tree List and Sister City Climate City Assessment Supplement 8- Invasive Plant Species Program Review Supplement 9- Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Project 2012 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 109 APPENDIX A. CANOPY GOALS AND PLANTING TARGETS Canopy Goal Assumptions Data from Fayetteville's tree canopy cover assessments (2019) and the American Forests Tree Equity Score (TES) tool were analyzed to identify a feasible canopy goal and to develop strategies to achieve it. The draft canopy goal was refined by examining the available land area, resources, other ongoing city priorities, future land use, land ownership types, opportu- nities to mitigate urban heat, and preservation of native prairie land. Other considerations were our climate, elevations, historic canopy coverage for the regions, topography, survey results, climate change atlas, invasive species, and development patterns. The goals were set to be achievable and flexible so that staff could take different strategic approaches to planting trees. Using this integrated approach, the City of Fayetteville's ambitious and achievable goal is 44.4% tree canopy in 30 years— up from 39.4% based on 2019 imagery. To achieve this, the City and part- ners must preserve the existing canopy to the greatest possible extent, mitigate the lost canopy, and increase canopy coverage by planting trees. • Existing tree canopy cover is based on imagery from 2019. • Promote growing trees to maturity rather than focusing on a number. • A no -net -loss strategy is sought, meaning the number of public trees removed for internal municipal projects and encouraging mitigation on private property. • Development projects must continue to mitigate tree removal, dedicate tree preservation easements, and add street trees. • Most new large neighborhoods are in previous pasture land. • Supporting citizens and growing trees in existing neighborhoods with POA/HOA support. • Trees that grow into large canopy trees are planted wherever feasible. • The City will need to plant public street planting sites and consider converting impervious surfaces to planting sites and planting in parks and natural areas. • Assumes a potential for young tree mortality post -planting is 10% with POA/HOA projects and City projects (the standard for Fayetteville is 10%). • Assume a potential for trees given away with a mortality rate of 65% (10% is our mortality rate, and studies show around 75% make it into the ground from tree giveaways combined. The mortality rate is an optimistic 65%). • $408 per tree is the average cost for contracted tree planting. • Emphasis should be placed on planting native and highly adaptable trees that support strategies for climate resiliency and tree species diversity. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 110 Priority Planting Areas to Achieve Canopy Goals and Tree Equity Once the City finalizes local and citywide tree canopy goals, it is recommended to establish priority areas based on a variety of themes and community needs. Themes may include ownership type (public and private), areas of low existing tree canopy, Tree Equity Scores (Tree Eq u itySco re.o rg), and greatest amount of available planting space while other themes may address air quality, stormwater reduction, water quality, and preserving native land cover (e.g., native prairie land). Others may evaluate opportunities to address disadvantaged areas, densely populated regions, loss due to development, and human health factors such as asthma cases, median age, and mental health. In any planting prioritization scenario, the scale may include U.S. Census Bureau Census Block Groups, Future Land Use Classes, neighborhoods, ownership (public, private, campus and institutional), and citywide. Using the results from the 2019 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and an analysis of canopy change over four time periods and analyses in a Geographic Information System (GIS), a series of recommended prioritization techniques is provided. The description of the prioritization techniques and scenarios is provided below followed by a series of corresponding priority maps. Low Tree Canopy: It is important to understand the existing distribution of existing tree canopy across the City. This scenario shows Census Block Groups (CBGs) that are low in canopy cover (less than 35% canopy cover). Low Income and Tree Canopy: This scenario shows the CBGs with a high proportion of low-income populations and low amounts of tree canopy cover (less than 35%). ❖ Vulnerable and Exclusion Areas: Certain areas of the City may not be preferable to plant trees such as in native prairie land. Other areas are outside of the City's jurisdiction such as the University of Arkansas. And other areas such as easements have tree canopy that is vulnerable to change such as the removal of trees for a utility easement. ❖ Development and Future Land Use: With robust tree regulations in place, tree plantings in future land use areas can be considered to support a citywide canopy goal. ❖ Tree Equity: The American Forests' Tree Equity Score tool evaluates the correlation between tree canopy cover, surface temperatures, and socioeconomic data. Priority areas may include CBGs that have less than the citywide score of 87 out of 100. ❖ Percent People of Color: Redressing tree canopy cover inequities requires multiple facets of urban forest management though identifying canopy cover and the proportion of people of color within CBGs can assist in determining priority areas for plantings. ❖ Average Surface Temperature: Trees and green spaces have been proven to lower surface temperatures and mitigate urban heat island effects. Data from USGS Landsat 8 imagery, thermal bands. ❖ Health Risk Index: Research shows trees can improve human health through air quality improvements and encouraging physical activity. Priority areas are based on self - reported poor mental health, poor physical health, asthma, and coronary heart disease from the Centers for Disease Control. View the maps on the following pages for examples of the listed planting priority techniques. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 111 Priority Planting Maps by Theme Figure 50. Priority planting maps by planting theme. C■ ■ ❑ City boundary ❑ Block Group boundary ■ Block Groups with low income populations and low tree canopy cover --L—j u 'I ff Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 112 ❑ City boundary ■ Civic Institutional City Neighborhood ■ Residential Neighborhood ■ Rural Residential ■ Non -municipal Government ■ Urban Center ■ Civic & Private Open Space C ■ Natural ■ Industrial ■ MUA L: � Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 113 ❑ City boundary ■ Block Groups with a Tree Equity Score of 0-63 ■ Block Groups with a Tree Frn,ity SrnrP of F4-7ca P. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 114 Q ❑ City boundar�' Low Health RI ■ Moderate He< ■ ■ High Health F Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 115 APPENDIX B. 2023 URBAN FOREST AUDIT RESULTS Urban Forest Audit Scoring Key Not Practiced (0) In Development (1) Adopted Practice (2) Table 21. Results of the 2023 Urban Forest Audit. Management Policy Climate Change Also referred to as Sustainability. With reference to urban trees. 1.01 (Sustainability) Addresses the long-term health and productivity of the natural resource. 1.02 No Net Loss Can refer to trees, basal area, or canopy. 1.03 Risk Management Should reference: ANSI A300 Part 9, ISA BMP, and prioritization funding mechanisms. 1.04 Tree Canopy Goals Overall community/campus goal, or by designated "zone". 1.05 Tree Protection Construction and/or landscape maintenance. 1.06 Utility Utility pruning, planting, and installation policy (e.g. boring vs. trenching). Recognizes and addresses the human health benefits of the Human Health - Physical & shade natural resource (e.g., exercise, air quality, stress management, 1.07 Psychological ) Could also include Urban Heat Island (UHI) policies. 1.08 Wildlife Mammals, birds, or reptiles. Diversity/Habitat/Protection Recognizes the annual or biennial calculation of metrics (e.g. 1.09 Performance Monitoring some component of ecosystem services) for the purpose of tracking management performance. 1.10 Ordinance (Private) Tree protection and management for trees on private property. 1.11 Ordinance (Public) Tree protection and management for public trees. US Green Building Council's LEED® rating systems (or similar internationally) 1.12 Development Standards LEED v4 BD+C (Sustainable Sites) LEED 4 ND (Neighborhood Pattern & Design, Green Infrastructure) ASLA's SITES® Rating System High -Conservation Value Programs or policies for identification, acquisition, and/or 1.13 Forests protection of groups of trees or forests that provide unique public benefits. 1.14 Urban Interface (WUI) Programs or policies that improve management of the urban interface for fire and/or invasive species. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 116 Capacity and Training 2.01 Certified Arborist - Staff International Society of Arboriculture 202 Certified Arborist - International Society ofArboriculture Contracted 203 Certified Arborist - Other International Society ofArboriculture Resource Other Professional - This could be a professional in an allied field like Landscape 2.04 Advising/directing OF Architecture. management 2.05 Municipal Forestry Graduate of Society of Municipal Arborist's MFI program or Institute similar 2.06 USFS Urban Forestry Attendance at USFS UFI or similar Institute or similar Campus/city arborist - ISA 2.07 CA instructor for CEUs Arborist routinely provides ISA CEU presentations/workshops. 2.08 Tree Board University or On-line training modules from Oregon U&CF for Tree similar Board/Advisory Council or similar Organizational Process, procedures, and protocol for cross -professional 2.09 Communications communications within the organization (all departments "touching" trees). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 117 Funding and Accounting 3.01 Budgeted Annually Budget authorized/required for tree board, tree maintenance, and/or tree planting. Contingency Budget A protocol is in place to prioritize urban forestry management 3.02 Process activities during budget shortfalls; e.g. during times of limited funding for:') risk management, ')young tree care, 3) mulching. 3.03 Funding Calculated from Budget in terms of per capita, per tree, or for performance (e.g. Community Attribute per tree weighted by size class or age. 3.04 Funding Based on Budget connected with/based on ecosystem service (ES) Performance Monitoring monitoring and performance. 3.05 Urban Forestry Line Item Is the budget specific to urban forest management? Maintain green infrastructure data in the "unaudited 3.06 Green Asset Accounting supplementary disclosure of an entity's comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR)". GASB 34 implementation for municipalities. Authority Professional urban forest manager with authority over the 4.01 Urban Forest Manager program and day-to-day activity. Including designated budget line item. 4.02 Staff Authority Designated staff with authority over the program and day-to-day activity. Including designated line item. Established protocol and mechanism(s) for communication among all members of the urban forest management 4.03 Communication Protocol "community" in your municipality or organization (e.g. manager, department under control, advisory board, finance, field operations, public, NGOs, business community, developers). 4.04 Tree Board, Commission, Establishes a board for public participation (advisory or with or Advisory Council authority). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 118 Tree -related Inventories 5.01 Canopy Inventory (UTC) Periodic (<_5 year) canopy inventory and assessment. Public & private. Recent (<_5 year) ecosystem services (ES) inventory & assessment? 5.02 Ecosystem Services Public: 100% or street trees; Public & Private: Sample; or Campus. Or, are ES calculated annually or biennially based on partial re - inventory and projected growth as a monitoring tool. 5.03 Public Trees Evaluate below 5.04 Street Trees Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? 5.05 Parks/Riparian Areas Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? 5.06 Other Public Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space. Partial re -inventory to support continuous forest inventory, Continuous inventory on a growth projections, 5.07 cycle (<_5 years; i.e. panel) and the calculation of ecosystem services for the purpose of long- term monitoring of urban forest management performance (e.g. carbon or leaf surface). 5.08 Private Trees Evaluate below 5.09 Campus (Educational) Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? 5.10 Corporate Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? 5.11 Other Private Property Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? Continuous inventory on a Partial re -inventory to support continuous forest inventory, 5.12 cycle (<_5 years; i.e. panel), growth projections, and the calculation of ecosystem services for inventory software the purpose of long-term monitoring of urban forest management performance (e.g. carbon or leaf surface). 533 Green Stormwater BMP stormwater mitigation practices and locations (e.g. Infrastructure (GSI) Washington DC) Inventory data includes Lat/Long (i.e. GIS). Should address the spatial relationship between the natural resource and people (i.e. 5.14 Spatial residents, visitors, activities) that would help manage the resource for benefits associated with proximity (air quality, recreation, stress mitigation, improved educational opportunity). Maintenance and Planting Planting details (nursery, species, size, cost, contractor, etc.) 5.15 maintained with inventory or as separate database or Records Maintained recordkeeping system. Also pruning and removal histories. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 119 Tree -related Plans 6.01 Annual Maintenance An annual calendar that defines typical activity by season. To Calendar support scheduling. 6.02 Public Trees Evaluate below 6.03 Street Tree Management Is there a recent (5 year) plan for street trees? 6.04 Parks/Riparian Area Management 6.05 Other Public Trees 6.06 Private Trees Is there a recent (5 year) plan ? Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space. Evaluate below 6.07 Campus (Educational) Is there a recent (5 year) plan for Campus trees? 6.08 Corporate Is there a recent (5 year) plan? 6.09 Other Private Property Is there a recent (5 year) plan? 6.10 Green Infrastructure Is there a plan for green infrastructure (i.e. nodes & linkages)? Large-scale projects. 6.11 Other Written Plans Other natural resource plans (e.g. tree canopy). May be a component of another plan. 6.12 Tree Planting Is there a recent (3 year) tree planting plan? ). May be a component of another plan. 6.13 OF as Part of a Is any OF management plan referenced in the comprehensive Comprehensive Plan plan (i.e. county or municipality) or master plan (i.e. Campus)? Criteria and indicators based on A Model of Urban Forest Urban Forest Planning and Sustainability(Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P., Cross, G., and Wake, V. 6.14 Management Criteria and 1997 Journal of Arboriculture.) or on work of W.A. Kenney, P.J.E. Performance Indicators van Wassenaer, and A.L. Satel in Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. (2011) Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 120 Risk Management 7.01 TRAQ Attained At least one staff or consultant is TRAQ. 702 Annual Level 1 (ANSI A300 All trees in high occupancy areas visited annually. Part 9 & ISA BM P) 7.03 Mitigation Prioritization A protocol for prioritizing mitigation following Level 1 and Level 2 assessments. Reflects the controlling agency's threshold for risk. 7.04 Occupancy Areas Mapped Has TRAQ staff/consultant discussed/mapped occupancy levels with controlling authority? A process has been put in place to maintain records on requests, 7.05 Recordkeeping, Reporting, inspections, evaluations, and mitigation of risk; and on the and Communications communications among the managers related to those risk assessments. 7.06 Standard of Care Adopted Controlling authority has adopted a Standard of Care (SOC) or risk management policy. Is there a written specification that meets requirements of ANSI 7.07 Tree Risk Specification A300 (Part 9)? And, has it been discussed with the controlling authority with relevance to the controlling authority's threshold for acceptable risk? 708 Urban Tree Risk The community has prepared and follows a comprehensive Management program for urban tree risk management. 7.09 Invasive Management Plan to address and manage invasive: plants, insects, and disease. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 121 Disaster Planning [41501 8.02 :• 8.04 Response/Recovery Staff knowledge of the municipality's protocol for requesting Mechanism disaster resources through the county or state with access to mutual aid and EMAC. Urban Forestry as part of The OF plan (8.3) is incorporated into the county/municipal the County Disaster Plan disaster plan; specifically in reference to debris management and risk mitigation. Urban Forestry Disaster A separate/specific plan within the urban forestry management Plan program (i.e. who to call, priorities). Pre -disaster Contracts Contracts are in place for critical needs. Mitigation Plan A mitigation plan has been developed for pre -disaster, recovery, and post -disaster. EMAC Mission Ready Municipality has published disaster resources with state EM and Packages (MRP) participates in inter -state Mutual Aid to support Urban Forest Strike Teams (UFST). Urban Forest Strike Team Participation in the UFST project. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 122 Standards and Best Management Practices Reference and adherence to ANSI Standards for arboricultural 9.01 ANSI Standards practices (A300), safety (Z133), or Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) (any or all). 9.02 Ages/Diameter Distribution Specific management for the development of an age -diverse tree population 9.03 Arborist Standards Standards of practice for arborists (i.e. Certification). 9.04 Best Management Establishes or references tree maintenance BMPs (i.e. written Practices (BMPs) comprehensive standards & standards). 9.05 Fertilization and Mulching Fertilization or mulching standards required for conserved & planted trees. 9.06 Lightning Protection BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard. Systems 9.07 Planting Planting and transplanting standards required/specified. 9.08 Pruning Pruning standards required for conserved & planted trees. 9.09 Removal Infrastructure damage, stump grinding, etc. 9.10 Support Systems (Guying BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard. and Bracing) 9.11 Tree Risk Tree risk assessment procedures; ISA BMP or equivalent. Construction Management Written standards for: tree protection, trenching/boring in CPZs, 932 Standards pre -construction mulching, root or limb pruning, watering (any or all). 933 Design Standards Standards for design that specifically require trees; standards for tree placement (i.e. location), soil treatment, and/or drainage. 9.14 Genus/Species Diversity Suggests or requires diversity of plant material. 9.15 Green Stormwater BMPs for site level GI practices like rain gardens and swales. Infrastructure (GSI) Small-scale projects. 936 Inventory Data Collection Community has adopted or developed applicable standards for local urban tree inventory data collection to support QA/QC. 9.17 Minimum Planting Volume Minimum required root zone volume. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 123 Standards and Best Management Practices (continued) 9.18 Minimum Tree Size Minimum caliper for tree replacements, and/or minimum size of existing trees to receive tree density or canopy credit. 939 Root Protection Zone (CRZ) Defines adequate root protection zone; Critical Root Zone (CRZ). 9.20 Safety Safety logs, trainings, reference to ANSI Z133 Safety Standard 9.21 Topping Prohibits topping or other internodal cuts (public & private). Identifies and publishes a list of the most desirable, 9.22 Tree Species List recommended, and/or preferred species (may include native and non-native species); alternatively, a list of species prohibited. 9.23 Tree Quality Standards Written standards for tree selection at nursery in addition to Z60.1. 9.24 Utility Right -of -Way ( ROW) Requirements for planting, pruning, and/or removal of trees Management within a utility ROW. 9.25 Urban Agriculture Enabled urban food forestry practices. 9.26 Wood Utilization Larger diameter material is processed for wood products. 927 Third -party forest products Examples: American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Forest certification compliance Stewardship CouncilTM (FSC®). Local or regional use of chips or other woody debris for co- 9.28 Energy generation generation facilities (an efficient process that uses one fuel to generate two types of energy— electrical and thermal). 929 Composting of Leaf and/or Leaves and small woody debris are captured and used on -site or Other Woody Debris processed by someone by composting for reuse. 9.30 Watering Standards Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 124 Community Social Media Website or Does your community/campus use social media platforms or 10.01 Similar similar to document and publicize your urban forestry program, activity, or events? 10.02 Education The urban forest is used as an educational laboratory for class activity; Kids in the Woods, PLT, high school, or college level. 10.03 Private Property Tree Does your community sponsor this program locally? Program Public -facing Tree public access to the community tree resource via an on-line 10.04 Inventory and Management Software mapping program (i.e. any Web Map Service; WMS). Is public management consistent with private property 10.05 Public Perception requirements for tree protections and care? Does the Campus/public tree management reflect neighborhood norms? 10.06 Recognition Programs Programs that raise awareness of trees or that use trees to connect the community to significant events or activities. 10.07 Arbor Day Celebration Whether or not associated with Tree City USA. 10.08 Arboretum designation Internal or third party arboretum designation. 10.09 Significant trees For example: size, history. 10.10 Memorial/Honorarium Tree planting or tree care programs than honor/memorialize individuals, organizations, or events. 10.11 Social Media Does your community/campus make use of Twitter, Facebook, Blogs for internal or external outreach? 10.12 Active Communications Press releases, regular news articles (print), "State of the Urban Forest" reports, periodic analysis of threats and opportunities. 10.13 Tree Care Are volunteers trained and used for basic tree care (e.g. mulching, pruning, planting). 10.14 Tree Campus USA®, Tree Community/campus meets current qualifications for any of these City USA®, Tree Line USA® programs. 10.15 Volunteer Opportunities Ad hoc or scheduled. Any/all age groups. Tree Campus USA student activities. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 125 Green Asset Management 11.01 Deadwood Look for evidence of periodic or ad -hoc deadwood removal (i.e. lack of dead limbs >_ 2" in the trees or on the ground). No genera exceed 20% of population; make specific observations 11.02 Genus Diversity for Acer, Quercus, Fraxinus, Uimusand other local species of concern. 11.03 Mature Tree Care Mature trees are retained in the landscape, and are of acceptable risk; i.e. veteran tree management. 11.04 Mulching Evidence of adequate (i.e. spatial extent, depth, and material) roots zone mulching for all age classes. 11.05 Planting Site Volume Are species & sites matched for optimization of above ground Optimization canopy; right tree in the right spot concept. 11.06 Rooting Volume Are species & sites matched for optimization for below ground Optimization rooting volume; right tree in the right spot concept. No species/cultivars exceed 10% of population; make specific 11.07 Species Diversity observations for Acer, Quercus, Fraxinus, Uimusand other local genera of concern. Also evaluate the role of regionally local native species. Observe evidence of soil compaction by users or staff during 11.08 Soil Compaction maintenance. Include "desire" lines and construction activity at time of evaluation. 11.09 Tree Health Rate the overall tree health in all size (age) classes; look for crown dieback, decay, foliage density & color. Look for evidence of periodic (e.g. every 3 years to year 9) 11.10 Young Tree Pruning structural pruning (e.g. subordination cuts, dominant central leader, co -dominant stems lower that 20'). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 APPENDIX C. TREE ORDINANCE EVALUATION The following considerations are provided for Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection and Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances. The evaluation is based on a checklist shown in the table on the following page. Considerations for changes may also pertain to City design standards, protocols, and manuals such as the Fayetteville Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual (referred to as the Tree Manual in this section). Based on this approach, the following summary provides the City with considerations for tree regulation changes in the future. ❖ Prior to any significant change(s) to tree ordinances, it is recommended that the City engage with internal and external stakeholders and the general public to gather input and feedback. ❖ Include references to the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessments and the amount of tree canopy cover (39.4% based on 2019 imagery) and associated ecosystem benefits. Begin by updating section 167.01 Purpose and section 177.01 Purpose with these references and expand on the purpose to include the benefits of trees in mitigating climate change and other benefits and services not currently listed such as the human health and social benefits. ❖ Consider creating a section within Chapter 167 ("Definitions") that specifically defines and clarifies urban forestry -related terms. An example of a clarification could include descriptions and criteria for "significant trees", "priority trees" (listed in section 167.04.E.3), and trees within the "Tree Registry". As an alternative, the definitions could be listed in the Tree Manual and referenced in Chapter 167. ❖ Identify changes to resources needed to provide adequate staffing for administration, monitoring, and enforcement of tree -related ordinances. Update Code language accordingly. ❖ Consider a more nuanced approach to tree mitigation requirements for private development. For example, large mature and/or specimen trees that are approved for removal should have a greater requirement in terms of mitigation, replacement plantings, and/or fees. Explore mitigation and penalties for the unauthorized removal of private protected trees (Chapter 167) and public trees (Chapter 177). Periodically review and update canopy goal requirements as needed. ❖ Gather feedback to determine if any changes are necessary for public and private tree variances to the regulations. Develop incentives and regulations for projects to meet the canopy cover requirements (%'s) rather than defaulting to mitigation. ❖ During the periodic update to the Tree Manual, review the recommended tree species for planting and revise as needed based on the latest research and goals for tree species diversity. Periodically revisit the invasive plant species list in section 177.09 of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances and update as needed based on the latest research, presence of species of concern, and the emergence of favorable habitats for new invasives to the region due to changing climates. ❖ Clarify roles and responsibilities for public street trees planted as part of private development projects (Chapter 177). Consider updating regulations for public street trees that are not planted as part of private development projects. ❖ Clarify regulations for trees in proximity or in conflict with overhead utilities. ❖ Review the evaluation table on the following page to finalize a scope of potential changes to tree -related ordinances. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 127 Table 22. Tree ordinance evaluation checklist. Source: Plan IT Geo Priority Level Key:1 = High Priority, 3 = Low Priority "—" = adequate regulations in place Credentials Requires certified arborist for paid X 167.07 - private tree work Requires certified arborist for public X 167.07 - tree work Requires licensing of private tree X 167.07 - care firms Defines official authority for public X Throughout tree management Ch.177 Public Tree Management and Protection Establishes/authorizes Urban Throughout Forester to regulate public trees X Ch. 177 Establishes/Authorizes City Defines the authority position (e.g., Mayor, City X 177.02.B and role of the Urban - Administrator, DPW Director) to Forestry Advisory Board regulate public trees Requires annual public tree work 2 plans Identifies formula for determining 1 monetary tree value Chapter 177 does not Establishes responsibility for public 177.05 define responsibility tree maintenance (e.g., City, X (Limited) beyond those street trees 1 177 adjacent property owner) .10 planted as part of private development Provided only for street Requires regular public tree 10 X (Limited) 177. trees planted as part of 1 maintenance private development (3 yea rs) Requires particular types of X 167.06.A maintenance (e.g., pruning) Requires adherence to ANSI A300 standards and best management X 167.06.A practices Establishes permit system for work 3 on public trees Establishes provisions for penalties 2 for non-compliance Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 128 t Public Tree Management and Protection (continued) Restricts public tree removal X 167.06.0 Permit or approval required for tree removal, pruning or excavating near public trees Prohibits damage to public trees "Damage" should be e. attaching wires (g'' g ropes, signs, X 177.01 defined and prohibited rather than "remove and chemicals, storing materials, 167.06.D replace damaged excavation etc.) landscape" Restricts burning of solid wood waste Establishes a wood utilization program Address pests/diseases of Establishes an insect/disease concern. Consider ability control strategy to remove diseased trees on private property if a hazard Defines tree maintenance Only applies to street requirements on public property X (Limited) 177.10 trees as part of private development Prohibits tree topping X 167.06.E Regulates abatement of hazardous X 167.08 or public nuisance trees Regulates removal of dead or X 167.08 diseased trees Only applies to street trees as part of private development. Consider Tree Fund X (Limited) 177.10.A.5.b adjusting $250 fee -in -lieu and $425 3-yea r maintenance fees to align with industry and comparable cities' rates Public Tree Planting Regulates tree species which may Update periodically or may not be planted on private X 167.04.1.6 based on research and property (approved tree list) trends Requires replacement of removed X (Limited) 177.01 Only applies to private publicly owned trees development street trees Regulates tree species which may 16 Revisit species list or may not be planted on public X periodically and update property (approved tree list) ,677.0 .0 as needed 3 2 1 1 1 2 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 129 Private Tree Protection and Preservation Requires tree planting around X 177,167.04 reconstructed parking lots Ch.167 Table 1 Requires tree plantings around X 167.04 Required for lots with 5 or new parking lots Ch.167 Table 1 more spaces Plantings are regulated in Requires tree plantings around new X 167.04.1.4 terms of canopy retention developments Ch.167 Table 1 and high or low priority canopy Consider fees / fines for Restricts tree removal on private X (Limited) 167.04.L.3 violation(s). Only property restricted in tree preservation easements Permit or approval required for tree X (Limited) 167.04 Only restricted in tree removal on private property preservation easements Requires preservation of trees Mitigation is an option during development on private X 167.04 and should be a last property resort to preservation Prohibits damage to X 167.05 preserved/protected trees Prohibits damage or removal of Mitigation is the only trees on another person's property X (Limited) 167.05 penalty though. Consider changes Inventory of trees on site required X 167.04 Requires a preservation plan Identification of forests/woodlands required ri red X 167.04 Revisit periodically to Specific species and/or size of trees determine if sizes reflect regulated (e.g., heritage/significant X (Limited) 167.04.E species significance and trees) value. Needs more protection in Code Location of Critical Root Specification provided in Zone/Dripline required X 167.05 Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual Table 1 Consider updating Minimum canopy coverage X 167.04.0 canopy requirements requirement set using the canopy assessment data and canopy goals as needed 3 2 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 130 Private Tree Protection and Preservation (continued) Identification of riparian buffers, X 167.04.E.2 natural areas, preservation zones Tree protection/preservation plan X 167.04 required Identification of prohibited activities X 167.05 Also in Tree Preservation in dripline/critical root zone and Landscape Manual Tree protection fencing required Location/type of other tree protection measures (e.g., root pruning, aeration, vertical mulching, trunk/soil protection, irrigation,) on development plans (e.g., site plans, construction plans, etc.) Provide incentives for tree preservation Landscape plan with proposed landscaping and mitigation trees to be planted Requires Grading plan to include protected/preserved trees Utility plan with trees to include protected/preserved trees 167.04.H.2 X 167.04.H.3 Chain link or orange 167.05. B fence required 167.04.H.2 X 167.04.H.3 167.05. B On- and off -site mitigation offered, fee -in - lieu toward Escrow X (Limited) 167.04.1 account. Reevaluate for 167.04.J additional incentives to preserve canopy rather than mitigate. No credits considered X 167.04 X 167.04.A.10 X (Limited) 167.06.J Consider referencing industry standards for utility pruning and to consult with Urban Forester for pruning or removing trees encroaching utilities (above and below ground, including proposed lights) 1 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 131 Private Tree Protection and Preservation (continued) Consider a 2:1 replacement ratio for significant specimen Tree planting req u i rements for removal of regulated trees X 167.04.0 special /priority trees or mitigation that is based on the diameter inches of tree(s) removed Determine if Escrow Fee in Lieu of planting mitigation Account fee per tree trees X 167.04.14 required and 3-year maintenance fee is adequate Tree mitigation survival Binding 3-year requirements X 167.10 maintenance and monitoring plan New tree planting survival Binding 3-year requirements X 167.10 maintenance and monitoring plan No penalties, fees, or Fine for removal of regulated trees fines listed. Only tree mitigation (planting) currently Penalties established for damage and removal of preserved/saved fines listed trees A tree bond requires a land developer to deposit a certain amount of money with the local Bonding utilized to discourage tree authority during removals development. If the identified tree or trees are not present and healthy after the development, the funds are forfeited. Tree Fund X 167.04.J.4 City's Tree Escrow 1 1 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 132 References Abbot, J., Hartel, D., Kidd, S., Macie, E., Mitchell, C., "Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Review" spreadsheet developed by Urban Forestry South (USDA Forest Service, Region 8, SRS- 4952, Athens, GA. Original checklist develop in cooperation with Agnes Scott College Office of Sustainability, the ASC Arboretum Advisory Council, and the City of Austin, TX, 2015. Alliance for Community Trees. 2011. Benefits of trees and urban forests: A research list. www.ac- trees.org. Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., et al., Particulate matter air pol- lution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association, National Library of Medicine, June 2010. Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., "A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability: Application to Cities in the Unit- ed States." Journal of Arboriculture 24(2): pp. 17-30, March 1997. Drescher, M. "Urban heating and canopy cover need to be considered as matters of environmental justice." National Library of Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), December 2019; 116(52): 26153-26154. Endreny, T.A. Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world. Nat Commun 9,1160 (2018). https:Hdoi.org/l0.1038/s41467-018-03622-0 Environmental Protection Agency, What Climate Change Means for Arkansas, EPA 430-F-16-006, August 2016. Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolu- tion and Systematics, 34, 487-515. Fowler, A. (Ed) 2015. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1678 pp. Hauer, R., Petersen, W., "Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities." 2016. Iverson, L.R., Peters, M.P., Prasad, A.M., and Matthews, S.N. (2019). Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on Tree Species of the Eastern US: Results of DISTRIB-II Modeling. Forests. 10(4): 302. https:Hdoi.org/l 0.3390/f10040302. Keet, C. A., Matsui, E. C., McCormack, M. C., Peng, R. D., Urban residence, neighborhood poverty, race/ethnicity, and asthma morbidity among children on Medicaid, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Volume 140, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 822-827, ISSN 0091-6749. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 484 pp. Kim Y. J., Kim, E. J. Neighborhood Greenery as a Predictor of Outdoor Crimes between Low and High -Income Neighborhoods. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 25;17(5):1470. Konijnendijk, C., "Promoting health and wellbeing through urban forests — Introducing the 3-30-300 rule, Linkedln, February 2021. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 133 Leahy, I. (2017). Why We No Longer Recommend a 40 Percent Urban Tree Canopy Goal. American Forests, americanforests.org. Accessed January 2023. McPherson, G.E., 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban For- estry & Urban Greening 17 (2016) 104-115. Mihandoust, S., Joseph, A., Kennedy, S., MacNaughton, P., Woo, M. Exploring the Relationship be- tween Window View Quantity, Quality, and Ratings of Care in the Hospital. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 12;18(20). Miller, R. W. (1988). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Pren- tice Hall. Miller, R. W., Hauer, R. J., & Werner, L. P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Green - spaces, Third Edition. Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC). Regional and Community Planning. Accessed February 2023, nwarpc.org. Pontius, R. and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation dis- agreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 32, 15: 4407-4429. Richards, N. A. 1983. "Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population." Urban Ecology 7(2):159- 171. Richards, N.A. 1993. Reasonable guidelines for street tree diversity. Journal of Arboriculture 19:344-349. Roman, Lara, Battles, John J., McBride, Joe R. (2014) Determinants of establishing survival for resi- dential trees in Sacramento County, CA. Landscape and Urban Planning. 22-31. Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J., Margules, C. R., Conservation Biology, Volume 5, No. 1, pp. 18-32. "Bio- logical Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review." March 1991. Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., "Children With Attention Deficits Concentrate Better After Walk in the Park," Journal of Attention Disorders 12.5 (2009): 402-409. Ulmer, J.M.; Wolf, K.L.; Backman, D.R.; Tretheway, R.L.; Blain, C.J.; O'Neil -Dunne, J.P.; Frank, L.D. Mul- tiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health Place 2016, 42, 54-62. Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., van den Bosch, M., Bardekjian, A. C., "Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2020. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area Data Pamphlet, Washington County, Arkansas. Accessed February 2023, woodsandpoole.com. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 134 ph 0. Alf to lb -,Jul IL 1p Su lemen LfA N-4 SUPPLEMENTS 1. Urban Forestry Benchmarks Budget Comparison 2. Canopy Goal Setting and Priority Areas Planting Priority Maps Prairie Maps 3. Tree Canopy Inventory Species Distribution Ecosystem Benefits 4. Public Survey Summary 5. Staff and Board Member Survey Summary 6. US Forest Service Urban Forest Audit 7. Recommended Tree list and Sister City Climate City Assessment Future Climate Comparison Climate Change Species Recommendation Climate Adaptation Report 8. Invasive Plant Species Program Review 9. 2012 Fayetteville Urban Tree Canopy Report `F, 1 it. 1 URBAN FOREST BENCHMARKS Last Updated: 8/30/2023 A comparison summary of analogous Arkansas Tree City USA cities for the. - City of Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan CITY OF 05I _ FAYETTEVILLE PlanffGeo" A R K A N S A S ,, developers of TreePlotter MW PIanITGeo aeeiove.s a r.eeoione. CONTENTS Background and Overview....................................................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................................................................................1 Benchmarking Data Sources....................................................................................................................................1 Phase I Benchmarking Research........................................................................................................................2 Summary of Communities for Benchmarking Research...........................................................................2 Comparison Cities & Comparison Groups.......................................................................................................2 Phase I Benchmarking Comparison........................................................................................................................3 UrbanForestry Budgets (2021)...............................................................................................................................3 UrbanForestry Activities..........................................................................................................................................10 Table Summary of Urban Forestry Budgets and Activities(2021)...................................................15 Budgetper Capita Summary (2021)..................................................................................................................16 Phase II Benchmarking Research....................................................................................................................17 UrbanForestry Budgets............................................................................................................................................17 Comparison of Public Tree Counts, Distribution, and Value..............................................................19 Phase III Benchmarking Research.......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. sw PIanITGeo aeeiove�s a r�eeoione� TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1. Communities benchmarked for the Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan.................2 Table 2. Complete table summary of all benchmarking metrics in Phase 1(2021).............................................15 Table 3. Summary of urban forestry budgets compared to city populations (per capita) in 2021............16 Figures Figure 1. Comparison of urban forestry budgets in 2021........................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Comparison of urban forestry budgets per capita in 2021..............................................................................4 Figure 3. Comparison of tree planting and initial care budgets in 2021......................................................................5 Figure 4. Comparison of tree maintenance budgets in 2021.............................................................................................6 Figure 5. Comparison of tree removal budgets in 2021..........................................................................................................7 Figure 6. Comparison of management budgets in 2021.......................................................................................................8 Figure 7. Comparison of other expenditures in 2021................................................................................................................9 Figure 8. Comparison of volunteer hours in 2021.....................................................................................................................10 Figure 9. Comparison of the number of trees planted in 2021.........................................................................................11 Figure 10. Comparison of the number of trees pruned in 2021.......................................................................................12 Figure 11. Comparison of the number of trees removed in 2021.....................................................................................13 Figure 12. Combined comparison summary of tree management activities in 2021........................................14 Figure 13. Comparison of urban forestry budgets (Hauer, 2014).....................................................................................17 Figure 14. Urban forestry budget compared to the total municipal budget (Hauer, 2014) ..........................17 Figure 15. Total municipal budgets (Hauer, 2014).....................................................................................................................18 Figure 16. Average budget per public tree (Hauer, 2014).....................................................................................................18 Figure 17. Comparison of urban forestry budget per capita (Hauer, 2014)..............................................................18 Figure 18. Comparison of the number of public trees (Hauer, 2014)............................................................................19 Figure 19. Comparison of public trees per capita (Hauer, 2014)......................................................................................19 Figure 20. Comparison of the number of public trees per full-time tree care employee (Hauer,2014)19 Figure 21. Comparison of the acres of public parks and open space (Hauer, 2014)..........................................20 Figure 22. Comparison of the value of public trees (Hauer, 2014).................................................................................20 wo Plan Geo Background The purpose of Urban Forest Benchmarking is to understand the level of effort and capacity necessary to satisfy the City's adopted goals, to identify industry trends and best practices, and to ensure urban forest sustainability. Benchmarks help to gauge the City's investment in its urban forest compared to other communities facing similar issues in urban forest management. The results of the benchmarking exercise enable the urban forestry planning consultants to develop realistic strategies and achievable targets that align with comparable communities and industry standards. It will also serve as one platform and tool for monitoring implementation of Fayetteville, AR's Urban Forest Management Plan (in development as of January2023). BENCHMARKING DATA SOURCES Several data sources were reviewed and compiled to evaluate how Fayetteville's urban forest and associated programs compare to industry standards and communities of a similar size or geographic location and how its own operations have changed over time. Phase I of the benchmarking process uses the Arbor Day Foundation's Tree City USA 2021 dataset and compares statistics provided by the City of Fayetteville and as reported to Arbor Day for Tree City USA accreditation. The dataset includes program metrics for over 3,700 communities and the data is used to identify cities of similar size, location, and program structure TREE CITY USS ARBOR DAY FOUNDXrtON that also participate in the Tree City USA program. Using this dataset helps better understand how Fayetteville's urban forestry budget and activities compare to relevant cities. Relevant cities are determined by 1) proximity (within 50 and 100 miles of city center), 2) population size (percent difference and cities with more than 90,000 but less than 200,000 people), and cities outside of these parameters but are areas of interest. The Tree City USA dataset is largely focused on urban forestry budgets, per capita funding information, and volunteer hours. The number of trees planted, removed, and pruned are also summarized. The budget from Tree City USA application includes all departments, equipment, vehicles, and volunteer hours. It does not represent the budgeted amount for Urban Forestry Tree plantings. Phase II of benchmarking involves comparing Fayetteville's urban forestry M.M'CipaiT's.Care operations to findings from an in-depth study conducted by researchers and Management in the United States Richard Hauer and Ward Peterson (2014). In this study, researchers A.,.rr..rAs rtrt,,,,rtrt FomT Lertslr+af Tree Acr1e11Y+ interviewed urban forestry programs in various regions across the U.S. and among varying population classes. A total of 670 communities participated in the census. Specific study focus areas include community and staff profiles, funding, tree management policy and planning, volunteers and partnerships, contracting tree care activities, community tree populations, tree operations and management, and assistance programs. Data from this study was compared to data obtained from the City of Fayetteville for the purposes of determining program health as compared to accurate data across a range of scales and locations. Phase III of benchmarking is comprised of presenting the findings to the City and allowing time for any further data collection or clarifications in order to ensure the highest quality analysis. This phase also includes internal quality controls to ensure data comparisons are as accurate as possible. Information gathered during this process will inform the development of realistic and attainable goals and strategies in the City's Urban Forest Management Plan. Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Pagel of20 Plan Geo Summary of Communities for Benchmarking Research Understanding the urban forest policies, management approaches, budgets, and programs of comparable communities and nationwide averages provides comparative data to benchmark the City's performance, present and future. While existing tree data describes the current conditions, benchmarks offer guidance to bring Fayetteville's urban forestry policies and practices into alignment with similar -sized cities in Arkansas and nationwide, enhancing urban forest management. A summary of the cities used for benchmarking Fayetteville can be found in (Table 1) below. COMPARISON CITIES & COMPARISON GROUPS Table 1. Communities benchmarked for the Favetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan STUDYAREA Fayetteville Washington 93,580 0 0.0 AR Cities >25k Pop Springdale, AR Washington/Benton 87,609 -5,971 8.9 AR Cities >25k Pop Rogers, AR Benton 71,112 -22,468 22.7 AR Cities >25k Pop Bentonville, AR Benton 56,734 -36,846 27.0 AR Cities >25k Pop Bella Vista, AR Benton 30,808 -62,772 34.8 AR Cities >25k Pop Fort Smith, AR Sebastian 89,576 -4,004 58.1 AR Cities >25k Pop Conway, AR Faulkner 65,121 -28,459 159.7 AR Cities >25k Pop Hot Springs, AR Garland 38,114 -55,466 185.9 AR Cities >25k Pop N. Little Rock, AR Pulaski 64,162 -29,418 187.0 City Interest Lawrence, KS Douglas 98,193 4,613 267.4 City Interest Columbia, MO Boone 126,853 33,273 314.7 Pop. Group Nation Springfield, MO Greene 169,724 76,144 150.3 Pop. Group Nation Topeka, KS Shawnee 125,963 32,383 293.8 Pop. Group Nation Norman, OK Cleveland 128,097 34,517 243.0 Pop. Group Nation Champaign, IL Champaign 90,739 -2,841 541.1 Pop. Group Nation Asheville, NC Buncombe 93,350 -230 822.2 Pop. Group Nation Edmond, OK Oklahoma 93,697 117 211.6 Pop. Group Nation Reading, PA Berks 95,112 1,532 1204.6 Pop. Group Nation Fishers, IN Hamilton 99,116 5,536 628.7 AVERAGE•• Comparison Criteria Pop.* Difference State Average 22,685 -70,895 Nationwide Average 42,602 -50,878 * Population as of 2021 TC USA reporting ** Driving distance from the study area in miles After the City reviewed the draft list of communities, the list was refined as shown above and the following summaries were updated to serve as the second round of benchmarking. Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 2 of20 i• PIanITCeo" Phase I Benchmarking Comparison URBAN FORESTRY BUDGETS (2021) Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets (2021) $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $581,850 $1,000,000$609,943 $500,000 ' $0 $2,388,206 $1,137,388 $2,190,578 a\a' eta ,\\a' G`r' \a \� �' e' Q-°o� °c °ems` Qq° ��a� ��� ��\° '�° G �Q�°�' ' °o o`er `�°\ Q�\� bra P� �a Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) $609,943 *Fayetteville, AR* $1,159,730 $581,850 $21,313 Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 1. Comparison of urban forestry budgets in 2027 195,387 $372,930 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 3 of20 Fi I rPIanITGeo" ae ei­s &T-1-1 Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets per Capita (2021) $18.00 $17.10 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $g 28 $10.00 $8.00 $6.52 $6.00 $5.07 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 P�` a� 00� • P� P� P� P� a`Gr o&:1 '�o e ,ot 00 a Pia **P $6.52 $12.76 I 1 I PQ PQ PQ PQ 1P O O O�- 04- QPP Qo �a�`�\ Qo �a Qa o�� o� Go �o Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets per Capita to Regional Averages (2021) $9.28 $5.07 $5.53 $12.26 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Nationwide Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 2. Comparison of urban forestry budgets per capita in 2027 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Bench marking Su m ma ry Jan2023 Page 4 of20 PIanITCeo' ae e1-11ort,ea —1 Comparison of Tree Planting and Initial Care Budgets (2021) $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $99,952 $200,000 $100,000 $24,396 $666,696 $670,413 $0 _ _101.11.I I O O Q a -A, tea, 0' �P Comparison of Tree Planting and Initial Care Budgetsto Regional Averages (2021) $24,396 0 *Fayetteville, AR* $153,857 $99,952 $68,715 - $2,015 - Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Nationwide Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 3. Comparison of tree planting and initial care budgets in 2027 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Su mmary Jan2023 Page 5of20 MW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 Comparison of Tree Maintenance Budgets (2021) $1,000,000 $923,181 $900,000 $800,000 665,665 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $432,192 $392,173 $400,000 $122,133 $300,000 155,980 $200,000 $100,000 $0 — Q �`� O� QP e P �� tee' t�' �o' �a' • �'�' a�' cam' c, �a a .�� tea' o,' °a' o� �t� e ��° ��°R ot� �9 roJ �o oaf ' °o �o� r���a Goy ���\� Gra P� �a '° Comparison of Tree Maintenance Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) $352,957 $155,980 $122,133 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure 4. Comparison of tree maintenance budgets in 2027 $5,495 State Average $108,783 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 6 of20 ��IPIanITCeo- Comparison of Tree Removal Budgets (2021) $500,000 $462,698 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $238,994 $250,000 $198 979 $200,000 $167,741 $150,000$125, $ 9 988 $ 0:000 $50000 $0 * ** Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O O �� P� G P O c, O Q �, Gam, oo tea' �a ate, `a' Oo' t�� o� o, �J J` t���Q° �o� �'p so ode �� �a e �, o �o� G o �� **P�o $125,299 Comparison of Tree Removal Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) $86,988 $162,678 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure 5. Comparison of tree removal budgets in 2027 $5,406 State Average $65,387 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 7of20 MW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 Comparison of Management Budgets (2021) $900,000 $836,484 $800,000 $700,000 685,430 $600,000 $500,000 $339,617 $400,000 $338,115 $335,631 $386,903 $300,000 $200,000 172,003 $100,000 $0 * ** Q Q Q - P P Q Q ` P Q- N` O O O � �� L O4 P `� `� �, Q cam' e, ,�a �d o� ooy a �� o�� ���� o ��a� � e ok�o��Q-�o1�. �� �, �, � �a G��t�.�• � Gra P� tea Q- �o $338,115 Comparison of Management Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) $172,003 $261,233 $81,257 $8,227 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Nationwide Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 6. Comparison of management budgets in 2027 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 8 of20 MW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 Comparison of Other Expenditures (2021) $700,000 $600,000 $578,400 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $274,030 $200,000 $109,750 $100,000 $53,769 ' $59,306 $o $01 a�, co' . a,.0; �o' d' �� o� �o�0o ����a �o(' Go�o����� Go4� *� 01 taro �o� **P�e Comparison of Other Expenditures to Regional Averages (2021) $170,993 $53,769 $0 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure 7. Comparison of other expenditures in 2027 $277 State Average $25,866 0 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 9of20 IN 'PIanITCeo" `I ae ei­sor..ea 1-1 URBAN FORESTRY ACTIVITIES Comparison of Volunteer Hours (2021) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,300 1,000 925 500 372 1 2,648 793 609 � � I Pq �� �� �� �� O�- 04- �Ne �Gr a�a' ot�' ,�\'°' \��a' ��' a�' ��' °`t' c,°' �a �� �a' ate' .�� �\a' "' e' ��a �.��'a Q°°� �� J �`�� �,°� �Q� . �� ��e ��� �d'�\ '1°� °�� a�� ��o, ate° aaa 11<0 0 �a �a �a :P 1,300 Comparison of Volunteer Hours to Regional Averages (2021) *Fayetteville, AR* 1,169 372 Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure B. Comparison of volunteer hours in 2027 99 State Average 354 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 10 of20 MW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 Comparison of Trees Planted (2021) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 735 600 400 314 1 200 ' 1,764 0 - _ I .0 1 _ * ** Q Q Q Q l Q Q -q O O �� C. P P� o� P P P P P P P P `� �` �` `� O c, O Q a' Q �° 0\\a °��`' �,° 'K�Q ����o \a� G°�� ��\c� Gr�� Per < 6qo 583 1,149 ok �r J� P Comparison of Trees Planted to Regional Averages (2021) 735 314 657 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure 9. Comparison of the number of trees planted in 2027 34 State Average 260 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page11 of20 No qW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,383 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,230 1,000 ' Comparison of Trees Pruned (2021) 6,774 4,365 L2,680 1,806 1,546 4P p O�- �� �G O�- Q, P o a oG to ce° oc a o a��o�° o��r G' �a to J� P Comparison of Trees Pruned to Regional Averages (2021) 4,383 1,230 2,555 M M L128 _ *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 70. Comparison of the number of trees pruned in 2027 M Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Su mmary Jan2023 Page12of20 MW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 Comparison of Trees Removed (2021) 700 .e. - We 500 400 287 300 200 131 ,00 '0 _ 406 310 288 225 k- \\I IG Olt- 0 e a o �G Q end e� ate' ° to Q e� ° er 0(1� L° °��� �e \a� G°�J�dot Graff Pei �at� lea 1<� 0 to P 287 �y 10 Comparison of Trees Removed to Regional Averages (2021) *Fayetteville, AR* 352 131 Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure 77. Comparison of the number of trees removed in 2027 13 State Average 135 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 13 of20 Fi I rPIanITCeo" ae ei­s &T-1-1 Comparison of All Tree Maintenance Activities (2021) 7,000 .m 5,000 4,383 4,000 3,000 735 2,000 287 1,000 0 1 P e`' a�Gr as aJ��e 0 �a to J� P 1 1 1 111 - I .__ III .__ 11- .I. PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ `��' �O 4O 0+ 04- QP Va� GO�J �o ■ Number of Trees Planted ■ Number of Trees Pruned ■ Number of Trees Removed Comparison of All Maintenance Activities to Regional Averages (2021) 735 *Fayetteville, AR* 4,383 287 314 Average of Best Matches 1,230 P1 3131 MM 657 Average of >90k & <200k Populations 2,555 352 34 State Average 128 13 260 Nationwide Average MEM 1,069 P135 ■ Number of Trees Planted ■ Number of Trees Pruned ■ Number of Trees Removed Figure 72. Combined comparison summary of tree management activities in 2027 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Su mmary Jan2023 Page 14of20 IF PIanITCeo" ae eio I&T-1-1 TABLE SUMMARY OF URBAN FORESTRY BUDGETS AND ACTIVITIES (2021) ***Average of >90k & <200k $153,857 $352,957 $162,678 $261,233 $58,013 $170,993 $1,159,730 Populations*** Springdale, AR $600 $300 $1,450 $1,400 $0 $0 $3,750 Rogers, AR $700 $1,400 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $3,600 Bentonville, AR $229 $0 $0 $20 $0 $0 $249 Bella Vista, AR $800 $200 $225 $75 $0 $0 $1,300 Fort Smith, AR $3,900 $1,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Conway, AR $680 $384 $0 $121 $0 $31 $1,216 Hot Springs, AR $734 $6,000 $350 $0 $0 $0 $7,084 N. Little Rock, AR $8,790 $500 $580 $680 $0 $100 $10,650 Lawrence, KS $112,105 $432,192 $198,979 $120,082 $0 $274,030 $1,137,388 Columbia, MO $52,595 $52,595 $105,191 $339,617 $0 $0 $549,998 Springfield, MO $666,696 $923,181 $462,698 $335,631 $0 $0 $2,388,206 Topeka, KS $15,302 $665,665 $84,165 $65,531 $0 $0 $830,663 Norman, OK $123,521 $392,173 $10,000 $836,484 $250,000 $578,400 $2,190,578 Champaign, IL $84,566 $117,944 $126,849 $685,430 $0 $0 $1,014,789 Asheville, NC $33,155 $42,587 $238,994 $55,908 $0 $109,750 $480,394 Edmond, OK $670,413 $80,522 $57,549 $386,903 $0 $0 $1,195,387 Reading, PA $9,911 $4,835 $167,741 $75,567 $0 $0 $258,054 Fishers, IN $90,000 $120,000 $72,600 $25,000 $0 $59,306 $366,906 Table 2. Complete table summary of all benchmarking metrics in Phase / (2027) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 15 of20 PlaniTGeo" BUDGET PER CAPITA SUMMARY (2021) ***Average of >90k & <200k Populations*** $1,159,730 11� $9.21M Springdale, AR $3,750 $0.04 Rogers, AR $3,600 $0.05 Bentonville, AR $249 $0.00 Bella Vista, AR $1,300 $0.04 Fort Smith, AR $5,000 $0.06 Conway, AR $1,216 $0.02 Hot Springs, AR $7,084 $0.19 North Little Rock, AR $10,650 $0.17 Lawrence, KS $1,137,388 $11.58 Columbia, MO $549,998 $4.34 Springfield, MO $2,388,206 $14.07 Topeka, KS $830,663 $6.59 Norman, OK $2,190,578 $17.10 Champaign, IL . $1,014,789 $11.18 Asheville, NC $480,394 $5.15 Edmond, OK $1,195,387 $12.76 Reading, PA $258,054 $2.71 Fishers, IN $366,906 $3.70 Table 3. Summary of urban forestry budgets compared to city populations (per capita) in 2021 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Bench marking SummaryJan2023 Page 16 of20 i� Plan Geo11 Note: The following comparisons use Fayetteville's 2021 metrics whereas the metrics for the comparison populations are based on 2014 data. The urban forestry planning consultants will need 2014 metrics from the City or data from the US Forest Service for 2021 in order to finalize the Phase II benchmarking. The following study is a preliminary exercise intended for internal use and for initial comparisons from which strategies may be developed. URBAN FORESTRY BUDGETS Average Annual Forestry Budget $801,595 $829,105 $646,501 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Figure 73. Comparison of urban forestry budgets (Hauer, 2074) Tree Program Budget as a Percentage of Total Budget 0.52% ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across U.S. 0.53% Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Figure 74. Urban forestry budget compared to the total municipal budget (Hauer, 2074) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 17 of20 MW Iw PIanITCeo" ae ei-ort,ea 1.9 Total Municipal Budget (Excluding Schools) Sian Qia nnn $200,316,126 $215,976,004 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across Southern Region Figure 75. Total municipal budgets (Hauer, 2074) ■ Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across50k-99k Population Group Average Budget per Public Tree ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across Southern Region Figure 76. Average budget per public tree (Hauer, 2074) $60.52 ■ Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Forestry Budget per Capita $8.76 $9.40 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across U.S. Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Figure 17. Comparison of urban forestry budget per capita (Hauer, 2074) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 18 of20 Fi I rPIanITCeo" ae ei­ ort,eaPIIn COMPARISON OF PUBLIC TREE COUNTS, DISTRIBUTION, AND VALUE NumberofPublicTrees 70,122 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across Southern Region ■ Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Figure 78. Comparison of the number ofpublic trees (Hauer, 2074) Public Trees Per Capita 1.11 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across Southern Region ■ Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Figure 79. Comparison ofpublic trees per capita (Hauer, 2074) Number of Public Trees per Full-time Tree Care Employee 11,747 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across Southern Region ■ Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Figure 20. Comparison of the number ofpublic trees per full-time tree care employee (Hauer, 2074) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 19 of20 MW Iw PIanITCeo" ae ei-ort,ea 1.9 Acres of City -managed Parks & Open Space 4,142 ■ Fayetteville, AR ■ Average Across U.S. ■ Average Across Southern Region ■ Average Across SOk-99k Population Group Figure 27. Comparison of the acres ofpublic parks and open space (Hauer, 2074) Value of Public Trees* $130,646,460 Fayetteville, AR Average Public Tree Value Average Public Tree Value Average Across SOk-99k Across U.S. Across Southern Region Population Group * Value of Fayetteville'5 public trees is based on the $7.3 million in ecosystem benefits and services ($110.63 per tree on average) plus the structural value of public trees estimated at $3,,000 per tree on average based on regional research. Figure 22. Comparison of the value ofpublic trees (Hauer, 2074) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 20 of20 < � _ _ � _ _ _ !. . - .. - - � � Tff t � ' � � Ta f' 7l � iy L _L1f!� _ i �.1 \ J ��,, � �. •• �y ti � �F1�>{ _ _ t _L +�t� y c ` i � 7Y tf � � � - � 4 � i � �. �i }t�r�•A CanopyGoa Isfor Consideration 3 Starting Total New Starting New TotalTrees TotalAdded TotalCarbon Milestones YearRange CityAcres CanopyAc CanopyAc Canopy% Canopy% Added Benefits Seg. (I bs) Year 1 2023 35,712 14,081 14,105 39.4% 39.5% 1,000 $18,559 149,592 Years 2-5 2024-2027 35,712 14,105 14,244 39.5% 40% 6,000 $111,354 897,552 Years 6-8 2028-2030 35,712 14,244 14,396 40% 40% 6,500 $120,634 972,348 Years9-10 2031-2032 35,712 14,396 14,512 40% 40.6% 5,000 $92,795 747,960 Years 11-15 2033-2037 35,712 14,512 14,815 41% 41% 13,000 $241,267 1,944,696 Years 16-18 2038-2040 35,712 14,815 15,025 41% 42% 9,000 $167,031 1,346,328 Years 19-20 2041-2042 35,712 15,025 15,165 42% 42.5% 6,000 $111,354 897,552 Years 21-25 2043-2047 35,712 15,165 15,619 42% 44% 19,500 $361,901 2,917,044 Years 26-28 2048-2050 35,712 15,619 15,969 44% 45% 15,000 $278,385 2,243,880 Years 29-30 2051-2052 35,712 15,969 16,202 45% 45% 10,000 $185,590 1,495,920 Minus 10% cumulative canopy loss = 44.4% in 30 years (2023 - 2052). Considers 10% will be small canopy trees, 30% medium canopy, and 60% large canopy trees. A 10-year goal requires a total of 18,500 trees with an average of 1,850 trees per year If pursuing a 30-year goal, 91,000 total trees needed with an average of 3,000 trees per year needed. Scenario B) Detailed Planting Targets to Establish a 10-year Canopy Goal 4 All Plantings: New - .. TotalCity CanopyAcCanopy% Scenarios(# Acres Canopy New% Ecosystem LargeTrees Carbon Milestone Yea r Acres (2019) (2019) of Trees) Added Acres Canopy Benefits (249.32lbs/tree) Sequestered Year 1 2023 35,712 14,081 39.40/6 1,000 23.3 14,105 39.5% $18,559 149,592 149,592 2024 35,712 14,081 39% 1,000 23.3 14,128 40% $18,559 149,592 149,592 2025 35,712 14,081 39% 1,500 35.0 14,163 40% $27,839 224,388 224,388 2026 35,712 14,081 39% 1,500 35.0 14,198 40% $27,839 224,388 224,388 Year 5 2027 35,712 14,081 39% 2,000 46.6 14,244 40% $37,118 299,184 299,184 2028 35,712 14,081 39% 2,000 46.6 14,291 40% $37,118 299,184 299,184 2029 35,712 14,081 39% 2,000 46.6 14,338 40% $37,118 299,184 299,184 Year 8 2030 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,396 40% $46,398 373,980 373,980 2031 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,454 40% $46,398 373,980 373,980 Year 10 2032 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,512 40.6% $46,398 373,980 373,980 2033 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,571 41% $46,398 373,980 373,980 2034 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,629 41% $46,398 373,980 373,980 2035 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,687 41% $46,398 373,980 373,980 2036 35,712 14,081 39% 2,500 58.3 14,745 41% $46,398 373,980 373,980 Year 15 2037 35,712 14,081 39% 3,000 69.9 14,815 41% $55,677 448,776 448,776 2038 35,712 14,081 39% 3,000 69.9 14,885 42% $55,677 448,776 448,776 2039 35,712 14,081 39% 3,000 69.9 14,955 42% $55,677 448,776 448,776 Year18 2040 35,712 14,081 39% 3,000 69.9 15,025 42% $55,677 448,776 448,776 2041 35,712 14,081 39% 3,000 69.9 15,095 42% $55,677 448,776 448,776 Year 20 2042 35,712 14,081 39.4% 3,000 69.9 15,165 42.5% $55,677 448,776 448,776 2043 35,712 14,081 39% 3,000 69.9 15,235 43% $55,677 448,776 448,776 2044 35,712 14,081 39% 3,500 81.6 15,316 43% $64,957 523,572 523,572 2045 35,712 14,081 39% 4,000 93.2 15,409 43% $74,236 598,368 598,368 2046 35,712 14,081 39% 4,000 93.2 15,503 43% $74,236 598,368 598,368 Year 25 2047 35,712 14,081 39% 5,000 116.5 15,619 44% $92,795 747,960 747,960 2048 35,712 14,081 39% 5,000 116.5 15,736 44% $92,795 747,960 747,960 2049 35,712 14,081 39% 5,000 116.5 15,852 44% $92,795 747,960 747,960 Year 28 2050 35,712 14,081 39% 5,000 116.5 15,969 45% $92,795 747,960 747,960 2051 35,712 14,081 39% 5,000 116.5 16,085 45% $92,795 747,960 747,960 Year 30 2052 35,712 14,081 39.4% 5,000 1165 16,202 45.4% $92,795 747,960 747,960 ScenarioB) Milestones for40.6%Canopy in10years 5 Canopy Canopy Starting New Trees Trees per Added Sequestered Year 1 thru Year 5 2023-2027 35,712 14,081 14,244 39.4% 39.9% 7,000 1,400 $129,913 1,047,144 Year 6 thru Year 10 2028-2032 35,712 14,244 14,512 39.9% 40.6% 11,500 2,300 $213,429 1,720,308 Scenario B) Estimated Costs for 40.6% Canopy in 10Years 0 2023 - 2032 39.4% 40.6% 1.2% 18,500 $343,342 2,767,452 1,850 $408 $754,486 $7,544,855 ( ' _ 1 VMS=Nwmlln O t � ' fA9 1. Low Tree Canopy Map , - --- 10,93 4 utz� . mzu 10221 .r ,uz,o m ,a¢n Im�a Inx I. Aritrym • 1 f<Ililw N'�ur<nn HouVu ♦�i u.l: 1�u: Vnir� ri Priority Planting Areas Legend ❑ City Boundary Block Groups with <25% tree canopy cover Block Groups with <35% tree canopy cover ppp�yyy S' �� I�hnaon v+"nD Low Income & Tree Canopy Map Li a q� Pt� � m3D 1 R 1' � M1I�IM Mvm wn Nwnn .oD \�oNve�n i r M ILS -94.1868,35.9824 Soak 1:50392 Ma7voet 100% Rotation 0.0 ❑ City Boundary Block Group Boundary Block Groups with Low Income Populations and Low Tree Canopy -- -`'� ❑ City Boundary I�hnaon ^anon 149 0-63 TES Tree Equity Score Map 64-79 TES 80-89 TES 1 . 90-99 TES 100 TES ,-L—j J P. Canopy at Risk Citywide S Canopy Cover Vulnerable and Exclusion Area Map Prairie University Vulnerable Easements I 09 -3 Me; T +^ IK, I ti 261 Percent People of Color (All People Not White Non -Hispanic, US Census Bureau American Co m u n ity Su rvey 2014-2018 Sou rce) Percent People . Color ❑ City Boundary 0-10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 1. 4 . 30 - 40%`I �f . >40% rs Urban Heat (Surface Temperature Data from USGS Landsat 8 imagery, thermal bands) 16 Average Surface Temperature ❑ City Boundary 7S - 80 80-81 81-82 . 82 - 83 .83-8S Qo Ej 4 Health Risk (Self -reported Poor Mental Health, Poor Physical Health, Asthma, & Coronary Heart Disease -CDC Source) Health.- ❑ City Boundary Low Risk Moderate Risk i High Risk � l i t Summary of Priority Planting Area Scenarios I'j Low Tree Ca nopy (<35%) Tree Equity Score <80 Low Income & Tree Canopy % People of Color Vulnerable& Exclusion Areas Average Surface Temperature Development & Future Land Use Health Risk I ndex Analysis of the Populations in 13 Poverty Compared to the Mean Canopy Cover (35.6%) Comparing Tree Canopy Cover (35.6%) and Poverty Populations 10% 0 �o Li r? 5% 14 CBGs, 7% 0 11 CBGs,5% c U U 10 0% H c0 6 CBGs, -3% 9 CBGs, -5% -5% E O 4 N U -10% 7 CBGs, -12% 0 -15% 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% % of People in Poverty Analysis of the Populations of Color Compared to the Mean Can o py Cover (35.6%) Comparing Mean Tree Canopy Coverage (35.6%) and Populations of Color 10% 0 Qq M 5% 24 CBGs, 6% Q 0 c r� U 0% 0 C (B -5% 20 CBGs, -5% 0 0 U C ED -10% n 3 CBGs, -14% -15% 0 - 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 80% 80 -100% People of Color % Analysis of Surface Temperatures is and the Mean Canopy Cover (35.6%) Comparing Mean Tree Ca nopy Coverage (35.6%) and Mean Surface Temperature Percentiles 20% 8 CBGs,18% 01 15% LO M Q O 10% c U 5% 0 2 CBGs, 5% 1 CBG, 0% MA 0 CBGs, 0% � 0% E 0 LI N -5% U C N i -10% 14 CBGs, -11% 0 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% Mean Surface Temperature Percentile 12 42,000 Trees Needed for Al Census Block Groups to Have a Tree Eq u ity Score of at Least 75. Citywide Canopy Would = 43% I u AR 156 � Nc.�nn b .b� < Ilvu. Ail m Allil`. L,u,a;,.. Fount Sp Tree • Scores PF ❑ City Boundary Block Groups with < 75 TES 17,350 Trees Needed to 500 Acres of Canopy Added Bring All Low Block Groups & Citywide UTC = 41% if to 39% Tree Canopy 149_ b�; I m plemented 3;7TO,o,9, 300 _ 200' 700 so 70 600 M350 500 250 5,500 1,700 D�.6 � n,iM M..u.w.� Nwnu 5ppp _ All ILS Hate -94.1868,35,9824 Soak 1:50392 Mawwoet l00% Rotawn 0.0 ❑ City Boundary Block Groups with <25% tree canopy cover Block Groups with <35% tree canopy cover # Number of trees needed to reach City UTC of 39% Exclusion or Vulnerable Areas AOL ..►�, . � Underwoocl�- r ., � J Vreser =1 :1 be � y t ` y _ -apt:•, = � '�'��. r . ,� '� �-r9 elk �►: i � Row a -.. 1 . r Protected Prairie -related Areas Acres TOTAL 252 acres i� .r . 'J _ f I University of Arkansas Canopy 231 University cres �; 377.0 W. 20 LY VV tZ: k- I tZ: -D Citywide Canopy Acres Citywide Canopy % 22.0 6% 35,712 14,081.24 39.43% Citywide Canopy Acres Excluding University 14,059.27 Citywide Canopy% Excluding University 39.37% n. U n iversity of Arkansas property Oe Canopy within University of Arkansas property Easements Example Y L— Easement_ Access Easement Null Easement_Avigation Easement_ Conservation ❑ Easement -Drainage :.�;■ Easement_Utilities(Gas-Water-Sewe r-Other) Easement -Grading �■ Easement -Landscape Easement_ Private Easement -Sidewalk Easement -Telephone Easement -Trail ■ Easement TreePreservation CEasement -Vacated I IMT Mili�r �f line /J i /MINE Ie - t ffiba- us 0 Conservation(?), Tree Preservation Access, Null(?), Avigation, Drainage, Access, Landscape, Sidewalk, Trail, Utilities, Grading, Landscape, Private, Vacated Sidewalk, Telephone, Trail, Vacated 44 Canopy in At Risk Easements 1,015.0 Access, Null, Avigation, Drainage, Utilities, Grading, Landscape, Private, Sidewalk, Telephone, Trail, Vacated rCanopy at Riskin Easements 25% Applying Canopy Goals & Priority Planting Areas with Consideration of Exclusion Areas Priority Planting in Civic Institutional Land Use Areas to Achieve Canopy Goals 1) Identify 281 land use 2) Verifyand confirm the canopygoal and number oftreesto plantforthe land use and priority planting r'Future Land Use CurrentCanopy%.. ..Trees per Year a reas Urban Center 16% 16% 30 1 r � �r City Neighborhood 30% 31% 30 106 ❑ City Boundary ■ Civic Institutional Land Use 75 - 80 80-81 81-82 ■ 82 - 83 ■ 83 - 85 4) Identify Possible Planting Area in p riority a rea fo r t he land use and determine planting locations Residential Neighborhood 41% 46% 30 1,050 48% S3% 30 1,032 Non -Muni Government 17% 19% 30 55 Natural 62% 65% 30 480 30% 30% 30 3 3) Identify and remove non-plantable areas (university, easements, prairie) ❑ City Boundary Civic Institutional Land Use University grounds, vulnerable easements, and prairie ONot plantable 5) Continueto identify possible planting areas in priority areas for the land useto strategize how a nd whereto plant 74 trees per year for 30 years to reach the 32% canopy goal for the Civic Institutional land use asshown in thetable above in step #2 WlanffGeo de -lop— of T—Plotter TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY An internal summary of the public and private sample tree inventory to inform the City of Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan Apri 1 2023 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS 'J/' \�� Plan Geo J developers of Tree Plotter *wl► � PIanITCeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 CONTENTS About................................................................................... Tree Inventory Database....................................................... Tree Inventory Counts.......................................................... Data Fields Collected............................................................. .............................................................. 1 .............................................................. 1 .............................................................. 1 .............................................................. 2 Public Data Highlights (Sample Inventory)........................................................................................................ 3 Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory)............................................................................ 4 Public Tree Structure (Sample Inventory).........................................................................................................5 Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory).................................................................. 7 Public Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory).......................................................................................................... 8 Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Public Tree Sample Inventory............................................................ 10 Private Data Highlights (Sample Inventory).................................................................................................... 11 Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory)........................................................................ 12 Private Tree Structure (Sample Inventory)..................................................................................................... 13 Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory).............................................................. 15 Private Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory)....................................................................................................... 16 Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Private Tree Sample Inventory.......................................................... 18 Summary of Sample Tree Inventories in Public Parks..................................................................................... 19 Summary of Possible Planting Sites on Public Property.................................................................................. 20 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 21 PublicTree Status.......................................................................................................................................... 21 Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Public Trees) ....................................................... 21 Public Tree Structure (Estimated for All Public Trees)..................................................................................... 23 Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Public Trees) .............................................. 25 Public Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Public Trees)...................................................................................... 27 Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Public Trees....................................................................... 28 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 29 PrivateTree Status......................................................................................................................................... 29 Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Private Trees) .................................................... 29 Private Tree Structure (Estimated for All Private Trees).................................................................................. 31 Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Private Trees) .......................................... 33 Private Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Private Trees)................................................................................... 35 Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Private Trees..................................................................... 36 �J Plan Geo TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1. Counts for the public and private sample tree inventory..........................................................................................1 Table 2. Data fields collected as part of the 2022 sample tree inventory...............................................................................2 Table 3. Summary of the sample public tree inventory..........................................................................................................3 Table 4. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample public trees...................................................................................10 Table 5. Summary of the sample private tree inventory......................................................................................................11 Table 6. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample private trees.................................................................................18 Table 7. Tree data summaries for parks inventoried in 2022...............................................................................................19 Table 8. Summary of possible public planting sites inventoried in 2022...............................................................................20 Table 9. Estimated ecosystem benefits and services of all public trees................................................................................ 28 Table 10. Estimated ecosystem services and benefits of all private trees.............................................................................36 Figures Figure 1. Distribution of (sample) public trees by land use....................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Distribution of (sample) public trees by growing spaces..........................................................................................4 Figure 3. Distribution of (sample) public trees by planting site width.....................................................................................5 Figure 4. Distribution of (sample) public trees by genus (top 10)...........................................................................................5 Figure 5. Distribution of (sample) public trees by tree species (top 10)..................................................................................6 Figure 6. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) public tree sizes classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) ................6 Figure 7. Distribution of (sample) public trees by condition...................................................................................................7 Figure 8. Observations of the (sample) public trees...............................................................................................................7 Figure 9. Recommended tree work for (sample) public trees................................................................................................8 Figure 10. Summary of utility conflicts of (sample) public trees.............................................................................................8 Figure 11. Existing clearance conflicts of the public tree sample inventory............................................................................9 Figure 12. Distribution of (sample) private trees by land use...............................................................................................12 Figure 13. Distribution of growing space for the (sample) private trees...............................................................................12 Figure 14. Distribution of (sample) private trees planting site widths..................................................................................13 Figure 15. Distribution of (sample) private tree genera (top 10)..........................................................................................13 Figure 16. Distribution of (sample) private tree species (top 10).........................................................................................14 Figure 17. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) private tree size classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) ............14 Figure 18. Distribution of (sample) private trees by condition.............................................................................................15 Figure 19. Summary of observations from the private sample tree inventory......................................................................15 Figure 20. Recommended tree work for the (sample) private tree inventory.......................................................................16 Figure 21. Summary of the wire conflicts for the (sample) private tree inventory................................................................16 Figure 22. Existing clearance conflicts of the (sample) private tree inventory......................................................................17 Figure 23. Estimated status of all public trees.....................................................................................................................21 Figure 24. Estimated adjacent land use of all public trees...................................................................................................21 Figure 25. Estimated growing space of all public trees........................................................................................................22 Figure 26. Estimated planting site widths of all public trees................................................................................................22 Figure 27. Estimated tree genera diversity for all public trees (top 10)................................................................................23 Figure 28. Estimated tree species diversity for all public trees (top 10)................................................................................24 Figure 29. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all public trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards,) ......25 Figure 30. Estimated condition of all public trees................................................................................................................25 Figure 31. Estimated observations and defects of all public trees........................................................................................26 Figure 32. Estimated tree work needed for all public trees..................................................................................................26 Figure 33. Estimated wire conflicts for all public trees.........................................................................................................27 Figure 34. Estimated clearance conflicts of all public trees..................................................................................................27 Figure 35. Estimated status of all private trees....................................................................................................................29 Figure 36. Estimated land use of all private trees................................................................................................................29 Figure 37. Estimated growing space of all private trees.......................................................................................................30 Figure 38. Estimated planting site widths of all private trees...............................................................................................30 Figure 39. Estimated tree genera diversity of all private trees (top 10)................................................................................ 31 Figure 40. Estimated tree species diversity of all private trees (top 10)...............................................................................32 Figure 41. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all private trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards,) ....33 Figure 42. Estimated condition of all private trees..............................................................................................................33 Figure 43. Estimated observations and defects of all private trees......................................................................................34 Figure 44. Estimated tree work needed for all private trees................................................................................................ 34 Figure 45. Estimated wire conflicts of all private trees........................................................................................................35 Figure 46. Estimated clearance conflicts of all private trees................................................................................................35 �J Plan Geo TREE INVENTORY OVERVIEW About In October 2022, a sample inventory of public and private trees in Fayetteville, Arkansas was conducted by PlanIT Geo's Certified Arborists accredited by the International Society of Arboriculture. The scope of the public and private tree sample inventory was prepared as part of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan ("UFMP" or "Plan") project that is currently underway as of November 2022. The tree inventory is intended to gather data that informs the current extent, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs of the urban forest that can be addressed in the UFMP. Due to limited funding, a comprehensive inventory was not conducted though sampling methods were used in order to extrapolate the data to represent the total public and private tree populations, respectively. To do this, a sample inventory of public trees along approximately 5 percent of linear road miles (25 miles) was conducted. For public trees in parks, approximately 10 percent of City park acres were inventoried. The locations for the public tree inventory were determined by the City's Urban Forester and PlanIT Geo's Field Services team. For the private tree sample, an inventory of trees on private property was conducted when adjacent to public trees being inventoried. Data collection for private trees was not conducted on or within private property— the inventory was conducted within public rights -of -way (i.e., sidewalks) to provide a snapshot of the extent, structure, and characteristics of private trees. In addition to trees, possible available public planting sites were also inventoried based on criteria provided by the City's Urban Forester. In November 2022, the Consulting Team developing the UFMP reviewed and analyzed the tree inventory datasets and provided summary worksheets and this draft summary report. The following details the draft outcomes of the analysis. Additional analyses such as ecosystem benefits and extrapolating the data to represent the Citywide urban forest remains to be done as part of the UFMP project. Note, the public and private tree sample inventory analysis was conducted in the months of November and December 2022. Due to ongoing tree maintenance and the dynamic characteristics of trees, changes such as condition, tree size, and maintenance needs may have changes since the analysis. Tree Inventory Database www.pg-cloud.com/FayettevilleAR Tree Inventory Counts Total Data Points Total Tree Points (alive and dead) Possible Planting Sites (includes removed and stump) Total Living Trees Total Dead Trees Table 1. Counts for the public and private sample tree inventory 3,076 850 2,712 848 364 2 (stumps) 2,568 830 144 18 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 1 PIanITCeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Data Fields Collected Primary ID X X Status X X Common Name X X Scientific Name X X Number of Stems X X Condition X X ' DBH X X DBH Range X X Observations X X Private Parcel Tree? X X Genus/Species Code X X Crown Light Exposure X X Address X X Growing Space Type X X Location Tab Land Use X X Planting Site Width X X Tree Work X X Wires X X Clearance Conflicts X X Management Tab User X X Date Added X X Last Modified X X Last Modified User X X Table 2. Data fields collected as part of the 2022 sample tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 2 PIaWrGeo Includes public street, median, park, and trail trees Public Data Highlights (Sample Inventory) Data Points Alive & Dead Trees Adjacent Land Use Primary Growing Space Type Primary Planting Site Width 2,740 public data points 2,568 (95%) Alive 144 (5%) Dead 68% Park/Vacant/Other 15% Single Family Other (Maintained): 39% Planting Strip: 27% Class II (medium) 6-10 feet: 42% (1,151 trees) �. Class III (large) 11+ feet: 36% (964 trees) Number of Unique Tree Genera 54 Quercus: 31% (838 trees) Most Common Tree Genera Ulmus: 15% (411 trees) Acer: 8% (213 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Genera Top 10 comprise 74% of public trees Number of Unique Tree Species Princeton elm: 7% (189 trees) Most Common Tree Species Post oak: 6% (175 trees) Willow oak: 6% (165 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Species Top 10 comprise 44% of public trees 55% 0-6in DBH (1,499 trees) 19% 6-12in DBH (516 trees) Tree Size Classes 14% 12-18in DBH (367 trees) 6% 18-24in DBH (158 trees) 4% 24-30in DBH (122 trees) 2% >30in DBH (50 trees) Average Diameter / Largest Tree 8.1 inch average / 62 inch baldcypress 0.04% Excellent (1 tree) 75% Good (2,043 trees) Tree Condition 15% Fair (394 trees) 5% Poor (130 trees) 5% Dead (144 trees) 30% Crown Dieback (813 trees) Observations i 6% Cavity Decay (174 trees) —M Clearance Prune: 8% (217 trees) Recommended Tree Work Remove Tree: 6% (162 trees) Utility Prune: 3% (72 trees) Wire Conflicts EL Wires present & conflicting: 72 trees (3%) Clearance Conflicts - — Pedestrian: 2% (53 trees) Building: 1% (37 trees) cosystem Benefits $7,767 Overall Annual Value Table 3. Summary of the sample public tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 3 WA � PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory) Adjacent Land Use of Public Trees Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Land Use Park/ Vacant/ Other, 68% Industrial/ Large Single Family, Multik Commercial, 0.2% 15% Family, / 9% Small Commercial, 9% Figure 1. Distribution of (sample) public trees by land use Growing Space Type of Public Trees Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Growing Spaces Other (Maintained), 39% Planting Strip, 27% Figure 2. Distribution of (sample) public trees by growing spaces Front Yard, 1% Other (Unmaintained), 1% Cutout, 6% Median, 26% Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 4 Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Public Trees PIanITGeo d-1oM,s0f Tre P1MWr Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Planting Site Width Class I (small)-1-5ft, 22% Class II (medium) - 6-10ft, 42% Class III (large) - 11ft+, 36% Figure 3. Distribution of (sample) public trees by planting site width Public Tree Structure (Sample Inventory) Public Tree Genera Comaosition Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Genus (Top 10) Other Tree Genera, 26% Amelanchier, 2% Fraxinus, 2% Cercis, 3% Carpinus, 3% Celtis, 3% Taxodium, 3% Nyssa, 4% Acer, 8% Quercus, 31% Ulmus, 15% Figure 4. Distribution of (sample) public trees by genus (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 5 Public Tree Species Composition 7J Plan Ceo Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Tree Species (Top 10) rE, 7% Post oak, 6% 0 Other Tree Species, 56% Figure 5. Distribution of (sample) public trees by tree species (top 10) Public Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Willow oak, 6% Pin oak, 5% Blackgum, 4% New Harmony Elm, 3% Red maple, 3% Northern red oak, 3% Baldcypress, 3% Hackberry, 3% Comparison of Fayetteville's (Sample) Public Tree Size Classes to the Ideal Distribution (Richards 1993) Small Medium Large 55% 40 25% 19% 14% 15% o 6/ 10% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30i City % ■ Ideal Figure 6. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) public tree sizes classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 6 Public Sample .A PIanITCeo d-1oM,s0f Tre P1MWr Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory) Public Tree Condition Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Condition Fair, 15% Poor, 5% Good, 75% Dead, 5% Excellent, 0.04% Figure 7. Distribution of (sample) public trees by condition Public Tree Observations (Sample) Public Tree Observations Pests 1, 0% Hardscape Damage 1, 0% Grate/Guard 5, 0% Poor Location 7, 0% Canker 12, 0% Poor Root System ■ 16, 1% Vines 33, 1% Poor Structure 95, 4% Mechanical Damage 126, 5% Cavity Decay 174, 6% Crown Dieback 813, 30% Figure 8. Observations of the (sample) public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 7 Recommended Maintenance of Public Trees ("Tree Work") PIanITCeo de 1oM,s of TreePI-1 Recommended Tree Work for (Sample) Public Trees Raise 2, 0.1% Monitor 2, 0.1% Prune -Structural 3, 0.1% Remove -Girdling Root 6, 0.2% Amend Mulch 7, 0.3% Sidewalk Damage 8, 0.3% Remove Hardware 11, 0.4% Thin (Canopy) 18, 1% Crown Cleaning 26, 1% Utility (Prune) Remove (Tree) Prune -Clearance Figure 9. Recommended tree work for (sample) public trees 72, 3% Public Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory) Public Tree Wire Conflicts � 162, 6% Summary of Utility Conflicts of (Sample) Public Trees No Lines, 93% Figure 10. Summary of utility conflicts of (sample) public trees 217, 8% Present / No Conflict, 4% Present and Conflicting, 3% Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 8 Wit � PIanITCeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Public Tree Clearance Conflicts Existing Clearance Conflicts of the Public Tree Sample Inventory Other 1, 0% Light, Pedestrian 1, 0.04% Building, Pedestrian 1, 0.04% Light, Sign or Signal 3, 0.1% Underground Utilities 4, 0.1% Vehicle Sign or Signal Light Building Pedestrian 11, 0.4% 18, 1 Figure 11. Existing clearance conflicts of the public tree sample inventory 29, 1% 37, 1% 53, 2% Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 9 'J �� PIaInITGeo tlevclopers of TreeDlotter Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Public Tree Sample Inventory Table 4. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample public trees AVERAGE TOTAL FO R ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS AMOUNT FOR 2712 TREES PER TREE 251000 PUBLIC TREES Overall Monetary Benefit ($} $7,767 $2.86 $71.599.65 Air Quality Monetary Benefit ($) $2,598 $0.96 $23,949.30 CO (Carbon Monoxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 12 0.004480 112.00 CO Removed Monetary Benefit ($} $8 $0.003 $71.72 NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 55 0.02 505.90 NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $11.1 $0,004 $102.69 03(Ozone) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 1,046 $0.39 $9.643.25 03 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $1,233 $0.45 $11.366.70 PM2.5 (Particulate Matter 2.5 microns) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 28 0.01 257.65 PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit ($ $1,339 $0.49 $12.343.93 S02 (Sulfur dioxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 21 0.01 189.07 I S02 Removed Monetary Benefit ($} $0.01 $0.000004 Pollutants Removed (Ibs) 1,169 0.43 lir Benefit CSIN 1$1.34 Carbon Sequestered (Ibs) 156,765 57.8 Stormwater Monetary Benefit ($} $1,524.53 $0.56 Evaporation (ft3) 289,960 106.9 Interception (ft3) 290,397 107.1 Transpiration (ft3) _ 613,646 226.3 Potential Evaporation (ft3) 2,500,561 922.0 (ft3) 1,892,393 697.8 Runoff Avoided (ft3) 22,804 8.4 IEvapotranspiration CO2 Storage (I bs ) 5,348,466 1972.1 CO2 Storage Monetary Benefit ($) $124,391 $45.87 I Carbon Dry Weight (Ibs) 2,917,345 1075.72 Carbon Storage (Ibs) 1 1,458,672 I 537.86 "Ibs" = pounds; "gal" = gallons; ,ft3,,= cubic feet $0.09 10776.27 $33,613.57 1445102.2 $14,053.56 2672938.6 2676967.0 5656762.4 23050897.7 17444623.9 210213.8 49303704.8 $1,146.668.05 26892933.08 13446459.26 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 10 Plan Geo Private Data Highlights (Sample Inventory) Data Points 850 Alive & Dead Trees 848 Adjacent Land Use 39% Single Family 27/o Multi Family Other (Maintained): 70% Primary Growing Space Type Front Yard: 19% Primary Planting Site Width Class III (large) 11+feet: 62%0 Class II (medium) 6-10 feet: 20% Number of Unique Tree Genera 34 Quercus: 19% (159 trees) Most Common Tree Genera Acer: 12% (103 trees) Pinus: 9% (75 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Genera Top 10 comprise 78% of private trees Number of Unique Tree Species 64 Pin oak: 9% (76 trees) Most Common Tree Species Loblolly pine: 8% (65 trees) Red maple: 8% (64 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Species Top 10 comprise 57% of private trees 39% 0-6in DBH (334 trees) 20% 6-12in DBH (171 trees) Tree Size Classes 23% 12-18in DBH (198 trees) 10% 18-24in DBH (83 trees) 5% 24-30in DBH (44 trees) 2% >30in DBH (18 trees) Average Diameter / Largest Tree 10.2 inch average / 34 inch tulip tree 0.1% Excellent (1 tree) 70% Good (594 trees) Tree Condition 24% Fair (202 trees) 4% Poor (33 trees) 2% Dead (20 trees) Observations 41% Crown Dieback (346 trees) 9% Cavity Decay (75 trees) Clearance Prune: 9% (74 trees) Recommended Tree Work Remove Hardware: 6% (53 trees) Remove (Tree): 3% (23 trees) Wire Conflicts Wires present & conflicting: 17 trees (2%) Clearance Conflicts Building: 4% (33 trees) Pedestrian: 3% (23 trees) Ecosystem Benefits $3,295 Overall Annual Value Table 5. Summary of the sample private tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 11 WA � PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory) Adjacent Land Use of Private Trees Distribution of (Sample) Private Trees by Land Use Small Figure 12. Distribution of (sample) private trees by land use Growing Space Type of Private Trees Distribution of (Sample) Private Trees Growing Space 5% anting Strip, 3% Other nmaintained), 2% lledian, 1% Figure 13. Distribution of growing space for the (sample) private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 12 � PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Private Trees Distribution of (Sample) Private Trees Planting Site Width Figure 14. Distribution of (sample) private trees planting site widths Private Tree Structure (Sample Inventory) Private Tree Genera Composition Distribution of (Sample) Private Tree Genera (Top 10) Other T Prunus, 4% luniperus, 4% Cercis, 5 % Celtis, 5% Platanus, 6% Figure 15. Distribution of (sample) private tree genera (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 13 �J Plan Ceo 4 Private Tree Species Composition Distribution of (Sample) Private Tree Species by Common Name (Top 10) Other Tree Species, 43% Black cherry, 4% vrinceion tim, 47o Figure 16. Distribution of (sample) private tree species (top 10) Private Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution ly pine, 8% idon planetree, 5% rry, 5% bud, 5% Eastern red cedar, 4% Comparison of Fayetteville's (Sample) Private Tree Size Classes to the Ideal Distribution (Richards 1993) Small Medium Large 39% 40% 25% 23% 20% 15% 10% 10% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in " City % ■ Ideal Figure 17. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) private tree size classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 14 ��PIanITCeo d—Iocers of T—PI 1 Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory) Private Tree Condition Distribution of Private Trees by Condition (Sample Inventory) ior, 4% Figure 18. Distribution of (sample) private trees by condition Dead, 2% Excellent, 0.1% Private Tree Observations Summary of Observations from the Private Tree Sample Inventory Girdling Roots 2, 0.2% Vines 3, 0.4% Poor Root System 8, 1% Poor Location 8, 1% Poor Structure 9, 1% Cavity Decay 75, 9% Crown Dieback Figure 19. Summary of observations from the private sample tree inventory 346, 41 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 15 � PIanITCeo de 1oM,s of TreePI-1 Recommended Maintenance of Private Trees ("Tree Work") Recommended Tree Work for the Private Tree (Sample) Inventory Remove -Girdling Root 2, 0.2% Crown Cleaning 3, 0.4% Utility (Prune) 17, 2% Remove (Tree) 23, 3% Remove Hardware 53, 6% Prune -Clearance 74, 9% Figure 20. Recommended tree work for the (sample) private tree inventory Private Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory) Private Tree Wire Conflicts Summary of Wire Conflicts for the (Sample) Private Trees Inventoried Present / No 10% Present and onflicting, 2% Figure 21. Summary of the wire conflicts for the (sample) private tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 16 '% f PIanITCeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Private Tree Clearance Conflicts Existing Clearance Conflicts of the Private Tree Sample Inventory Vehicle 1, 0.1% Light, Sign or Signal 1, 0.1% Light 4, 0.5% Underground Utilities 10, 1% Pedestrian 23, 3% Building Figure 22. Existing clearance conflicts of the (sample) private tree inventory ad 33, 4% Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 17 *.a ' �FPIanITGeo developers of T-Plot[er Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Private Tree Sample Inventory Table 6. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample private trees ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS Amount 830 Private trees AVERAGE PER TREE Overall Monetary Benefit ($) $3,295 $3.97 Air Quality Monetary Benefit ($) $1,153 $1.39 CO (Carbon Monoxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 5 0.006 CO Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $3 $0.00 NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 25 0.03 NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $5.0 $0.01 03(Ozone) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 422 0.51 03 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $496 $0.60 PM2.5 (Particulate Matter 2.5 microns) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 14 0.02 PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit ($ $647 $0.78 S02 (Sulfur dioxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 9 0.01 S02 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $0.00 $0.00 Pollutants Removed (Ibs) 475 0.57 Carbon Sequestrated Monetary Benefit ($) $1,656 �$2.00 Carbon Sequestered (Ibs) 71,206 85.79 Stormwater Monetary Benefit ($) $486.00 $0.59 Evaporation (ft3) 93,621 112.80 Interception (ft3) 93,762 112.97 Transpiration (ft3) 198,003 238.56 Potential Evaporation (ft3) 807,155 972.48 Evapotranspiration (ft3) 610,884 736.00 Runoff Avoided (ft3) 7,272 8.76 CO2 Storage (Ibs) 2,015,538 2428.36 CO2 Storage Monetary Benefit ($) $46,876 1 1 $56.48 1 Carbon Dry Weight (Ibs) 1,099,385 1324.56 Carbon Storage (Ibs) 549,692 $662.28 "Ibs" = pounds; "gal" = gallons; "ft3" = cubic feet Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 18 wPlan Geo Summary of Sample Tree Inventories in Public Parks # of Data 485 41 61 95 48 179 Points Most Common Quercus Prunus Amel- Quercus Tree Genera (41%) (37%) anchier Ulmus (25%) Cercis (19%) (53%) (31%) Most Common Post oak Yoshino Service- Green ash Eastern Post oak Tree Species (19%) flowering berry (31%) (22%) redbud (38/ o ) cherry (37%) (19%) Primary Good (84%) Good (100%) Good (80%) Good Good (67%) Good (88%) Condition (46%) Primary Size o 0 0 6-12in o 12-18in Class 6-12in (21/) 6-12in (54/0) 0-3in (41/) (45%) 6-12in (46/) (50%) Remove Crown Clearance Clearance Remove Tree Remove Tree Tree Work Tree Cleaning o Prune (8/) o Prune (17/0) o (6/) o (3/) (3%) (13%) Crown Poor Root Crown Crown Poor Primary Poor Location Dieback System Dieback Dieback Structure Observation (13/) (35%) (32%) (23%) (60%) (12%) Primary Lights Buildings Buildings Clearance None None None 4% (17%) (4%) Conflict Table 7. Tree data summaries for parks inventoried in 2022 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 119 !J'PlaW-rGeo 1 Summary of Possible Planting Sites on Public Property Counts Proposed Planting Site Widths Growing Space of Proposed Sites Adjacent Land Use of Proposed Sites Proposed Planting Sites: 336 Stumps: 28 Dead Trees: 144 Class I (small) 1-5 feet: 80 (16%) Class 11 (medium) 6-10 feet: 316 (62%) Class III (large) 11+feet: 112 (22%) Cutout: 275 (54%) Median: 192 (38%) Other (Maintained): 38 (7%) Park/Vacant/Other: 260 (51%) Single Family: 140 (28%) Small Commercial: 50 (10%) No Lines: 470 (93%) Wire Conflicts Wires Present, No Conflict: 34 (7%) Wires Present, Conflicting: 4 (0.8%) Diameter of Stumps Table B. Summary of possible public planting sites inventoried in 2022 3-6in: 20 (71%) 12-18in: 4 (14%) 0-3in: 2 (7%) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 20 WiPlanITGeo- do to m of T Plm- Methodology Based on a total of 470 (500) linear road miles in the City and the inventory of public trees along 5% of roadways, the urban forestry consultants utilized research data from the 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities (Hauer, et al.) to estimate the total public tree population. For communities of similar size, population, population density, and linear road miles, the average public tree population is 25,000 trees. Based on these estimates, the sample public tree data (2,712 alive or dead trees) was extrapolated to represent 25,000 public trees. The following summaries provide estimates of public tree extent, growing space, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs: Public Tree Status Estimated Status of All Public Trees Dead, 5% Figure 23. Estimated status of all public trees Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Public Trees) Adjacent Land Use of Public Trees Estimated Adjacent Land Use of All Public Trees Industrial/ Large Commercial, 0% Small Commercial, 9% Multi Family, 9% Figure 24. Estimated adjacent land use of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 21 Growing Space Type of Public Trees PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Estimated Growing Space of All Public Trees -ont Yard, 1% Other (Unmaintained), 1% stout, 6% Figure 25. Estimated growing space of all public trees Existine Tree Plantine Site Width of Public Trees Estimated Planting Site Widths of All Public Trees lass I (small) 1-5ft, 22% Figure 26. Estimated planting site widths of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 22 PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Public Tree Structure (Estimated for All Public Trees) Public Tree Genera Composition Estimated Tree Genera Diversity (Top 10) of All Public Trees Amelanchier, 2% Fraxinus, 2% Cercis, 3 Carpinus, Ce Tc Figure 2Z Estimated tree genera diversity for all public trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 23 • Plan Geo �• J—I_ tT—Plottet Public Tree Species Composition Estimated Tree Species Diversity (Top 10) of All Public Trees Other Tree Species, 56% Jew Harmony Elm, 3% maple, 3% ired oak, 3% baldcypress, 3% Hackberry, 3% Figure 28. Estimated tree species diversity for all public trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 24 • Plan Geo '"w• d—l_p—f T—Plottet Public Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Estimated Distribution of Diameter Classes for All Public Trees Compared to the Ideal Distribution (Richards, 1993) Small Medium Large 55% 40% 25% 19% 0 15% 14 / 10 on . N 4% 6% 2% 4% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in ■ City DBH ■ Ideal DBH Figure 29. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all public trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Public Trees) Public Tree Condition Estimated Condition of All Public Trees 1,198, Poor, 5% 1,327, Dead, 5% 9, Excellent, 0.04% Figure 30. Estimated condition of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 25 PlaniTGeo de 1oM,sof Tre P1MWr Public Tree Observations Estimated Observations and Defects of All Public Trees Pests 19 Hardscape Damage 9 Grate/Guard 1 46 Poor Location 1 65 Canker 1111 Poor Root System ■ 147 Vines = 304 Poor Structure 876 Mechanical Damage � 1,162 Cavity Decay 1,604 Crown Dieback 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Figure 31. Estimated observations and defects of all public trees Recommended Maintenance of Public Trees ("Tree Work") Estimated Tree Work Needed for All Public Trees Raise 1 18 Monitor 1 18 Prune -Structural 1 28 Remove -Girdling Root ■ 55 Amend Mulch M 65 Sidewalk Damage = 74 Remove Hardware = 101 Thin (Canopy) 166 Crown Cleaning 240 Utility (Prune) Remove (Tree) Prune -Clearance 664 1,493 ■ 7,494 30% 35% 2,000 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% Figure 32. Estimated tree work needed for all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 26 !J'Plan�-rGeo Public Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Public Trees) Public Tree Wire Conflicts Estimated Wire Conflicts of All Public Trees ent / No flict, 4% Present and Conflicting, 3% Figure 33. Estimated wire conflicts for all public trees Public Tree Clearance Conflicts Estimated Clearance Conflicts of All Public Trees Other 1 9 Light, Pedestrian 1 9 Building, Pedestrian 1 9 Light, Sign or Signal = 28 Underground Utilities M 37 Vehicle 101 Sign or Signal 166 Light 267 Building 341 Pedestrian 489 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% Figure 34. Estimated clearance conflicts of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 27 WA � PIanITCeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Public Trees Table 9. Estimated ecosystem benefits and services of all public trees Overall Monetary Benefit Air Quality Monetary Benefit $23,949 Pollutants Removed 10,776 Ibs 5 tons Carbon Monetary Benefit $33,614 Carbon Stored 1,445,102 Ibs 723 tons Evaporation 2,672,939 ft3 19,994,971 gal 30 Olympic pools Interception 2,676,967 ft3 710,025,105 gal 30 Olympic pools Potential Evaporation 23,050,898 ft3 172,432,701 gal 261 Olympic pools Evapotranspiration 130,494,858 gal 198 Olympic pools 4,624 ft3 Runoff Avoided 210,214 ft3 1,572,508 gal 2 Olympic pools Stormwater Mo $14,054 Transpiration 5,656,762 ft3 42,315,524 gal 64 Olympic pools CO Pollution Removed 112 Ibs i CO Removed Monetary Benefit $72 NO2 Pollution Removed 506 Ibs NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $103 03 Pollution Removed 5 tons 03 Removed Monetary Benefit $11,367 PM2.5 Pollution Removed 258 Ibs PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit $12,344 SO2 Pollution Removed 189 Ibs SO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $0.09 CO2 Sequestered 1,445,101 Ibs 723 tons CO2 Sequestered Monetary Benefit $33,613 CO2 Storage 49,303,705 Ibs 24,652 tons CO2 Storage Monetary Benefit $1,146,668 Carbon Dry Weigh 26,892,933 Ibs 13,446 tons Carbon Storage 13,446,459 Ibs 6,723 tons "Ibs" = pounds; "gal" = gallons; ,ft3,, = cubic feet Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 28 JPlan Geo Methodology A total of 850 private trees were inventoried as a sample. These trees were located in private parcels adjacent to public streets that were visited during the public tree inventory. According to Fayetteville's Mobility Plan, there are a total of 470 linear road miles and the inventory crews inventoried along a total of 25 linear road miles or approximately 5% of roadways. The private parcels included in the sample inventory had a total acreage of 342 acres. Using the City's Zoning classifications and GIS data, a total of 32,150 acres exist across the City. Therefore, the inventory crews visited 1% of all private parcels. Based on these figures, it is estimated that there are a total of 79,884 private trees, or approximately 80,000 private trees in maintained areas of properties. The following summaries provide estimates of private tree extent, growing space, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs: Private Tree Status Estimated Status of All Private Trees stump?�, Figure 35. Estimated status of all private trees Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Private Trees) Land Use of Private Trees Estimated Land Use of All Private Trees Small Commercial, 19% Park/ Vacant/ Other, 16% Figure 36. Estimated land use of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 29 PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Growing Space Type of Private Trees Estimated Growing Space of All Private Trees tout, 5% Planting Strip, 3% Other Unmaintained), 2% Me ian, 1% Figure 3Z Estimated growing space of all private trees Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Private Trees Estimated Planting Site Widths of All Private Trees Figure 38. Estimated planting site widths of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 30 PIanITGeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Private Tree Structure (Estimated for All Private Trees) Private Tree Genera Composition Estimated Tree Genera Diversity (Top 10) of All Private Trees Prunus, 4 Juniperu Cerc Figure 39. Estimated tree genera diversity of all private trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 31 w%;F� � PIanITCeo d—IoM,s of TreePI-1 Private Tree Species Composition Estimated Tree Species Diversity (Top 10) of All Private Trees Other Tree Species, 43% Black cherry, 4% Figure 40. Estimated tree species diversity of all private trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 32 �J Plan Ceo Private Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Estimated Distribution of Diameter Classes for All Private Trees Compared to the Ideal Distribution (Richards, 1993) Small Medium Large 39% 40% 25% 23% 20% 15% 10% 10% o % 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in City DBH ■ Ideal DBH Figure 41. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all private trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Private Trees) Private Tree Condition Estimated Condition of All Private Trees Dead, 2% Excellent, 0.12% Figure 42. Estimated condition of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 33 • Plan Geo Private Tree Observations Estimated Observations and Defects of All Private Trees Girdling Roots 188 Vines 282 Poor Root System 753 Poor Location 753 Poor Structure 847 Cavity Decay 7,059 Crown Dieback 11lik 32,565 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Figure 43. Estimated observations and defects of all private trees Recommended Maintenance of Private Trees ("Tree Work") Estimated Tree Work Needed for All Private Trees Remove -Girdling Root j 188 Crown Cleaning . 282 Utility (Prune) 1,600 Remove (Tree) 2,165 Remove Hardware Prune -Clearance 4,988 6,965 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Figure 44. Estimated tree work needed for all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 34 J/PIaffrGeo j wi ao.oio­-n000,-11 Private Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Private Trees) Private Tree Wire Conflicts Estimated Wire Conflicts of All Private Trees "--ent / No Iict, 10% Present and Conflicting, 2% Figure 45. Estimated wire conflicts of all private trees Private Tree Clearance Conflicts Estimated Clearance Conflicts of All Private Trees Vehicle , 94 Light, Sign or Signal ' 94 Light _ 376 Underground Utilities 941 Pedestrian 2,165 Building _ 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% Figure 46. Estimated clearance conflicts of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 35 PIanITGeo ae�eioPea or r,eeoioae. Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Private Trees Table 10. Estimated ecosystem services and benefits of all private trees Overall Monetary Benefit $731,024 Air Quality Monetary Benefit $244,520 Pollutants Removed 110,024 Ibs 55 tons Carbon Monetary Benefit $343,191 Carbon Stored 14,754,324 Ibs 7,377 tons Evaporation 27,290,389 ft3 204,146,299 gal 309 Olympic pools Interception 27,331,518 ft3 204,453,968 gal 310 Olympic pools Potential Evaporation 235,346,953 ft3 1,760,517,592 gal 2,667 Olympic pools Evapotranspiration 178,107,558 ft3 1,332,337,147 gal 2,019 Olympic pools Runoff Avoided 2,146,258 ft3 16,055,125 gal 24 Olympic pools Stormwater Monetary Benefit $143,485 Transpiration 57,754,878 ft3 432,036,521 gal 655 Olympic pools CO Pollution Removed 1,144 Ibs 0.6 tons CO Removed Monetary Benefit $732 NO2 Pollution Removed 5,165 Ibs 3 tons NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $1,048 03 Pollution Removed 98,456 Ibs 49 tons 03 Removed Monetary Benefit $116,053 PM2.5 Pollution Removed 2,631 Ibs 1 ton PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit $126,030 SO2 Pollution Removed 1,930 Ibs 1 ton SO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $1 CO2 Sequestered 14,754,307 Ibs 7,377 tons CO2 Sequestered Monetary Benefit $343,189 CO2 Storage 503,385,026 Ibs 251,693 tons CO2 Storage Monetary Benefit $11,707,346 Carbon Dry Weight 274,573,683 Ibs 137,287 tons Carbon Storage 137,286,767 Ibs 68,643 tons "Ibs" = pounds; "gal" = gallons; "ft3" = cubic feet Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page 1 36 FAYETTEVILLE, URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN WE i low Jr IMF - � ,v r - � 169 Complete Contributors (2 participants selectively answered survey) December 15, 2022 - January 16, 2023 "Speak Up Fayetteville" https://speakup.fayetteville-ar.gov/ DU ESTIC Q1: What do you consider most important for the trees in Fayetteville? (Select your top two options)? I envision something different than what is listed above (please describe): 11 More volunteer and training opportunities to plant and care for trees 13 in my neighborhood A city program that proactively maintains our public trees for safety 38 and to maximize the benefits they provide Healthy trees that are resilient to pests, diseases, prolonged drought, urban heat and changing climates, limited space, and storm events Increased number of trees where there is historically minimal tree coverage Trees providing shade and reducing surface temperatures where I park, walk, and play 67 104 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 3 DU ESTION Vl Ca Trees and Food Tree Protection Tree Removal Conflict Native Species Planting nvasives Inclusion and Diversity Concern 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 Q2: Where should the City use resources to improve public tree health? (Select your top three options)2 Other (please specify) ■ 8 Create more volunteer and training opportunities for members of the community to learn about trees and to plant and care for public _ 18 trees Proactively prune trees for structure, health, and safety and manage - 23 tree pests and diseases Allocate additional resources (e.g., staff and funding) toward public tree management Plant trees that can withstand prolonged droughts and high temperatures Plant trees so that they can coexist with sidewalks and underground utilities such as sewer and water lines Incorporate more tree plantings and tree preservation into development projects Set and achieve tree coverage goals that are based on reducing heat, improving ecosystems, expanding canopy in underserved communities, and increasing the benefits trees provide 1 55 •• Based on 436 selections made 112 125 0 20 40 r... 80 100 120 140 5 Trees and Food Tree Protection Invasives Native Species Diversity and Development 1 3 2 2 1 03: Where should the City focus its investments with the current funding and With any additional funding that arises from the Urban Forest Management Plan? (select up to three options) Other (please describe) ■ 7 Less investment in planting, more in tree maintenance = 14 Programs for public outreach _ 17 Increasing programs and strategies relating to conservation 51 Partnering with private property owners to plant trees on private property Planting more trees on public property Focus more on purchasing land for conservation Strengthening City code requirements for planting more trees and more tree preservation from developers Based on 455 selections made LAM 92 119 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 7 r lww-M 1- Categorief Ordinance Amendment Tree Protection Mature Tree Protection Trash Removal Diversity and Inclusion Concerns Comment Cou 1 1 Q4: To achieve your vision for the urban forest, which might include increasing the number of trees and tree canopy cover, where should the City prioritize tree plantings? (Select your top three options) Not applicable, I'd prefer to not increase the number of trees and I 1 canopy cover Other (please describe) , 5 Private residential property School/campus areas Commercial/industrial areas Street trees (planted in the space between the sidewalk and street and in the median) 52 C:1:3 Based on 460 selections made 102 Parks, greenways, and other public spaces 117 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1409 NT! Tree Protection Invasive Specie Selection Diversity and Inclusion Concern 1 2 1 1 10 05: If you support planting more trees throughout the City, where should the City and its partners focus these efforts? Not applicable, I do not support planting more trees 12 Based on 169 Survey Responses Other (please describe) ■ 9 Equity -based: areas with lower income Location -based: areas with the most opportunity to plant trees, or where a tree was recently removed Climate -based: areas where trees could provide shade and provide other ecosystem services. 21 42 95 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 go 100 11 DU ESTION VA Ca All Vegetation Inventory Invasive Removal- Location- Highway Diversity and Inclusion Concern 5 1 1 1 1 12 01 t:1 i 06: Increasing a healthy tree canopy cover requires investments in planting trees along With postplanting care such as young tree pruning and Watering, Would you be Willing to Water trees during drought conditions that are in the public rights -of - Way adja No 1 6 Unsure 19 Not Applicable (N/A) Yes 22 Based on 170 selections made 123 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 13 Yes No 07: Are there any questions, concerns, comments or considerations that you would Like Urban Forestry to know about? Based on 168 responses 122 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 14 :QUESTION V7 COMMENTS (CATEGORIZEr Native Species 3 Equity 1 Increase Canopy 2 Trees and Food 1 Watering 3 Trees and Development g Tree Maintenance 2 Tree Donation Funds 1 Cost Share Program- Tree Removal Specific 1 Thanks 2 Tree Removal 1 Job Growth 1 Prioritization of OF activities 1 Free Tree Planting Giveaways 1 Education Material -Tree Selection 1 Tree Planting Locations 1 Increase Canopy 1 nvasives 2 Ecological Concerns 1 Volunteer Opportunity 1 Tree Removal Ordinance 1 09: Howl many years have you lived in Fayetteville? Not applicable - 6 Based on Zoo responses Fewer than 2 years 17 6-10 years 28 2-5 years 30 11-20 years 35 More than 20 years 54 0 10 20 30 40 5o 60 16 QZo: In Which Ward do you live in Fayetteville? Not applicable 0 do not live in Fayetteville) Ward 2 Ward 1 Ward 4 Ward 3 12 31 35 Based on 169 responses 41 M 0 10 20 30 40 50 6o 17 Qn: Which best describes the building in Which you live? Other (please describe) 4 Based on 168 responses Townhome Apartment or condominium One family house detached from any other houses 0 13 17 134 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 18 XJFSTIC Q12: If you live in Fayetteville, please describe the current conditions Where youreside. (Select all that apply) Other (please describe) M 6 A home, apartment, or other with too many trees on the property M 6 I have easy access to green spaces that I do not visit - 9 A home, apartment, or other with no trees present on the property _ 10 I do not have easy access to green spaces _ 14 The trees present or near my place of residence are in poor �9 condition A home, apartment, or other that does not have enough trees on the 3$ property The trees present or near my place of residence are in good 69 condition I have easy access to green spaces that I frequently visit A home, apartment, or other that has an adequate number of trees on the property Based on 370 selections made :• 103 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 19 Categories Tree Impacts Trees and Development Other nvasives 1 1 3 1 75 years or older ■ 2 Under 18 years ■ 2 65-74 years 55-64 years 18-24 years 45-54 years 35-44 years 25-34 years Q13: What is your age? 13 20 21 23 41 Based on Zoo responses 0 10 20 30 40 60 21 014: To What race and/or ethnicity group do you identify? (Select all that apply) Other (please describe) ' 2 Based on 176 Black or African -American ' 2 selections made Asian or Pacific Islander ' 2 Hispanic or Latino ' 3 American Indian or Alaska Native , 4 Prefer not to answer M 11 White 152 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 22 Comm Middle Eastern European FAYETTEVILLE, URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN _ w Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook n _ 00 tin ^ `J ' � • '� ��• ., : i ' ` JF1i1I[KZTi Err 28 of 59 invited (47%) August 30, 2022 - September 23, 2022 Google Forms: https://forms.gLe/BA67usA5y3RuiAABA 2. Howl does your Work or role impact or influence the urban forest, individual trees, natural areas, and/or the landscape in Fayetteville? Advocate for public tree and park improvements Recreation, community engagement City Planning Ordinances, Code enforcement Vegetation management, landscape maintenance Human health, environmental justice Development permitting, Land use, regulatory considerations Minor park improvements (not CIPs), park maintenance Capital Improvement Projects, including park creation Other: 4%, 5 Risk management policy, hazard mitigation work, public safety 4%, 5 Infrastructure maintenance and repair 4%, 5 Legal, procedural 3%, 4 Data management, IT M 1%, 2 Request to meet to further discuss M o 18%, 24 12%, 17 10 %, 14 9%, 13 - 9%, 12 - 8%, 11 1 7%, 9 6%, 8 6%, 8 Based on 137 selections made 2. Howl does your Work or role impact or influence the urban forest, individual trees, natural areas, and/or the landscape in Fayetteville? Advocate for public tree and park improvements Recreation, community engagement City Planning Ordinances, Code enforcement Vegetation management, landscape maintenance Human health, environmental justice Development permitting, Land use, regulatory considerations Minor park improvements (not CIPs), park maintenance Capital Improvement Projects, including park creation Other; Risk management policy, hazard mitigation work, public safety 50% ■ 46% 43% 39% 32% 29% 29% 18% 18% Infrastructure maintenance and repair 18% Legal, procedural - 14% Data management, IT 7% Request to meet to further discuss o% 61% Based on 28 Survey Responses 86% DU ESTION =2 CC Member of PRAB Citizen at large on EAC committee use the platform of an outdoor retailer to advocate for public lands and environmental stewardship EAC has advisory role to City Council Voice for urban forestry goals and missed opportunities in city planning decisions. 3. What are the current issues, concerns, challenges, information/resource gaps, or inefficiencies experienced or seen, if any, as it relates to your work/role described in #2? Staffing Ordinances, standards Infrastructure conflicts Preparedness planning (wildfire, drought, invasive insects & pests, storms, disease) Environmental/ecological Budget Collaboration, partnerships Protocols, Best Management Practices (BMPs) Sustainability Regulatory requirements Inter -departmental pressure points, mediation protocols for inter- departmental priorities Delineation of departmental responsibility, liability Other; 2%, 2 Request to meet to further discuss = 1%, 1 fro, 15 11%, 14 11%, 14 10%, 13 10%, 13 - 8%, 11 8%, 10 8%, 10 8%, 10 7%, 9 � 5%, 7 Based on 3%, 4 133 selections made 3. What are the current issues, concerns, challenges, information/resource gaps, or inefficiencies experienced or seen, if any, as it relates to your Work/role described in #2? Staffing Ordinances, standards Infrastructure conflicts Preparedness planning (Wildfire, drought, invasive insects & pests, storms, disease) Environmental/ecological Budget Collaboration, partnerships Protocols, Best Management Practices (BMPs) Sustainability Regulatory requirements Inter -departmental pressure points, mediation protocols for inter- departmental priorities Delineation of departmental responsibility, liability Other: 7% Request to meet to further discuss = 4% 14% 25% 54% 50% 50% 46% 46% 39% 36% 36% 36% 32% Based on 28 Survey Responses DU ESTION VI CC Poor inventory management Replacement of street trees in existing neighborhoods 4. What results and outcomes of the UFMP would you like to see to assist and support your work or role as it relates to the trees and related services in Fayetteville? Tree maintenance plan 15%, 21 Information 14%, 1g Community volunteers, events, and engagement 10%, 14 Benchmarking and goal setting 10%, 13 Forestry staffing 10%, 13 Improved program structure or new programs g%, 12 Resources g%, 12 Data 7%, 10 Task prioritization 4%, 5 Other: 3%, 4 Urban Forestry staff needs to be combined or realigned 3%, 4 Training 3X 4 Forestry equipment and technology 2%, 3 Based on Request to meet to further discuss 1%, 1 136 Workflow checklists 1%,1 selections made Uniform work order management o%, o 4. What results and outcomes of the UFMP would you Like to see to assist and support your work or role as it relates to the trees and related services in Fayetteville? Tree maintenance plan Information Community volunteers, events, and engagement Benchmarking and goal setting Forestry staffing Improved program structure or new programs Resources Data Task prioritization Other: Urban Forestry staff needs to be combined or realigned Training Forestry equipment and technology 11% Request to meet to further discuss M 4% Workflow checklists M 4% Uniform work order management o% 68% 50% 46% 46% 43% 43% 36% Based on 28 Survey Responses 75% DU ESTION VA CC Expand to be "urban ecology" Supporting current Forestry activities and preservation/landscaping standards Clear understanding of Where efforts should be focused and What benefits Will be received by increased efforts is Warranted. Prioritize planting trees that Will have the greatest positive impact on other species. For example, prioritize native oaks over Liriodendron (tulip tree) 5. Please select from the foLLowing to summarize your viewpoints and priorities relating to trees and the urban forest in the City. Trees and the Urban Forestry Program are a priority for me I would like to see more trees in the City with a plan and resources for maintaining them We should be better implementing best management practices and 17%, 17 standards for our trees The processes and regulations around tree protection and 16%,16 development should be improved Overall, the Urban Forestry Program needs improvements 7%, 7 Other: - 5%, 5 Instead of planting more trees we should focus on maintaining the trees we currently have - 3%, 3 26%, 27 25%, 26 Based on Trees are NOT a priority for the City , 1%, 1 102 selections Request to meet to further discuss o%, o made 5. Please select from the following to summarize your viewpoints and priorities relating to trees and the urban forest in the City. Trees and the Urban Forestry Program are a priority for me I would like to see more trees in the City with a plan and resources for maintaining them We should be better implementing best management practices and standards for our trees The processes and regulations around tree protection and development should be improved Overall, the Urban Forestry Program needs improvements Other: - 18% Instead of planting more trees we should focus on maintaining the 11% trees we currently have Trees are NOT a priority for the City , 4% Request to meet to further discuss o% 25% 61% 57% 96% 93% Based on 28 Survey Responses DU ESTION VA Ca picked 3 and 4 because I like the idea of more trees but we lack a proper maintenance plan Expand to include broader ecological issues Street sections need to be reviewed. We are placing trees in spaces that are too confined for long term health of tree and infrastructure. We should not just be counting trees on properties that are about to be developed. We should identify large trees with significant environmental value. Yes, the Urban Forestry program needs improvements - it needs more resources, more vocal recognition of its value, and deeper integration with utilities and infrastructure and management that reflects that value 01 m:14 6. Overall, what do you feel are the most important goals for the City in regards to urban forestry? G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest 16% 23 through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City 16%, 23 D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, 16% 22 and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation 15% 21 in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing 14% 20 trees to be planted F) Increase educational and outreach efforts 11%, 16 A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover g% 12 Based on 141 selections Other: _ 3%, 4 made 6. Overall, what do you feel are the most important goals for the City in regards to urban forestry? G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest 82% through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City 82% D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate 79� change C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover 75� B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted 7�� F) Increase educational and outreach efforts A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover Other: _ 14% 57% 43% Based on 28 Survey Responses DU ESTION Vh Ca Make sure that underserved areas, and those With few trees receive priority for planting urban forests. agree With A) as a percent of the City under canopy, but not necessarily the existing canopy. Determine What is a reasonable canopy goal for the city based on land use, growth, and evnironmental/health benefits. Integration of urban ecology, of Which forestry is a subset, into the value decisions of the mayor and city council, into budgeting and staffing, and into Workflows of utilities and engineering 7. From the List above, what are the three (3) most important goals (List Letter)? C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover Other/Comments: 8%, 6 11%, 8 11%. 8 16%, 12 16%, 12 Based on 76 selections R Increase educational and outreach efforts 4%, 3 made 21%, 16 7. From the list above, what are the three (3) most important goals (list letter)? C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover Other/Comments: F) Increase educational and outreach efforts 39% 29% 29% 43% 43% ' 21% Based on 28 Survey Responses - 11% 57% DU ESTION V7 Ca Large gap between C (procure funding.,,) and G (support local businesses.,,) Make sure that underserved areas, and those with few trees receive priority for planting urban forests. and B (increase funding...) and F (increase educational...) agree with A) (maintain current levels of UTC... ) as a percent of the City under canopy, but not necessarily the existing canopy. Other; Integration and expansion of Urban Forestry through the city's organization FAYETTEVILLE URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN e S h, tter-5tock ZfV At� k , � fit ri:; > [ ??_ ��::� U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Sustainability & Management Audit System Information Gathering & Discovery ❖ Measure City's readiness for improved urban forest management, use of the Discovery Matrix ❖ Document Index of discovered resources ❖ 11 Categories, 129 planning elements 1) Management Policy & Ordinances 2) Capacity and Training 3) Funding and Accounting 4) Decision & Authority 5) Tree Inventories 6) Urban Forest Plans 7) Risk Management 8) Disaster Planning g) Standards and Best Practices 10)Community 11) Green Asset Evaluation Audit Process (example only) Category Management Policy and Ordinances Professional Capacity and Training Funding and Accounting Decision and Management Authority Inventories Urban Forest Management Plans Risk Management Disaster Planning Standards & Best Management Practices (BMPs) Community Green Asset Evaluation # Subcategory 1,02 Climate Change (Sustainability) 1.03 No Net Loss 1.04 Risk Management 1,o5 Tree Canopy Goals 30 3 4 3 14 13 4 4 39 28 10 Document/Resource Tree Policy Manual Sustainable City Plan Tree Policy Manual Tree Policy Manual Sustainable City Plan General Plan Documents Evaluated and Recorded in the Index 1 City Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan 2 Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual 3 Code of Ordinances - Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection L, Code of Ordinances - Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations Tree Preservation Standard Detail 1 6 Tree List from Arkansas Native Plant Society 1 7 Significant Trees List & Classifications 8 Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equ 9 Adopted Annual Budget & Work Program 10 2022 Q1 Executive Management Re 11 Adopted Five Year Capital Improvei 12 "Fayetteville First" Strategic Plan 13 Energy Action Plan Plan 2021 Public survey conducted, tree canopy section 8.3 (p89), climate change and canopy, urban forest benefits, ordinance, UFAB (formerly Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee est. in 1993) Contains recommended tree list Contains list of invasive plant species Contains statement on 40% canopy goal (based on Energy Action Plan), lists trees planted, lists trees mitigated and preservation acres Nothina to rt Chapter 1 Greenhouse Gas Reduction & Climate Change; Chapter 3 Buildings, Strategy #5 - UHI mitigation (p40); Chapter 3 Buildings Strategy 2, Make Existing Single-family & Multi -family Dwellings More Efficient; Ch 3 Buildings Strategy 4, Conduct a Community -Wide Tree Canopy Assessment and Set a Tree Canopy Coverage Percentage Goal (p39); Ch 3 Cross -Sector Strategy 1, Integrate Resilience and Adaptation Considerations into Planninq and Policv Decisions -- investigate feasibility of a stormwater utility to improve preen infrastructure 14 Master Street Plan (excerpt from City Plan 2040) 011) "please help the City understand which of the following amenities, characteristics, or public improvements 15 City Plan 2040 Public Survey should be prioritized in association with infill" -- responses greatly supported making the neighborhood they want to live in, projects are friendly to pedestrians, and public amenities (traffic calming, pathways, open spaces) Example of the resources reviewed and documented in the Document Index A total of 66 documents were gathered for the research and information discovery phase of the UFMP project. Based on the research, there were a total of 326 instances where elements in the Audit were referenced in the 66 documents. An example of the document index is provided above. For a complete listing, see the "Fayetteville Urban Forest Audit" spreadsheet. BAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM' DISCC Management Policy and Ordinances Climate Change (Sustainability) No Net Loss Risk Management Tree Canopy Goals Example of the Documents and References to Audit Elements City Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Adopted Annual Budget & Work Program Adopted Five Year Capital Improvements Plan 2021-2025 "Fayetteville First" Strategic Plan Energy Action Plan Active Transportation Plan Mobility Plan Fayetteville Downtown Master Plan Walker Park Neighborhood Pilaster Plan Weddington Corridor Plan Economic and Labor Force Analysis - Appendix B Draft Fayette Junction Master Plan Tomorrow's Corridor - Rethinking 71B University of Arkansas Office for Sustainability- Plants - Current Projects Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity Code of Ordinances - Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection Adopted Annual Budget & Work Program Mobility Plan City Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual Code of Ordinances - Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity Adopted Annual Budget &'.Vork Program Adopted Five Year Capital Improvements Plan 2021- 2025 Energy Action Plan MobilityPlan Fayette Junction Master Plan Tomorrow's Corridor - Rethinking 716 City Website Urban Forestry/Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations (letterfrom the Urban Forester) Urban Forestry/Tree Preservation and Landscape Regulations (letter from the Urban Forester) Once the documents were indexed, each of the 66 resources were reviewed and cross-examined with the Audit's Discovery Matrix categories (11) and elements (130), An example of the process is shown on the left. For the "Management Policy and Ordinances" category, documents are listed in the green cells that mention or relate to the categorys elements including "Climate Change", "No Net Loss", "Risk Management", and "Tree Canopy Goals". Any reference to the element within a document was given a "1" to enable a count of the total references to urban forestry per document, per element. Management Policy and Ordinances Zoo Professional Capacity and Training 4 Funding and Accounting 10 Decision and Management Authority 40 Inventories 18 Urban Forest Management Plans 7 Risk Management 12 Disaster Planning 2 Standards & Best Management Practices (BMPs) log Community 20 Green Asset Evaluation N/A Matrix example for Favetteville documents relating to Management Policii DRFST AUDIT SYSTEM' PRa RESEARCH DEEP DIVE: Existing plans, ordinances, practices CITY CONSULTATIONS: Workflows, operations, services, best practices, standards, challenges, opportunities EXISTING CONDITIONS: Inventory analysis, ecosystem benefits, trends, maintenance needs, planting, preservation BENCHMARKING: Establish baseline metrics for comparison and monitoring ($ per tree, staff per tree, etc.) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Existing and potential partners, recommendations, public meeting q[URBAN FOREST AUDIT: Systematic evaluation from which goals and actions are developed and can be monitored gAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM' PPC Element Subcategory Description or Criteria for Evaluation Climate Change With reference to urban trees, address he 1.01 long-term health and productivit he (Sustainability) natural resource. 1.02 No Net Loss Can refer to trees, bas a r canopy. 103 Risk Management Should reference: A300 Part g, ISA BMF and prioritization fu ding mechanisms. 1.04 Tree Canopy Goals Overall community/campus goal, or by designated "zone". Assigned Status Score: 2 "Adopted Common Practice" Score: 2 "Adopted Common Practice" Score: 2 "Adopted Common Practice" Not Practiced 2) Adopted Common Practice 3) Exceeds Common Practice 'For each subcategory that is evaluated, o points are attributed if the component doesn't exist or is not practiced; 1 point is given if the component is in development; 2 points are given if the component is routinely practiced; and 3 points are given if the practice is exceeded. The points can then be totaled for an overall score. gAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM' UUTCC 1 Management Policy and Ordinances 75% 50% 15 54% 2 Professional Capacity and Training 100% NA 13 81% 3 Funding and Accounting 100% NA 50% 4 Decision and Management Authority 100% 50% 88% 5 Inventories NA 2 % 5 v12 46% 6 Urban Forest Management Plans NA 50� 11 46% 7 Risk Management 100% 0 16 89% 8 Disaster Planning NA 0 13 93% g Standards and BMPs 100% 69% 44 73% 10 Community 100% NA 24 86% 11 Green Asset Evaluation NA NA 17 85% `Standard of Care (SOC) elements represent the minimum group of urban forestry management "best practices" that a municipality should consider for implementation. "Base Practices (BP) elements represent additional urban forest management activities or components that may effectively expand a program beyond the SOC group (see footnote above). These elements are typically precursors to other "non -core" elements in the category. Rank Description aL AM Ranking RationaLe / Considerations CategoryLoLor • WIP description No mention of the audit element in any Light Red o) Not Practiced documents, nothing uncovered during Describes the considerations that influenced staff consultations, not in development the ranking as part of the UFMP project. The audit element is either mentioned in Yellow 1) In Development various documents but needs Describes the considerations that influenced improvements or it is being addressed as the ranking part of the UFMP project. 2) Adopted The audit element is mentioned in Describes the considerations that influenced Green Common Practice various documents, and it aligns with the ranking industry standards and best practices. URBAN Fit =I, I Amff mr dA11 writte ing... y. Urban Heat Also referred to as Sustainability. With reference to urban trees. Addresses Most documents that mention sustainability relate to development not trees 1.01 (Sustainability) the long-term health and productivity of the natural resource. though Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection ordinance exists 1.02 No Net Loss Can refer to trees, basal area, or canopy. Not specifically mentioned but ordinances have mitigation requirements 1.03 Risk Management Should reference: ANSI A300 Part g, ISA BMP, and prioritization funding No document specifically calls out standards, protocols, or staff trained for mechanisms. tree risk management 1.04 Tree Canopy Goals Overall community/campus goal, or by designated "zone". Energy Action Plan has a stated goal of 40% 1.05 Tree Protection Construction and/or landscape maintenance, Ordinances, critical root zone mentioned in various permit documents, construction standards 1.06 UtilityUtilitypruning, planting, and installation policy (e. boring vs. trenching). p g' p g' p y g' g g No policy in place for utility pruning was found but permits require identifying location of underground utilities Recognizes and addresses the human health benefits of the natural resource Human Health - Physical (e.g. exercise, air quality, stress management, shade). Benefits of trees are stated in various documents but less emphasis on heat 1.07 & Psychological reduction and human health Could also include Urban Heat Island (UHI) policies. 1.08 Wildlife Diversity / Mammals, birds, or reptiles. Comprehensive Plan and other plans have strategies and policies for Habitat / Protection preserving and conserving natural resources for Wildlife 1.09 Performance Monitoring Recognizes the annual or biennial calculation of metrics (e.g. some component Performance metrics in budget documents. Specific KPIs to be developed of ecosystem services) for the purpose of tracking management performance. as part of the UFMP 1.10 Ordinance (Private) Tree protection and management for trees on private property. Ordinances are in place but Will be reviewed With recommendations as part of the UFMP. City has the Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual 1.11 Ordinance (Public) Tree protection and management for public trees. Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection is for private development. Similarly for Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations US Green Building Council's LEED® rating systems (or similar internationally) 1.12 Development Standards LEED v4 BD+C (Sustainable Sites) Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection is for private development. LEED 4 ND (Neighborhood Pattern & Design, Green Infrastructure) Similarly for Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations ASLA's SITES® Rating System 1.13 High -Conservation Value Programs or policies for identification, acquisition, and/or protection of groups The Comprehensive Plan focuses heavily on conservation and easements Forests of trees or forests that provide unique public benefits. 1.14 Urban Interface (WUI) Programs or policies that improve management of the urban interface for fire Wildfire management is not covered in the documents but invasive species and/or invasive species. management is a]wFAN0Sil*]3qiri\■IMyd�vL"irmITWri\s7LrilrrvAIF:1 0NM — — — — — —IN wlq# Component EvaLuated Description or Criteria for EvaLuation Iming RationaLe / Considerations 2.00 ProfessionaL ManagementprofessionaL consuLtation. 0 2.01 Certified Arborist - Staff International Society of Arboriculture Urban Foresters in Parks, Public Works, and Development 2.02 Certified Arborist - International Society of Arboriculture Chapter 167 identifies and recognizes ISA Certified Arborists Contracted 2.03 Certified Arborist - Other International Society of Arboriculture Supporting staff with ISA credentials Resource Other Professional - 2.04 Advising/directing OF This could be a professional in an allied field like Landscape Architecture. City to provide input management 2.05 Municipal Forestry Institute Graduate of Society of MunicipalArborist's MFI program or similar City to provide input 2.06 USFS Urban Forestry Attendance at USFS UFI or similar City to provide input Institute or similar 2,07 Campus/city arborist - ISA Arborist routinely provides ISA CEU presentations/workshops, City to provide input, trainings and resources are available on the CA instructor for CEUs website ("Citizen Tree Care Resources") Tree Board University or On-line training modules from Oregon U&CF for Tree Board/Advisory Unsure of the training and background of members on the Urban 2.08 similar Council or similar Forestry Advisory Board, Environmental Action Committee, or the Keep Fayetteville Beautiful Committee Organizational Process, procedures, and protocol for cross -professional communications City to provide input but improvements will be recommended in the 2.og Communications within the organization (all departments "touching" trees). UFMP # Component EvaLuated Description or Criteria for EvaLuation ng RationaLe / Considerations 3.00 Urban ForestryBudget 3.oi Budgeted Annually Budget authorized/required for tree board, tree maintenance, and/or tree Urban Foresters and programs clearly listed in budget line items planting. A protocol is in place to prioritize urban forestry management activities 3.02 Contingency Budget Process during budget shortfalls; e.g. during times of limited funding for: 1) risk City to provide input management, 2) young tree care, 3> mulching. Funding Calculated from Budget in terms of per capita, per tree, or for performance (e.g. per tree City to provide input. The inventory with ecosystem benefit calculations 3'03 Community Attribute weighted by size class or age. is a starting point Funding Based on Budget connected with/based on ecosystem service (ES) monitoring and City to provide input. The inventory with ecosystem benefit calculations 3'04 Performance Monitoring performance. is a starting point 3.05 Urban Forestry Line Item Is the budget specific to urban forest management? Line items for the Urban Forestry staff, clear Line items for Forestry & Habitat plus events, and Tree City USA reporting documents Maintain green infrastructure data in the "unaudited supplementary 3.o6 Green Asset Accounting disclosure of an entity's comprehensive annual financial report (CAFRY. City to provide input GASB 34 implementation for municipalities. # Component EvaLuated Description or Criteria for EvaLuation Efting RationaLe / Considerations 4.00 INFAuthorityy' Professional urban forest manager with authority over the program and "Urban Forester" mentioned frequently in documents stating authority, 4.01 Urban Forest Manager day-to-day activity. Including designated budget line item. role, and communications protocols 4.02 Staff Authority Designated staff with authority over the program and day-to-day activity. Clearly defines the role of the Urban Forester Including designated line item. Established protocol and mechanism(s) for communication among all members of the urban forest management "community" in your 4.03 Communication Protocol municipality or organization (e.g. manager, department under control, City to provide input advisory board, finance, field operations, public, NGOs, business community, developers). Tree Board, Commission, or 4.04 Advisory Council Establishes a board for public participation (advisory or with authority). Urban Forestry Advisory Board JRBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: INVENTORIES 42LOmponent EvaLuated Description or Criteria for EvaLuation Ranking RationaLe / Considerations AW)AssessmentW� 5.01 Canopy Inventory (UTC) Periodic (<5 year) canopy inventory and assessment. Public & private. 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019 canopy assessments Recent (<5 year) ecosystem services (ES) inventory & assessment? Public: 5.02 Ecosystem Services s00% or street trees; Public & Private: Sample; or Campus. Or, are ES The sample inventory and canopy data were collected / provided to conduct calculated annually or biennially based on partial re -inventory and projected the analysis as part of the UFMP growth as a monitoring tool. 5.03 Public Trees Evaluate below 5.04 Street Trees Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.05 Parks/Riparian Areas Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? No inventory located except for the public/private sample inventory in 2022 5.06 Other Public Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space. No inventory located except for the public/private sample inventory in 2022 5'0� ontinuous inventory on Partial re -inventory to support continuous forest inventory, growth projections, Guidance to be provided in the UFMP a cycle (<-s years) and the calculation of ecosystem services. 5.08 Private Trees Evaluate below 5.09 Campus (Educational) Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? University of Arkansas has a tree inventory and online map 5.10 Corporate Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.11 Other Private Property Is there a recent (5 year) inventory? Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5'12 Continuous inventory on Partial re -inventory to support continuous forest inventory, growth projections, Guidance to be provided in the UFMP a cycle (<-s years) and the calculation of ecosystem services). Green Stormwater Water Master Plan but not specific to green infrastructure or stormwater. 5'13 Infrastructure (GSI) BMP stormwater mitigation practices and locations (e.g. Washington DC) Energy Action Plan has a strategy to investigate feasibility of a stormwater utility to improve green infrastructure Inventory data includes Lat/Long (i.e. GIS). Should address the spatial 5.14 Spatial relationship between the natural resource and people (i.e. residents, visitors, Canopy Assessments and tree inventory provide spatial data. Guidance to be activities) that would help manage the resource for benefits associated with provided in the UFMP proximity (air quaLity, recreation, stress mitigation, etc. Maintenance and Planting details (nursery, species, size, cost, contractor, etc.) maintained with 5.15 Planting Records inventory or as separate database or recordkeeping system. Also pruning and City to provide input Maintained removal histories. = • , 6.01 Annual Maintenance An annual calendar that defines typical activity by season. To support City to provide input Calendar scheduling. 6.02 Public Trees Evaluate below 6.03 Street Tree Management Is there a recent (5 year) plan for street trees? Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.04 Parks/Riparian Area Is there a recent (5 year) plan ? Parks Master Plan in development as of January 2023 Management 6.05 Other Public Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.06 Private Trees Evaluate below 6.07 Campus (Educational) Is there a recent (5 year) plan for Campus trees? TBD whether University of Arkansas is a Tree Campus USA campus 6.08 Corporate Is there a recent (5 year) plan? Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.09 Other Private Property Is there a recent (5 year) plan? Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.10 Green Infrastructure Is there a plan for green infrastructure (i.e. nodes & linkages)? Large-scale Energy Action Plan mentions stormwater utility for green infrastructure projects. 6.11 Other Written Plans Other natural resource plans (e.g. tree canopy). May be a component of Comp Plan, Energy Action Plan, Parks Master Plan (in progress), another plan. neighborhood plans 6.12 Tree Planting Is there a recent (3 year) tree planting plan?), May be a component of Guidance to be provided in the UFMP another plan. 6.13 OF as Part of a Is any OF management plan referenced in the comprehensive plan (i.e. Section 8.3 of the Comprehensive Plan is "Tree Canopy" and describes Comprehensive Plan county or municipality) or master plan (i.e. Campus)? the role urban forests play in climate change, stormwater, etc. Criteria and indicators based on A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability Urban Forest Planning and (Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P., Cross, G., and Wake, V. 1997 Journal of Guidance to be provided in the UFMP. Conducting this Audit is one 6.14 Management Criteria and Arboriculture.) or on work of W.A. Kenney, P.J.E. van Wassenaer, and A.L. approach to Criteria &Indicators Performance Indicators Sate[ in Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. (2011) 032&i AUDIT SYSTEM: RISK MANAGEMENT I Description or Criteria- 0 M -. Component7 7.00 Risk Management Activities 7.01 TRAQ Attained At least one staff or consultant is TRAQ. City to provide input Annual Level 1(ANSI A300 7.02 All trees in high occupancy areas visited annually. City to provide input Part g & ISA BMP) 7.03 Mitigation Prioritization A protocol for prioritizing mitigation following Level 1 and Level 2 City to provide input assessments. Reflects the controlling agency's threshold for risk. 7.04 Occupancy Areas Mapped Has TRAQ staff/consultant discussed/mapped occupancy levels with City to provide input controlling authority? Recordkeeping, Reporting, A process has been put in place to maintain records on requests, 7.05 and Communications inspections, evaluations, and mitigation of risk; and on the communications City to provide input among the managers related to those risk assessments. 7.06 Standard of Care Adopted Controlling authority has adopted a Standard of Care (SOC) or risk City to provide input management policy. Is there a written specification that meets requirements of ANSI A300 (Part 7.07 Tree Risk Specification g)? And, has it been discussed with the controlling authority with City to provide input relevance to the controlling authority's threshold for acceptable risk? Urban Tree Risk 7'08 The community has prepared and follows a comprehensive program for City to provide input Management urban tree risk management. so documents mention invasive management, prohibited trees, 7.09 Invasive Management Plan to address and manage invasive: plants, insects, and disease. recommended trees, Arkansas Native Plant Society tree list, among others # Component EvaLuated Description or Criteria for EvaLuation ��Wing RationaLe / Considerations 8.00 Disaster PLanning Activities Staff knowledge of the municipality's protocol for requesting disaster Response/Recovery City to provide input, Fayetteville Emergency Operations Plan is in 8.01 resources through the county or state with access to mutual aid and Mechanism place EMAC. 8.02 Urban Forestry as part of the The OF plan (8,3) is incorporated into the county/municipal disaster plan; Nothing found at the county level, City to provide input County Disaster Plan specifically in reference to debris management and risk mitigation. 8.03 Urban Forestry Disaster Plan A separate/specific plan within the urban forestry management program No plan identified, City to provide input (i.e. who to call, priorities). 8.04 Pre -disaster Contracts Contracts are in place for critical needs. City Likely has a structure in place, City to provide input 8.05 Mitigation Plan mitigation plan has been developed for pre -disaster, recovery, and post- City to provide input disaster. EMAC Mission Ready Municipality has published disaster resources with state EM and 8.06 Packages (MRP) participates in inter -state Mutual Aid to support Urban Forest Strike Teams City to provide input (UFST). 8.07 Urban Forest Strike Team Participation in the UFST project. City to provide input Component-. D-Considerations••• Standards Reference and adherence to ANSI Standards for Tree ordinances reference standards, website lists standards, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree 9.01 ANSI Standards arboricultural practices (A300), safety (Z133), or Nursery Preservation Standard Detail Stock (ANSI Z6o.1) (any or all). g.o2 Ages/Diameter Specific management for the development of an age- No specific mention about age diversity but species diversity is recognized Distribution diverse tree o ulation 9.03 Arborist Standards Standards of practice for arborists (i.e. Certification). Tree ordinances reference standards, website lists standards, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail Best Management Establishes or references tree maintenance BMPs (i.e. Tree ordinances reference best practices, website Lists standards, Comprehensive Plan Lists BMPs, Tree g'04 Practices (BMPs) written comprehensive standards & standards). Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail 9.05 Fertilization and Fertilization or mulching standards required for conserved Ordinances list requirements, City website has resources, Structural Soil Detail includes guidance Mulching & planted trees. 9.06 Lightning Protection BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard. Nothing listed, minor recommendation to consider in the UFMP 9.07 Planting Planting and transplanting standards required/specified. Listed in ordinances, Tree Preservation Standard Detail, website, Tree Planting on Slope Detail 9.o8 Pruning Pruning standards required for conserved & planted trees. Listed in ordinances, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail, City website 9.09 Removal Infrastructure damage, stump grinding, etc. Guidance listed in Chapter 167 and City website g.10 Support Systems BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard. Nothing listed, minor recommendation to consider in the UFMP (Guying and Bracing) 9.11 Tree Risk Tree risk assessment procedures; ISA BMP or equivalent. Risk mentioned in Ch. 167 but should be evaluated as part of the UFMP Construction Written standards for: tree protection, trenching/boring in Critical root zone, tree protection zones, critical root zone addressed in ordinances, Tree Preservation 9.12 Management Standards CRZs, pre -construction mulching, root or limb pruning, Manual, City website, and Tree Preservation Standard Detail watering (any or all). g.13 Design Standards Standards for design that specifically require trees; 18 documents have standards listed for development that impacts trees and landscaping (Comp Plan, standards for placement, soil treatment, and/or drainage. Tree Manual, Ordinances, Active Transportation Plan, neighborhood plans, others) 9.14 Genus/Species Suggests or requires diversity of plant material. City website has a list and references the Arkansas Native Plant Society Tree List Diversity 91 s M M 1k I # Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 9.0016MONSI StandardsCONTINUED Green Stormwater BMPs for site level GI practices like rain gardens and swales. Small-scale Energy Action Plan recommends stormwater utility for green infrastructure, 9'15 Infrastructure (GSI) projects. other plans reference stormwater management and GI g.16 Inventory Data Collection Adopted or developed standards for tree inventory data collection Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 9.17 Minimum Planting Volume Minimum required root zone volume. Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual provides standards and BMPs g.18 Minimum Tree Size Minimum caliper for tree replacements, and/or minimum size of existing trees Tree Preservation &Landscape Manual notes the 2" minimum caliper to receive tree density or canopy credit. 9.19 Root Protection Zone (CRZ) Defines adequate root protection zone; Critical Root Zone (CRZ). Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual plus 5 other documents note this 9.20 Safety Safety logs, trainings, reference to ANSI Z133 Safety Standard No specific standards for safety around trees. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 9.21 Topping Prohibits topping or other internodal cuts (public & private). Chapter 167 restricts topping Identifies and publishes a list of the most desirable, recommended, or Tree Preservation &Landscape Manual, ordinances, significant trees list, 9.22 Tree Species List preferred species (native and non-native species); alternatively, a list of City website, and others list the recommended or required trees species prohibited. 9.23 Tree Quality Standards Written standards for tree selection at nursery in addition to Z60.1. Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual notes the ANSI standard for nursery stock Utility Right -of -Way ( ROW) Requirements for planting, pruning, and/or removal of trees within a utility Chapter 167 and City website mention utility management but could be 9'�4 Management ROW. expanded as part of the UFMP 9.25 Urban Agriculture Enabled urban food forestry practices. Guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.26 Wood Utilization Larger diameter material is processed for wood products. Guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.27 3rd party forest certification Examples: American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Forest Stewardship CouncilT"' Guidance to be considered for the UFMP g.28 Energy generation Local or regional use of chips or other woody debris for co -generation Guidance to be considered for the UFMP facilities. Composting of Leaf and/or Leaves and small woody debris are captured and used on -site or processed No mention of debris management, guidance to be considered for the 9'�9 Other Woody Debris by someone by composting for reuse. UFMP 9.30 Watering Standards Various documents state the watering requirement post -planting. Additional guidance to be provided in the UFMP I I I Z LIJ i # Component EvaLuated Description or Criteria for EvaLuation Ranking RationaLe / Considerations • •• Community BuRding Social Media Website or 10.01 Does your community/campus use social media platforms or similar to City website, social media, Speak Up Fayetteville Similar document and publicize your urban forestry program, activity, or events? 10.02 Education The urban forest is used as an educational laboratory for class activity: Kids Resources on City website, Tree Manual in the Woods, PLT, high school, or college level. 10.03 Private Property Tree Does your community sponsor this program locally? To be addressed in the UFMP Program Public -facing Inventory Public access to the community tree resource via an on-line mapping 2022 sample tree inventory used a public facing software program but trial 10.04 Software program (i.e. any Web Map Service; WMS), subscription ended. City does have online portal of canopy assessment maps Is public management consistent with private property requirements for Comprehensive Plan included a survey. Ongoing public feedback 10.05 Public Perception tree protections and care? Does the Campus/public tree management recommendations to be provided in the UFMP reflect neighborhood norms? 10.06 Recognition Programs Programs that raise awareness of trees or that use trees to connect the Arbor Day events, spring and fall planting, Celebration of Tres, Amazing Tree community to significant events or activities. 10-071 Arbor Day Celebration Whether or not associated with Tree City USA. Arbor Day events, spring and fall planting, Celebration of Tres, Amazing Tree 10.08 Arboretum designation Internal or third party arboretum designation. University of Arkansas tree inventory and Arboretum Mapping Project, Botanical Garden of the Ozarks 10.09 Significant trees For example: size, history. No Heritage or Significant Tree Ordinance but City has Significant Trees on website 10.10 Memorial/Honorarium Tree planting or tree care programs than honor/memorialize individuals, City to provide input. City has tree giveaways, and tree donations organizations, or events. Social Media Does your community/campus make use of Twitter, Facebook, Blogs for Several posts about urban forestry but additional guidance to be provided in 10.11 internal or external outreach? UFMP 10.12 Active Communications Press releases, regular news articles (print), "State of the Urban Forest" Additional guidance to be provided in the UFMP reports, periodic analysis of threats and opportunities. Tree Care Are volunteers trained and used for basic tree care (e.g. mulching, pruning, Volunteer program and events, invasive species removal, City website with 10.13 planting). resources for tree care 10.14 Tree City USA® Community/campus meets current qualifications for any of these 27 years as TC USA with g Growth Awards programs. 10.15 Volunteer Opportunities Ad hoc or scheduled. Any/all age groups. Tree Campus USA student Volunteer programs and events activities. FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: GREEN ASSET EVALUATION ComponentJRBAN Description or Criteria for EvaLuation Ranking RationaLeConsiderations•• •. - Based.ries 11.01 Deadwood Look for evidence of periodic or ad -hoc deadwood removal (i.e. lack of dead To be evaluated With the 2022 tree inventory and guidance provided in the UFMP Limbs > 2" in the trees or on the ground). 11.02 Genus Diversity No genera exceed 20% of population; make specific observations for Acer, Based on the sample inventory in 2022, 31% are oaks, 15% elms, 8% maples. Quercus, Froxinus, Ulmus and other local species of concern. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.03 Mature Tree Care Mature trees are retained in the landscape, and are of acceptable risk; i.e. veteran Based on the sample inventory in 2022, the highest percent of recommended tree management. tree Work is pruning for clearance (8/). Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.04 Mulching Evidence of adequate (i.e. spatial extent, depth, and material) roots zone To be evaluated With the 2022 tree inventory and guidance provided in the UFMP mulching for all age classes. Planting Site Volume Are species & sites matched for optimization of above ground canopy; right tree Only 6% of the trees inventoried in 2022 have a clearance conflict (2% pedestrian, 11.05 Optimization in the right spot concept. 1% building, 1% light, 1% sign or signal). Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.06 Rooting Volume Are species & sites matched for optimization for below ground rooting volume; Only 0.3% of trees inventoried in 2022 Were noted as causing sidewalk damage. Optimization right tree in the right spot concept. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP No species/cultivars exceed so% of population; make specific observations for Based on the sample inventory in 2022, no species exceed the 1o% threshold. 7% 11.07 Species Diversity Acer, Quercus, Froxinus, U(mus and other local genera of concern. Also evaluate are Princeton elms, 6% post oaks, 6% willow oaks, 5% pin oaks, and 4% blackgums. the role of regionally local native species. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.08 Soil Compaction Observe evidence of soil compaction by users or staff during maintenance. "desire" To be evaluated With the 2022 tree inventory and guidance provided in the UFMP Include lines and construction activity at time of evaluation. 11.09 Tree Health Rate the overall tree health in all size (age) classes; look for crown dieback, Based on the sample inventory in 2022, 75% of public trees are in good condition, decay, foliage density & color. 15% in fair condition, 5% poor, and 5% dead. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.10 Young Tree Pruning Look for evidence of periodic (e.g. every 3 years to year g) structural pruning (e.g. Based on the sample inventory in 2022, only 3 trees (0.1%) require structural subordination cuts, dominant central leader, co -dominant stems lower that 201 pruning at a young age. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP MI I ■ 1• I Final Audit Results Note, the audit may be kept internal and is only meant to serve as a preliminary evaluation to support the development of the Plan's goals and strategies though it may serve as a UFMP implementation monitoring tool 1 Management Policy and Ordinances 50% 67% 20 71% 2 Professional Capacity and Training 100% NA 16 89% 3 Funding and Accounting 75% NA 8 67% 4 Decision and Management Authority 50% Z00% 5 63% 5 Inventories NA 56% 17 65% 6 Urban Forest Management Plans NA 50% 13 54% 7 Risk Management 83% 50% 14 78% 8 Disaster Planning NA 67% g 64% g Standards and BMPs 75% 69% 44 73% 10 Community 100% NA 25 89% 11 Green Asset Evaluation NA NA 16 8o% "Standard of Care (SOC) elements represent the minimum group of urban forestry management "best practices" that a municipality should consider for implementation. "Base Practices OR elements represent additional urban forest management activities or components that may effectively expand a program beyond the SOC group (see footnote above). These elements are typically precursors to other "non -core" elements in the category. The original audit and supporting spreadsheet Were developed by Urban Forestry South (USDA Forest Service, Region 8, SRS-4952, Athens, Georgia). The spreadsheet Was based on the current Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Review Checklist developed in cooperation with Agnes Scott College Office of Sustainability and the ASC Arboretum Advisory Council and the City of Austin (TX) https://urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/files/UFS%2oand%2oASC%20UF%20RevieWCalc%2oTooL%20- 18Aug15%20v4.2beta.xlsx/view ppv ol Ole or AJW x s+ :r u�. •It►-�'tn ,F,r.' 'i •? tom; i�. I.• % b� • 1. sjy'�pi� sus-`-,._ s%r_. -7$Et; `�: _ _. � �� •: it ; ■aolNW'lUWM;,ril; Fix CI3;,i3; ■■UIF, AYETTEVILLE 1Ivianii uec CONTENTS Climate Impacts in Fayetteville........................................................................................1 Fayetteville's Current Tree List and Planting Practices.......................................1 Overview 1 The Danger of Single Species Planting 2 Criteria for Selection for the List 2 Street Tree Planting Scenarios 2 Fayetteville's Sister Climate City.................................................................................... 4 Sister Climate City Tree List Comparisons 5 Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX Tree List Crosswalk - Results................................................................. 6 Summary of Matching Tree Species H.' USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas Considerations................................................................... 9 Summary of Trees in the SCCA List and Favorable with Climate Change .............................................. 11 Summary...................................................................................................................................12 Appendix A. Climate Adaptation Report..................................................................13 Climate Change Impacts for Southeast................................................................................................................13 Tables Table 1. Summary of tree species in the Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX recommended or approved tree lists.....................................6 Table 2. Summary of matching tree species from Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX's recommended or approved tree lists.....................8 Table 3. Summary of Fayetteville's trees on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and the predicted habitat change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas.....................................................................................................................................9 Table 4. Summary of Fayetteville's trees that are on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and whose habitat is predicted to increase or not change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas....................................................................................11 Figures Figure 1. Excerpt from the City of Fayetteville's recommended tree list showing the attributes and a sample of large species trees in thelist..................................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Map displaying the Sister Climate City of Longview, TX and the City of Dallas, TX which was utilized for comparing recommendedtree lists........................................................................................................................................................5 CLIMATE I M PACTS IN FAYETTEVI LLE Urban areas around the world are facing dramatically intensifying extreme weather and climate impacts including drought, long-term water shortages, flooding, extreme weather events, and prolonged heat. Urban trees can play a significant role in making Fayetteville resilient to weather and climate extremes, and in protecting human and ecosystem health and safety. View Appendix A for the Climate Adaptation Report generated for the southeast United States from the Climate Adaptation Workbook. Increased temperatures and prolonged heat have a dramatic effect on urban trees. Urban trees already face many struggles of the urban environment, including competition for space, elements of an urban environment, vandalism, and harmful pests and diseases. Some of Fayetteville's established trees are unlikely to survive the changes in the climate and weather patterns over the next 50-75 years. Planting the right trees for Fayetteville today and in the future will play a vital role in the resiliency of the City's urban forest as well as overall community sustainability. In pursuit of a sustainable and resilient urban forest, the City of Fayetteville seeks to apply climate adaptation strategies to urban forest management planning. Building toward this objective, the City maintains a recommended tree list of small, medium, and large trees prepared by the Arkansas Native Plant Society. The following provides an analysis of the changing climate and considerations for new tree species to integrate into Fayetteville's urban forest over time. FAYETTEVILLE'S CURRENT TREE LIST AND PLANTING PRACTICES Recreated from the City of Fayetteville's website— www.fayetteville-ar.gov/3979/List-of-Recommended-Native-Trees- and-Shr Overview Urban Forestry Staff reviews, recommends and selects trees for a variety of sites and growing environments. Staff evaluates each place for site -specific variables when selecting the most appropriate trees for a site. Not every tree is right for every location, and the Urban Forestry staff uses our extensive tree knowledge, research and site evaluation when selecting trees, mindful of how each tree and each site may change in the short- and long-term future. This list of trees contains recommendations for trees planted in Fayetteville, including ideal locations and notes on each tree. It highlights how many species of butterflies and moths each of these trees can host. The list does not include all the insects, birds, reptiles and small mammals that a tree can host. The Arkansas Native Plant Society was the catalyst for this updated list, and the Urban Forestry Advisory Board assisted with information. Urban Forestry Staff is continuously researching and contemplating the use, space, species and varieties of trees, shrubs and plants used throughout the City. We seek expert advice in our community and are lucky to have professional connections with the Horticulture, Landscape Architecture, and Plant Pathology Departments at the University of Arkansas. We also have a healthy relationship with the Arkansas Forestry Commission and the Arkansas Native Plant Society. We utilize the wealth of knowledge surrounding us to benefit the City by helping Staff and residents choose the right tree for the right space. Plani fGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Po g e I 1 developers &T—Pl—, The Danger of Single Species Planting Historically, the use of a single species of street trees has had negative consequences. In the early 1900s, the American Chestnut, a popular and heavily planted street tree, was devastated by the chestnut blight. The blight caused large swaths of trees in the American streetscape to perish and left large gaps in the American landscape. A similar incident occurred with the spread of Dutch Elm disease. Due to the monoculture planting of elm trees as street trees, the impact was even more noticeable on streetscapes throughout the country. For these reasons and other global issues with plant disease, pests and pathogens, Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Staff encourages and recommends a diverse planting palette. Using native species trees is vital because it benefits the local ecosystem and saves the City money and time. Native species are well suited for our climate and prosper in Northwest Arkansas's soils because they originated here. Criteria for Selection for the List The City Urban Forestry Staff carefully selects species of trees as each location offers unique challenges. The overall criteria include: • Native or native cultivars first • Trees tolerant of pollution, drought and harsh conditions (salt/sand from winter and winds) • Trees that create litter problems or produce large fruit are not used as street trees • Tree shape — to ensure limbs are not too low and could create a visibility issue • Small trees under power lines • Trees with seasonal interest: fall color or blooms • Amount of sun and shade in the existing conditions • Speed of traffic • Pedestrian intensity • Visibility for traffic • Maintenance issues • Pest problems • Longevity of the tree • Type of Street Tree location: o Urban tree well o Large median (over six feet wide) o Small median (usually the green space between a curb and sidewalk, less than six feet wide) Street Tree Planting Scenarios Urban Tree Well Trees planted in urban tree wells have the most difficulty surviving and thriving for several reasons: the structured soils do not offer the same nutrients as a forest; space for the root systems is limited; and exposure to pollutants. The tree's shape also has to be considered for pedestrian visibility, automobile visibility, and not interfering with buildings. Large Medians Large median spaces vary in size from six to 10 feet wide. The space is adequate for most trees, and Staff considers maintenance needs when choosing a tree to be planted in the medians. Trees that produce less litter and fruit are ideal for large medians. Finally, visibility is another characteristic when choosing a large median tree. Urban Forestry staff selects trees that allow for visibility under and through the canopy to increase vehicular safety. 4F Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 12 Plan Geo Small Medians - Trees between Curb and Sidewalk (Tree Lawn less than Six feet) Small medians are the green spaces between the curb and the sidewalk, typically less than six feet wide. In these cases, Staff prioritizes maintaining the structural integrity of the sidewalk and curb. Other factors included in choosing the right species for this condition are sightline visibility for vehicles and pedestrians, sun and shade conditions, the appropriate size for location in town (residential, commercial, downtown), watering needs, amount of litter produced, and environmental benefits. This list does not contain every tree used in Fayetteville. Urban Forestry Staff does consider other trees not listed as viable options and will examine all proposed trees. There are construction techniques that allow larger trees in small locations. Staff will consider these techniques with appropriate construction details. LARGE SPECIES -Mature ht. 45' or above Street Tree Number of butterfly and Recommendation Types moth species tree can Species Common Name of Street tree conditions. host (Does not include Ideal Location Notes Tree well, Large median other insects, birds, (6' or more) small reptiles and small animals median (6' or less) that live in trees.) Grows poorly in compacted son. Not a good 199 Trunk shaded in morning street tree, sun scald is big problem with this as Ace rubrum Red Maple None and afternoon a street tree. Grows poorly in compacted soil. Not a good 199 Trunk shaded in morning street tree, sun scald is big problem with this as Ater saccharum Sugar Maple None and afternoon astreet tree. Extended dry soil leads to leaf drop. Avoid high pH. The three trunk species is overused in Betula nigra River Birch None 221 landscapes. Nuts -plant away from storm drains. Nut trees Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory None 220 Woods/Property Perimeter do not make good street trees due to litter. Nuts -plant away from storm drains. Nut trees Carya illinoinensis Pecan None 220 Woods/Property Perimeter do not make good street trees due to litter. Figure 1. Excerpt from the City of Fayetteville's recommended tree list showing the attributes and a sample of large species trees in the list I&PPIanITGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 13 developers of TreePlotter FAYETTEVI LLE'S SISTER CLIMATE CITY The Future Urban Climates tool, created and maintained by University of Maryland Center for Applied Sciences, is a mapping tool that matches and displays similar climates for cities across the United States. The comparisons are based on minimum and maximum temperatures and seasonal precipitation in each city. The closest area where current climate data is available is the Springdale, Arkansas area, just 10 miles north of Fayetteville. Results for a high emissions scenario show that the climate in 2080 for the Fayetteville region will feel most like today's climate near Longview, Texas —approximately 130 miles east of Dallas, Texas. The typical winter in Longview, Texas is 10.7°F (S.9°C) warmer and 40.8% wetter than winter in Fayetteville. What will climate feel like in 60 years? • Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 14 PIanITGeo developers of TreePlotter Sister Climate City Tree List Comparisons Based on the climate projections, Longview, Texas (Sister Climate City) currently has a climate that is similar to Fayetteville's projected climate and plant hardiness zone. The Sister Climate City's approved tree planting list was researched and compared with Fayetteville's "2020 Tree List From Arkansas Native Plant Society" list. After online research, no recommended tree list exists or was found for Longview, TX's urban forestry program. Therefore, the City of Dallas, Texas's recommended tree list was utilized given Dallas is only 130 miles west of Longview and the urban forestry consultants conducting this SCCA study have extensive experience in the Dallas -Fort Worth area. Figure 2. Map displaying the Sister Climate City of Longview, TX and the City of Dallas, TX which was utilized for comparing recommended tree lists PIanITGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 15 developereOf TreePlotter Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX Tree List Crosswalk - Results A total of 38 of 74 (51%) tree species in Fayetteville's tree list are in the "Approved Tree List" for Dallas, TX. The majority (24 tree species) are in the "Large" category, four are in the "Medium" category, and nine are in the "Small" category. The table below details Fayetteville's tree list (shrubs excluded) and an indicator of the species that is also in the Dallas tree list. Table 1. Summary of tree species in the Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX recommended or approved tree lists COMPARISON OF • SISTER CLIMATE CITY TREE (orderedFayetteville Tree List by Acerrubrum Red Maple Dallas, TX Tree List? Yes Acersaccharum Sugar Maple Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Yes Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Asimina triloba Pawpaw Betula nigra River Birch Yes Carpinus caroliniana Hornbeam or Musclewood Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Carya ovato Shagbark Hickory Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Yes Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree Yes Cladrastis kentuckea Yellowwood Cornus alternifolia Alternate Leaved Dogwood Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Corylus americana Hazelnut Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Yes Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur Hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Yes Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn Yes Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Fagus grandifolia American Beech Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes Hamamelis vernalis Ozark Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana Common Witch Hazel Ilex decidua Deciduous Holly Yes llexopaca American Holly Yes Ilex vomitoria * Yaupon Holly Yes flex attenuata'E.Palatka'* East Palatka Holly Ilex X attenuata 'Eagleston' * Eagleston Holly Ilex X attenuata 'Fosteri' * Foster Holly N PIanITGe6 dev 10mOf —Pl- Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 16 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes Liquidambar s. 'Rotundifolia' Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgu m Yes Liriodendron tulipifera* Tulip Tree Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Magnolia grandiflora'Bracken's Brown Beauty'* Bracken's Brown Magnolia Yes Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Magnolia virginiana* Sweet Bay Magnolia Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo Ostrya virginiana Hophornbeam Pinus echinata Shortleaf Pine Pinus strobus * Eastern White Pine* Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Quercus alba White Oak Yes Quercus bicolor * Swamp White Oak Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes Quercus nigra Water Oak Quercus phellos Willow Oak Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes Quercus velutina Black Oak Rhamnus caroliniana Carolina Buckthorn Yes Sapindus saponaria var. dummondii Soapberry Yes Sassafras albidum Sassafras Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes Thuja occidentalis* Eastern Arborvitae Tilia americana American Linden Yes Ulmus americans ' Valley Forge' Valley Forge Elm Yes Ulmus americana'Lewis & Clark' Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Ulmus americana'New Harmony' New Harmony Elm Yes Ulmus americana 'Princeton' Princeton Elm Yes Ulmus americana 'Jefferson' Jefferson Elm Yes Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw Viburnum Viburnum rufidulum Rusty Blackhaw Yes * See original tree list for notes on the respective species /PIanITGeo- Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e 17 developers of T—Pl-,, Summary of Matching Tree Species Table 2. Summary of matching tree species from Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX's recommended or approved tree lists SUMMARY Fayetteville Tree List .. Acerrubrum Red Maple Dallas, TX Tree List? Yes Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Yes eetula nigra River Birch Yes Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Yes Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree Yes Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Yes Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Yes Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn Yes Gleditsia triaconthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes Ilex decidua Deciduous Holly Yes Ilex opoca American Holly Yes Ilex vomitoria * Yaupon Holly Yes Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes Liquidambar s. 'Rotundifolia' Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Yes Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Magnolia grandiflora'Bracken's Brown Beauty'* Bracken's Brown Magnolia Yes Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Quercus alba White Oak Yes Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes Rhamnus caroliniana Carolina Buckthorn Yes Sapindus saponaria var. dummondii Soapberry Yes Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes Tilia americana American Linden Yes Ulmus americana' Valley Forge' Valley Forge Elm Yes Ulmus americana'Lewis & Clark' Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Ulmus americana'New Harmony' New Harmony Elm Yes Ulmus americana 'Princeton' Princeton Elm Yes Ulmus americana'Jefferson' Jefferson Elm Yes Viburnum rufidulum Rusty Blackhaw Yes * See original tree list for notes on the respective species • PIanITGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 18 developers of T—PI -r USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas Considerations Table 3. Summary of Fayetteville's trees on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and the predicted habitat change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas CLIMATE CITY AND US FOREST SERVICE CLIMATE CHANGE Common Name Red Maple ATLASSISTER -m 7ist? Dallas, TX Tree L . Habitat Change" Increase (orderedFayetteville Tree List Scientific Name) Acerrubrum Yes Acersaccharum Sugar Maple Decrease Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Decrease Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Yes Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry Decrease Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Asimina triloba Pawpaw Betula nigra River Birch Yes Increase Carpinus caroliniana Hornbeam or Musclewood Increase Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory No change Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Increase Carya ovato Shagbark Hickory Decrease Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Yes Celtis occidentalis Hackberry No change Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Increase Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree Yes Cladrastis kentuckea Yellowwood Cornus alternifolia Alternate Leaved Dogwood Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Increase Corylus americana Hazelnut Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Yes Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur Hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Yes Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn Yes Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Increase Fagus grandifolia American Beech No change Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Increase Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes Hamamelis vernalis Ozark Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana Common Witch Hazel Ilex decidua Deciduous Holly Yes Ilexopaca American Holly Yes Increase Ilex vomitoria * Yaupon Holly Yes flex attenuata'E.Palatka'* East Palatka Holly Ilex X attenuata 'Eagleston' * Eagleston Holly Ilex X attenuata 'Fosteri' * Foster Holly Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes No change Liquidambar s. 'Rotundifolia' Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Increase Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Yes Increase Liriodendron tulipifera* Tulip Tree Increase • Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 19 P I a n I T G e o developers of T—PI -r Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora 'Bracken's Brown Beauty,* Bracken's Brown Magnolia Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Increase Magnolia virginiana* Sweet Bay Magnolia Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo Increase Ostrya virginiana Hophornbeam Increase Pinus echinata Shortleaf Pine Increase Pinusstrobus * Eastern White Pine* Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Increase Quercus alba White Oak Yes No change Quercus bicolor * Swamp White Oak Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Increase Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Decrease Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes No change Quercus nigra Water Oak Increase Quercus phellos Willow Oak Increase Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Decrease Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes No change Quercus velutina Black Oak Decrease Rhamnus caroliniana Carolina Buckthorn Yes Sapindus saponaria var. dummondii Soapberry Yes Sassafras albidum Sassafras Increase Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes No change Thuja occidentalis* Eastern Arborvitae Tilia americana American Linden Yes Decrease Ulmusamericana'Valley Forge' Valley Forge Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'Lewis & Clark' Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'New Harmony' New Harmony Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'Princeton' Princeton Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'Jefferson' Jefferson Elm Yes Increase Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw Viburnum Viburnum rufidulum Rusty Blackhaw Yes * See original tree list for notes on the respective species ** USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario). Important Note: The USDA Forest Service Tree Atlas models predict habitat change for 134 native tree species in the eastern United States. The research is then modeled for tree species in the southeast U.S. including Arkansas. Some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included. With limited data currently available on the resilience and vulnerability of native Arkansas tree species, this table provides a glimpse of how the species' composition of Fayetteville's urban forest may change. Web source: www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/atlas/tree/ - PIanITGeo� Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page / 10 •"'t dev 10mOf —Pl— Summary of Trees in the SCCA List and Favorable with Climate Change Table 4. Summary of Fayetteville's trees that are on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and whose habitat is predicted to increase or not change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas Fayetteville Tree List (ordered . Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree List? Yes Change" Increase Betula nigra River Birch Yes Increase Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Increase Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Increase Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Increase Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Increase Ilex opaca American Holly Yes Increase Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes No change Liquidambar s. 'Rotundifolia' Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Increase Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweetgum Yes Increase Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora'Bracken's Brown Beauty'* Bracken's Brown Magnolia Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Increase Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Increase Quercus alba White Oak Yes No change Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Increase Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes No change Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes I No change Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes No change Ulmusamericana'Valley Forge' Valley Forge Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'Lewis & Clark' Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'New Harmony' New Harmony Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana'Princeton' Princeton Elm Yes I Increase Ulmus americana'Jefferson' Jefferson Elm Yes Increase * See original tree list for notes on the respective species ** USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario). Important Note: The USDA Forest Service Tree Atlas models predict habitat change for 134 native tree species in the eastern United States. The research is then modeled fortree species in the southeast U.S. including Arkansas. Some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included. With limited data currently available on the resilience and vulnerability of native Arkansas tree species, this table provides a glimpse of how the species' composition of Fayetteville's urban forest may change. Web source: www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/atlas/tree/ 4 Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page / 11 ,�� PIanITGeo' developers &T—Pl—, SUMMARY Fayetteville's tree planting recommendations are in line with industry standards and best practices since the City utilizes the Arkansas Native Plant Society list and therefore, generally plants and recommends planting trees native to the region. The effects of climate change are already taking hold in the City and Fayetteville recognizes the challenges that lie ahead. Some of the experienced and anticipated effects include prolonged periods of high temperatures and drought, extreme weather events, changes in the duration of seasons, favorable conditions for harmful tree pests and diseases, among other impacts. To grow a sustainable and resilient urban forest, the City should continue to examine the performance of trees planted and the species of trees that are recommended for planting. To develop plans and strategies relating to tree planting for climate change, a Sister Climate City Analysis (SCCA) was conducted. This SCCA examined the predicted climate of Fayetteville 60 years from now and identified a city with a current climate that matches the projected climate of Fayetteville. The City of Longview, Texas was identified but no city -approved or recommended tree list was found. Therefore, a neighboring city, the City of Dallas, Texas was utilized given the location and the urban forestry consultant's experience working with Dallas. From the SCCA, it was found that 51% of Fayetteville's trees on the Arkansas Native Plant Society tree list are also in the City of Dallas's approved tree list. This means that those trees in Fayetteville's list may favor well with changing climate since the Sister Climate City of Dallas currently approves and is planting those tree species. In addition to the Sister Climate City Analysis, the U.S. Forest Service's Climate Change Atlas was utilized to examine the predicted habitat change due to climate change. From this study, it was found that 44 trees in Fayetteville's list are in the Climate Change Atlas study. Of the 44 trees, there are 28 species where it is predicted that the habitat will increase due to climate change. A total of 8 species have habitats that may decrease and 8 species have habitats that may not change with climate change. A full report is provided in the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan. When combining the SCCA results and the Climate Change Atlas, a total of 24 of the 74 (32%) tree species in Fayetteville's list are on the Dallas, TX approved tree list and are predicted to have habitats either increase or not change. This analysis shows the City of Fayetteville is on track for planting a resilient urban forest but the City should be mindful of the diversity of species, the associated benefits of the trees planted, the maintenance needs, and other considerations beyond what is covered in this summary report. The results of this analysis are not meant to serve as a definitive guide for tree species selection. Instead, it provides an analysis of what is currently being planted compared to the effects of climate change and offers general guidance on the species of trees that should continue to be planted while considering other goals and standards such as species diversity. PIanITGe6 Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 112 v r, dev 10mOfh Plo APPENDIX A. CLIMATE ADAPTATION REPORT Climate Change Impacts for Southeast Source: Adaptation Workbook, Developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the USDA Forest Service, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, and American Forests. Climate Change Impacts for Southeast research report by: Carter, L., A. Terando, K. Dow, K. Hiers, K.E. Kunkel, A. Lascurain, D. Marcy, M. Osland, and P. Schramm, 2018: Southeast. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 743-808. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH 19 This region was defined in the National Climate Assessment (2014) and includes the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia. National Climate Assessment (2018) - Southeast Temperatures in the Southeast are projected to increase by 4.4 to 7.7 degrees Fahrenheit by late -century (2071-2100). All climate models agree that temperatures are projected to increase over the 21st century across the Southeast. The spatial variations are projected to be relatively small across the region, with the largest temperature changes occurring in the northwest part of the region (Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee), the smallest variations occurring in southern Florida. Temperature increases will be the greatest in summer. The greatest warming during summer is expected in the northwest portion of the region. Compared to all other seasons, winter temperature increases are projected to be more mild. R.S. Vose, D.R. Easterling, and others. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Temperature Changes in the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Southeast is expected to experience between 5 and 30 more days per year with a maximum temperature exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the century. The smallest increase of 4 days per year is expected in areas with a currently low number of 95-degree days, including the highest elevation areas along the spine of the Appalachians where historically days above 95-degrees occur fewer than 10 days out of the year. The largest increase in the number of 95-degree days per year (35 days) is expected in south-central Florida, where these kinds of hot days are already common. The western portion of the region is expected to experience the largest number of consecutive 95-degree days, with as many as 16-20 additional days by mid-century. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. The Southeast is expected to experience between 0 and 14 fewer days per year with a minimum temperature below 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the century. The largest decreases are expected in Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and the northern part of Arkansas. The smallest decreases in cold days are expected along the coastal and southern areas, where these kinds of cold days rarely occur. Similarly, the Southeast region is expected to have more than 20 fewer days with a minimum temperature below 32 degrees by the middle of the century. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. Plans Geo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 1 13 �# Average annual precipitation is projected to increase slightly in the northeast portion of the Southeast, but may decrease in the southwest half of the region. There is uncertainty between different climate scenarios for future precipitation projections in the Southeast. Generally, there is a southwest -to -northeast gradient in annual precipitation projections. The greatest increases are projected in North Carolina and Virginia (3-9% increase by the end of the century), and the greatest decreases are projected in Louisiana and Arkansas (3-12% decrease by the end of the century). Overall changes in precipitation for the Southeast are projected to be slight and comparable to current year-to-year variations. Daily precipitation totals in the Southeast have increased substantially in the fall season, and this trend is expected to continue. D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, and others. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Precipitation Change in the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. The number of days per year with more than 1 inch of precipitation will increase across the Southeast by the middle of the century, and double the number of heavy rainfall events are projected by late century. Extreme rainfall events have increased in frequency and intensity in the Southeast, and will continue to increase in the future. Most of the region is projected to experience 6% to 25% more days each year with more than an inch of precipitation by the middle of the century. The largest increases (up to 25% increases) in extreme precipitation are expected across the Appalachian Mountains. The smallest increases (less than 10%) are expected across Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Days with more than 2 inches, 3 inches, and 4 inches of precipitation are also expected to occur more frequently by the middle of the century. Under a high emissions scenario, projections indicate approximately double the number of heavy rainfall events (2-day precipitation events with a 5-year return period) and a 21% increase in the amount of rain falling on the heaviest precipitation days (days with a 20-year return period) by late century. Heavy precipitation associated with hurricanes and tropical storms could result in more flooding and damage to coastal forests, and contribute to an increase in inland flooding as well. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. A majority of climate models suggest that precipitation in the Southeast will increase in the winter, spring, and fall by the end of the century, but summer is generally expected to become drier. Simulated changes in summer precipitation by the end of the century range from a 0-10% decrease, with the largest decreases occurring in southern Florida and Arkansas and Tennessee. The means of several climate models indicate that winter and spring precipitation may increase around 15% by the end of the century, particularly in the northern part of the region. Daily precipitation totals in the Southeast have increased substantially in the fall season; this trend is expected to continue, with the greatest expected increases along the Gulf Coast. Overall, only minimal change or slight increases in precipitation are projected along much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. These projections are averaged outputs from a climate scenario with higher emissions (A2), and under mild climate scenarios changes are generally expected to be smaller. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. �J Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 114 Wo Plan Geo The annual freeze -free season is expected to increase by 20 to 30 days in the Southeast by 2055. The freeze -free season lengthens by more than a month by the late 21st century in climate simulations based on a high emissions scenario. The freeze -free season is defined as the period of time between the last spring frost (daily minimum temperature below 32 degrees F) and the first fall frost. The length of the annual freeze -free season has been increasing since the 1980s, and all climate models agree that it will continue to increase in the future across the Southeast. The largest increases of 25-30 days are mainly expected in Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. The smallest changes are expected in southern Florida, which is not surprising because freezing events are already rare in this part of the Southeast. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. Red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock are projected to decline substantially across the Southeast by the end of the century, and conditions for pines may also deteriorate. Red spruce and eastern hemlock are already declining in some areas, and these species are projected to be extirpated from the southeast by 2100 as a result of the combined stresses of warming, air pollution, and insects. If temperature continues to increase and precipitation becomes more variable, conditions for pine growth may begin to deteriorate. Even if regional forest productivity remains high for pine species, the center of forest productivity could shift northward into North Carolina and Virginia, causing significant economic and social impacts. J. Vose, D. Peterson, and others. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector.. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Climate change will amplify many existing stressors to forest ecosystems in the Southeast, such as invasive species and insect pests. Forest ecosystems throughout the Southeast Region are exposed to a range of natural, introduced, and anthropogenic stressors. Stressors such as invasive plants, forest pests, and diseases are expected to become more damaging under climate change, and these factors may interact in unpredictable ways. The southern pine beetle is already the most destructive pest in the region's forests, and longer growing seasons could allow populations of the pest to expand more rapidly. Cogongrass and kudzu are expected to expand into new territory under climate change, and both of these species have cascading effects on disturbance regimes and diversity. J. Vose, D. Peterson, and others. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Svnthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector.. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Wildfire risk is projected to increase across the Southeast by the end of the century. Rising temperatures and increases in the duration and intensity of drought are expected to increase wildfire occurrence and also reduce the effectiveness of prescribed fire in the Southeast. While this region experiences the highest number of wildfires in the country, prescribed fire is currently more common than wildfire in Southeastern forests. However, as fire seasons lengthen in the future, the window for prescribed burning may decrease because of increased fuel flammability. Decades of wildfire suppression has increased the potential for crown fires, and model projections indicate that wildfires are likely to occur more frequently in the Southeast in the future. Annual fire probability, calculated solely with climate data and physical principles, is projected to increase by 20% to 80% across the Southeast by the end of the century, with the greatest increases in the southern Appalachians. The incidence of atmospheric conditions that contribute to large and erratic fire behavior, measured by the Haines Index, is also projected to occur more 8 to 11% more frequently by the end of the century. The limitation for these sorts of projections is that they do not account for changes in land use, fire suppression rates, or vegetation changes. 4F Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 115 Plan Geo L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. J. Vose, D. Peterson, and others. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector.. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Y. Tang, S. Zhong, and others. 2015. The Potential Impact of Regional Climate Change on Fire Weather in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. R. Guyette, F. Thompson, and others. 2014. Future Fire Probability Modeling with Climate Change Data and Physical Chemistry. Forest Science. Damage from hurricanes and sea -level rise is expected to increase in the Southeast by the end of the century. Global sea level rise is projected to rise between 1 and 4 feet by the end of the century. Sea level rise and related increases in storm surges pulsing farther inland will continue to exacerbate ongoing land loss in low-lying coastal areas and may result in excessive saltwater inundation of coastal forests. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased since the 1980s, and this trend can be attributed both to natural variability and climate change. High -intensity hurricanes such as the 2017 Hurricane Irma are expected to become more common in the future. Rapid intensification of storms is also more likely as the climate warms, even though there is also some historical evidence that the same conditions that lead to this intensification also act to weaken hurricane intensity near the U.S. coast, but it is unclear whether this relationship will continue as the climate warms further. Damage from these kinds of storms can be intense and extend for hundreds of miles inland, including windthrow and blowdown, inundation, damage to infrastructure on land, and significant ecological impacts to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems due to saltwater intrusion and altered hydrology. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. L. Carter, J. Jones, and others. 2014. National Climate Assessment —Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Low -diversity systems are at greater risk from climate change. Studies have consistently shown that diverse systems have exhibited greater resilience to extreme environmental conditions and greater potential to recover from disturbance than less diverse communities. This relationship makes less diverse communities inherently more susceptible to future changes and stressors. The diversity of potential responses of a system to environmental change (response diversity), is a critical component of ecosystem resilience. Response diversity is generally reduced in less diverse ecological systems. Genetic diversity within species is also critical for the ability of populations to adapt to climate change, because species with high genetic variation have better odds of producing individuals that can withstand extreme events and adapt to changes over time. E.V. Moran, F. Hartig, and others. 2015. Intraspecific trait variation across scales: Implications for understanding global change responses. Global Change Biology. A.S. Jump, R. Merchant, and others. 2009. Environmental change and the option value of genetic diversity. T. Elmgvist, C. Folke, and others. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. A. Hoffman and C. Sgr6. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature. Systems that are more tolerant of disturbance have less risk of declining on the landscape Disturbances such as wildfire, flooding, and pest outbreaks are expected to increase in the future. Forests that are adapted to gap -phase disturbances, with stand -replacing events occurring over hundreds or thousands of years, may be less tolerant of more frequent widespread disturbances. Mesic hardwood forests can create conditions that could buffer Plan Geo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 116 against fire and drought to some extent, but these systems are not expected to do well if soil moisture declines significantly. Forest systems that are more tolerant of drought, flooding, or fire are expected to be better able to withstand climate -driven disturbances. This principle holds true only to a given point, because it is also possible for disturbance -adapted systems to experience too much disruption. For example, dry pine forests and woodlands might benefit from drier conditions with more frequent fire, but these systems might also convert to savannas or open grasslands if fire becomes too frequent or drought becomes too severe. G. Nowacki and M. Abrams. 2008. The Demise of Fire and "Mesophication" of Forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience. E. Gustafson and B. Sturtevant. 2013. Modeling Forest Mortality Caused by Drought Stress: Implications for Climate Change. Ecosystems. Species in fragmented landscapes will have less opportunity to migrate in response to climate change. Habitat fragmentation can hinder the ability of tree species to migrate to more suitable habitat on the landscape, especially if the surrounding area is nonforested. Modeling results indicate that mean centers of suitable habitat for tree species will migrate between 60 and 350 miles by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario and between 30 and 250 miles under milder climate change scenarios. Based on data gathered for seedling distributions, it has been estimated that many northern tree species could possibly migrate northward at a rate of 60 miles per century. Fragmentation makes this disparity even more challenging, because the landscape is essentially less permeable to migration. L. Iverson, M. Schwartz, and others. 2004. How fast and far might tree species migrate in the eastern United States due to climate change?. Global Ecology and Biogeography. C. Woodall, C. Oswalt, and others. 2009. An indicator of tree migration in forests of the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. Systems that are limited to particular environments will have less opportunity to migrate in response to climate change. Some species and forest types are confined to particular habitats on the landscape, whether through requirements for hydrologic regimes, soil types, or other reasons. Similar to species occurring in fragmented landscapes, isolated species and systems face additional barriers to migration. Widespread species may also have particular habitat requirements. For example, sugar maple is often limited to soils that are rich in nutrients like calcium, so this species may actually have less available suitable habitat than might be projected solely from temperature and precipitation patterns. Riparian forests are not expected to be able to migrate to upland areas because many species depend on seasonal flood dynamics for regeneration and a competitive advantage. Similarly, lowland conifer swamps contain a unique mix of species that are adapted to low pH values, peat soils, and particular water table regimes. These species face additional challenges in migration compared to more -widespread species with broad ecological tolerances. A. Jump and J. Penuelas. 2005. Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change. Ecology Letters. The urban heat island effect can exacerbate the effects of increasing temperatures. Urban areas with one million or more people can be 2 to 13' F warmer than their surrounding rural areas due to the "urban heat island effect" from heat -absorbing infrastructure such as pavement and buildings as well as waste heat generated from manufacturing and automobiles. The urban heat island is often more pronounced in historically redlined areas with lower tree cover. H. Akbari. 2005. Energy saving potentials and air quality benefits of urban heat island mitigation. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Maxwell, K. , Julius, S. , and others. 2018. PIanITGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 117 -, dev 10mOfh PlO The surface urban heat island response to urban expansion: A panel analysis for the conterminous United States Recent progress on urban overheating and heat island research. Integrated assessment of the energy, environmental, vulnerability and health impact. Synergies with the global climate change The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exaosure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Studv of 108 US Urban Areas Impervious cover can exacerbate the effects of increased heavy precipitation events in urban areas. Increases in impervious cover can dramatically increase the size and frequency of localized flooding. Typically, urban floods are short-lived, but extended flooding can stress trees, leading to leaf yellowing, defoliation, and crown dieback. If damage is severe, mortality can occur. In addition, flooding can lead to secondary attacks by insect pests and diseases. Some species are more tolerant of flooding than others. Flood -intolerant species include upland species such as bitternut and shagbark hickory, Kentucky coffeetree, and white oak. Species that are generally tolerant of flooding include species that are generally native to wetlands and riparian areas such as baldcypress, sycamore, and red maple. Trees in coastal areas may also be vulnerable to saltwater intrusion during flood events. S. Bratkovich, L. Burban, and others. 1993. Flooding and Its Effect on Trees. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area. G. Hollis. 1975. The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval. Water Resources Research. Maxwell, K. , Julius, S. , and others. 2018. Causal Effect of Impervious Cover on Annual Flood Magnitude for the United States Assessing the tree health impacts of salt water flooding in coastal cities: A case study in New York City �/PIanITGeo- Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 Page 118 developers of T—Pl—, r It I Ilkirsol-N:11 a 5 JR6 kA 11 11 1Fly dhi !I IV, I !1 11 0 m mi mi kYETTEVILLE 1,wwo ,.I viani i uec CONTENTS Fayetteville's Current Invasive Plant Species Program......................................1 Overview 1 Current Management of Invasive Plant Species 3 Evaluating and Updating the City's Invasive Species Management Program 4 Planning a Management Strategy.................................................................................................................4 Invasive Plant Species Control and Removal Methods.................................................................................. 3 Re-establishing Native Vegetation................................................................................................................4 Invasive Plant Species Program Review Checklist 5 Program Review Checklist for Fayetteville, Arkansas' Invasive Plant Species Management Program ............. 5 Summary................................................................................................................................... 8 Resources................................................................................................................................. 9 Attachment A: Ordinance#5820.................................................................................10 Tables Table 1. Checklist for the City of Fayetteville to evaluate and update its invasive plant species management program (Source: PlanITGeo, Inc.)........................................................................................................................................... 5 Figures Figure 1. Example of the community event for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook).................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Example public messaging for the management of invasive plant species (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook).................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 3. The City of Fayetteville, AR's educational packet for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR)......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 4. City of Fayetteville, AR's 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan...................................................................... 2 Figure 5. Identifying callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) an invasive tree species (Source: Watershed Conservation Resource Center's "Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide).......................................................... 3 Figure 6. City of Fayetteville's public education for invasive plant species removal (Source: KHBS News) ......................... 2 Figure 7. Revegetating with a native Ozark chinquapin tree (Source: Only in Arkansas) .................................................... 4 Figure 8. Before and after of volunteers removing invasive plants along a trail near Scull Creek in Fayetteville, AR (Source: North American Invasive Species Management Association, NAISMA)......................................................... 4 FAYETTEVI LLE'S CURRENT INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES PROGRAM Overview An invasive plant is a plant species found outside its native range that threatens the survival or reproduction of native plants and animals, reducing biological diversity and causing significant damage to ecosystems, communities, habitats, and native species. The parks across the City of Fayetteville contain many invasive plant species, including two that are prolific: Japanese and Bush Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). The City of Fayetteville's Parks Maintenance Division in the Public Works Department is responsible for the invasive plant species removal and habitat restoration programs on public lands. Parks Maintenance also conducts and collaborates with organizations to host work days to remove targeted areas and rely heavily on volunteers for this work, which ranges from removal of plants with loppers and shovels, to replanting once invasives are gone. Volunteers that participate in these events are trained to take the skills learned back home so that they may remove these plants from their own back yards. The City has an events calendar and page for interested community members to sign up for text or email notifications about upcoming stewardship volunteer opportunities. In addition to events and trainings, the City has information about the Invasive Plants Ordinance and a list of invasive plants and native alternatives on its website. Figure 1. Example of the community event for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook) Figure 2. Example public messaging for the management of invasive plant species (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook) PIanITGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page ( 1 ,I dev 10mof —Pl- The Fayetteville City Council adopted Ordinance #5820 on November 3, 2015 (see Attachment A); this ordinance established a list of eighteen invasive plants to be restricted from being installed in new developments that require a Landscape Plan Review by the Urban Forester. The list of invasive plants was determined through an open participation process which involved a team of thirteen stakeholders. Stakeholders included nursery owners/managers, landscape architects, academic experts, landscape installers, hobby gardeners, botanists, naturalists, conservationists, City Park Managers and local citizens. The team met to evaluate the economic and environmental harm caused by invasive plants. After recognizing the need for an invasive plant policy, the stakeholder group reviewed other communities' invasive plant species policies and made recommendations to City staff. The Ordinance was established in response to Fayetteville's Comprehensive Plan's guiding policies for Natural Areas which calls to, "preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species." To support the awareness and compliance of the Ordinance, the "Invasive Plant Species in Fayetteville, Arkansas" resource was created by the City which consists of the eighteen invasive plants and recommends appropriate plant species for trees, shrubs or ground cover. The City of Fayetteville encourages all property owners to identify, remove and replace invasive plants from the landscapes around their homes and businesses. FAYETTEVILLE ,I //Plan Geo ARKANSAS Figure 4. City of Fayetteville, AR's 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan Figure 3. The City of Fayetteville, AR's educational packet for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR) This report was provided to the City of Fayetteville in support of the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan ("Plan") and was created to examine the existing program for managing invasive plant species in the City. Within the Plan, invasive plant species were recognized as an external challenge facing the City's urban forest now and in the future with changing climates. To address these challenges, Goal 61 in the Plan calls for the City to "prioritize public tree maintenance and tree risk management" and has a supporting action to "continue to manage invasive plant species on public properties and within public rights -of -way. Support controlled burns to manage invasives and wildlife on public properties." The following provides a summary of the program review and recommendations based on industry standards and best practices and local research pertaining to the management of invasive plant species. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page ( 2 PIanITGea dev 10mOf -Pl- Current Management of Invasive Plant Species For the City's consideration, the following table summarizes the plant species that are invasive according to Fayetteville's Invasive Plant Species educational packet compared to the University of Arkansas' Cooperative Extension Service (U of A Cooperative Extension) Invasive Plants in Arkansas list: Asian Wisteria Yes Yes Bamboo Yes Yes Bigleaf Periwinkle Yes Yes Callery/Bradford Pear Yes Yes Burning Bush Yes No Bush Honeysuckle Yes No Chinese Privet Yes Yes Creeping Euonymus Yes No English Ivy Yes Yes Heavenly Bamboo Yes No Japanese Honeysuckle Yes Yes Kudzu Yes No Littleleaf Periwinkle Yes No Mimosa, Silktree Yes Yes Multiflora Rose Yes No Sericea Lespedeza Yes Yes Shrubby Lespedeza Yes Yes Tree -of -Heaven Yes No Running Monkey Grass No Yes Tall Fescue No Yes Chinese Tallow Tree No Yes Cogongrass No Yes *City of Fayetteville, AR's webpage for Invasive Plants and Native Alternatives (www.fayetteville-ar.gov/3028/Invasive-Plants-and-Native- Alternatives) **University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service's Invasive Plants in Arkansas List (www. uaex. uada.ed u/envi ron ment-natu re/ar-invasives/i nvasive-plants) Figure 5. Identifying callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) an invasive tree species (Source: Watershed Conservation Resource Center's "Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide) 4rJJ�PIanITG@O Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page (3 dev 10mof —Pl— Evaluating and Updating the City's Invasive Species Management Program The City may consider updating the invasive plant species listed in the Invasive Plant Species educational packet and the City Ordinance #5820 to align with recommendations provided by the University of Arkansas' Cooperative Extension Service, the Arkansas Native Plants Society, the Watershed Conservation Resource Center's "Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide", the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust, and/or other reputable sources. According to the Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Arkansas, the following plant species have been invasive in some landscape situations and should be monitored by the City of Fayetteville to determine the level of invasiveness and the need for prohibiting planting: • Garlic Chives • Devil's Walking Stick • Artemesia • Trumpet Creeper • Obedient Plant • Sweet Autumn Clematis Planning a Management Strategy • Mexican Hydrangea • Queen Ann's Lace • Wintercreeper Euonymus • Chameleon Plant • Cypress Vine For the consideration of Fayetteville, the following management strategies are recommended for invasive plant species management on public lands and for educating the public to manage invasives on private land (recreated from the Watershed Conservation Resource Center's "Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide."): Prevent Invasive Plants From Establishing • Don't introduce invasive plants; consider native alternatives • Younger invasive plants are easier to remove than well -established plants Identify Plant Species & Area To Be Managed • Take an inventory of your area and properly identify invasive and native plants • Use caution on streamside areas or heavily sloped areas • Seek assistance and consultation in sensitive areas • Determine where and how removed brush will be handled. If composting, heat must be maintained above 145' F to denature seeds Practice Safety • Dress appropriately o Long sleeves, pants, gloves, sturdy shoes or boots o Safety glasses, sunscreen, and/or insect repellant may be appropriate • If Using Chemical Herbicide Treatment, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Is Needed o Safety glasses o Latex or nitrile gloves o Prevent spills and use extreme caution near water sources o Read herbicide labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for additional PPE measures and application guidelines o The herbicide label is the law • Use Extreme Caution With Sharp or Heavy Tools o Acquire safety training for chainsaw use • Be Aware of Surroundings Plan, Geo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page 14 o Swinging tools or falling limbs could injure you or others nearby • Contact Arkansas One -Call at 811 o Call 811 to locate underground utility lines prior to disturbing a substantial area and/or using heavy equipment. • Use Caution When Working Around Overhead Utility Lines • Work Areas May Not Be Easily Accessible o Be aware of steep slopes, banks, and slippery areas • Be Aware of Wildlife o Work areas may harbor animals, snakes, or insects o Use caution with plants such as Poison Ivy, Poison Hemlock, or thorns (Greenbrier and Multiflora Rose) • Rest Often • Stay Hydrated Divide Area • Work in phases • Large acreage may require focusing on one species at a time or dividing into smaller manageable areas • Plant densities can be overwhelming; distribute workload Seek Assistance From Local Professionals • Tree professionals may be required. Use a certified arborist • Consult your local extension office for herbicide recommendations Revegetate/Encourage Native Plants • Minimize damage to native vegetation during removal • Consult native plant resources and research • Choose correct native plant for growing conditions, ecoregion, and space • Currently, Fayetteville recommends the "Wildscaping with Ozark Native Plants - Native Wildflowers and Grasses" resource for revegetating with native plants and the "Ozark -Friendly Landscape — Native Trees and Shrubs" resource for native trees Do Maintenance Seasonally • Many plants sprout or sucker from cut points; revisit managed areas • Opening canopy may activate invasive seed bank and viney plants Figure 6. City of Fayetteville's public education for invasive plant species removal (Source: KHBS News) 'J Plan C@O Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page 12 Ni Invasive Plant Species Control and Removal Methods Several methods are used to control or remove invasive plants each with varying degrees of effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages. Listing here is not an endorsement for any one method. The area of infestation often dictates removal techniques, such as sensitive riparian areas along waterways, wetlands, or sloped areas. Use of herbicide trade names does not indicate endorsement of any one product. Mechanical • Hand Pulling • Cutting (chainsaw, hand saw, pruners) • Stump pulling (weed wrench, shrub pullers, chains, mattock, shovel, large machinery) • Machinery (mowing, brush hog) "Hand removal" is very effective but does require manual labor and may not be practical across large areas. Cutting alone is rarely effective, unless used in conjunction with cut -stump treatments. The most effective way to kill invasive plants is by removing the entire plant including root systems. Stump pulling is useful for small to medium shrubs and trees and is easier in moist soil. Cultural Practices Prescribed fire has been used throughout history to control vegetation, but burning is often unavailable in urban settings. Fire can control the spread of some invasive plants, but must often be used in tandem with mechanical and/or chemical measures. It can risk harming native vegetation, activate invasive seed banks, or even stimulate some undesirable plants. Refer to local laws and ordinances to ensure compliance. Applying mulch helps to control invasive populations by preventing sprouting. It also holds moisture for native plants and covers bare soil to help prevent erosion. Chemical (Herbicide) • Foliar spray • Cut -stump treatments • Basal bark treatment • Frill (hack -and -squirt) Always read and follow herbicide label instructions and precautions. Great care should be taken when conducting chemical treatment and it is important to consult your local cooperative extension office for herbicides effective for weed and brush control. A brief description of herbicide treatments follows: Foliar sprays are not always a viable option in the urban landscape or public setting. This technique can be used to target young plants, but it tends to be ineffective on many resilient, mature, invasive plants in Northwest Arkansas. Foliar spray can damage or kill non -target native plants from drift and contaminate water resources. Cut -stump treatments minimize chemical use and contamination of native vegetation and water resources. Most effective in the fall, stumps are cut 3 to 4 inches from the ground and are treated with an herbicide -marking mixture within a few minutes using a squirt bottle or sponge applicator. The marking dye helps land managers or volunteers to see where the chemical has been applied. Stump treatments also help to prevent suckering or secondary growth. Resilient stumps may need cutting and chemical application again the following season. Basal bark herbicide treatment is effective on most invasive woody plants including vines. An oil soluble herbicide is mixed with an oil carrier. For woody plants with a 6-inch diameter or less, spray the bark of the plant from ground level to 15 inches. Plants should not be cut for 6 months. This method can be used anytime of the year except early spring. Frill or hack and squirt is used to target invasive trees and introduces the herbicide into the stem using spaced cuts below the last live branch and around the trunk. A hatchet is used to make downward angled incisions through the bark (2 inches long) evenly spaced (one inch) around the tree. Each cut is carefully filled (do not allow spillage) with herbicide - marking mixture using a spray bottle or gunjet. 14 Plan, Geo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page 13 Re-establishing Native Vegetation Once invasive vegetation is removed from a property, it is important to establish a healthy stand of plants native to the local ecoregions of Northwest Arkansas. Native vegetation provides shelter and food for wildlife, and it contributes to the reproduction and survival of insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals. Native vegetation also supports migrating species, such as monarch butterflies and wood thrushes. Having adapted to the Ozark Mountain region, native species of plants generally are easy to establish and are drought resistant. Many are beautiful with showy flowers, berries, and leaves, and they can easily be incorporated into a landscaped setting. The previous tables of plants native to both the Boston Mountains and Ozark Highlands Ecoregion should be considered for replanting. These lists can be used as a guide for the revegetation of an area of interest where invasive plants have been removed. Just because a shrub is removed doesn't mean it needs replaced with another shrub. As an example, there may be a preference to establish native grasses and woodland wildflowers in a forested area where bush honey suckle has been removed. As part of the invasive removal process, a plan for native plant establishment should be created. Native plants can be established by dispersing seed or by planting potted plants or bare roots. Native seed can be collected locally or purchased and is generally used for large areas where grasses and wildflowers are Figure 7. Revegetating with a native Ozark chinquapin tree (Source: Only in Arkansas) desired. If native seed is purchased, a local source or at a minimum, a source that was cultivated in or near the Ozark Mountain region should be considered. When dispersing native seed on bare soils, mix a nursery crop of winter wheat or oats with a variety of native grass and wildflower species. Following the application of the seed mix, cover with straw. Trees and shrubs are generally established by planting potted plants or bare roots. Again, if possible, find a local source for these plants. Once the treated area is replaced with native plants, it is important to inspect for and remove new invasive plants that will try to reestablish on the property. Once a healthy stand of native vegetation is established, less invasive vegetation will arise. Figure 8. Before and after of volunteers removing invasive plants along a trail near Scull Creek in Fayetteville, AR (Source: North American Invasive Species Management Association, NAISMA) IwoPlan Geo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page ) 4 Invasive Plant Species Program Review Checklist The following checklist is provided by the urban forestry consultants at PlanIT Geo for the City of Fayetteville to examine and update its current Invasive Plant Species Management Program. By updating the program and aligning it with industry standards and best practices, the City will be better equipped to implement the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan and achieve the vision of a sustainable urban forest in Fayetteville. Program Review Checklist for Fayetteville, Arkansas' Invasive Plant Species Management Program Table 1. Checklist for the City of Fayetteville to evaluate and update its invasive plant species management program (Source: PlanIT Geo, Inc.) Al) Mission and Goals Question Answer Status Ala) Are the program's mission and goals clearly defined and measurable? Alb) Do the goals align with the City's overall priorities and environmental goals? A2) Program Scope Question Answer Status A2a) What types of invasive plants does the program target? Alb) What geographic areas does the program cover? A2c) What types of interventions are used (e.g., education, removal, restoration)? A3) Program Budget Question Answer Status A3a) Is the program adequately funded to achieve its goals? A3b) How are resources allocated across different program components? AR) Are there opportunities for additional funding or cost savings? 61) Planning and Prioritization Question Answer Status B1a) Does the program have a strategic plan for managing invasive species? B1b) Are priorities set based on the ecological impact of different species and the feasibility of control? B1c) Is there a mechanism for regularly updating the plan and incorporating new information? 62) Outreach and Education Question Answer Status 132a) Does the program have a comprehensive outreach and education plan to engage the public and stakeholders? 132b) Are educational materials clear, accurate, and accessible to different audiences? 132c) Are there opportunities to partner with other organizations for outreach efforts? Ir PIanITG@O Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page 15 dev 10o mOf —Pl- 133) Invasive Species Removal Question 133a) Are control methods effective and based on best practices? 133b) Are appropriate disposal methods used for removed plants? 133c) Are there monitoring protocols in place to assess the success of control efforts? 134) Restoration and Re -vegetation Question 134a) Does the program include efforts to restore native plant communities after invasive species removal? 134b) Are native species selection and planting methods appropriate for the site and ecological goals? 134c) Are there monitoring protocols in place to assess the success of restoration efforts? C1) Data Collection and Analysis Question C1a) Does the program collect data on the distribution and abundance of invasive species? C1b) Are data collection methods reliable and standardized? C1c) Is data analyzed regularly to inform program decision - making? C2) Monitoring and Reporting Question C2a) Does the program monitor the effectiveness of its interventions? C2b) Are results reported to stakeholders and the public? C2c) Are there opportunities to improve monitoring and reporting procedures? C3) Adaptive Management Question C3a) Does the program use an adaptive management approach to adjust interventions based on monitoring results? C3b) Are lessons learned from past efforts incorporated into future planning? C3c) Are there opportunities to share information and best practices with other programs? Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Status Status Status Status Status • Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page 16 Plan Geo D1) Stakeholder Engagement Question Answer D1a) Does the program actively engage with stakeholders such as residents, landowners, and businesses? D1b) Are there opportunities for stakeholders to participate in program planning and implementation? D2) Interagency Collaboration Question Answer D2a) Does the program collaborate with other agencies and organizations involved in invasive species management? D2b) Are there opportunities to share resources and expertise? D3) Volunteer Engagement Question Answer D3a) Does the program utilize volunteers for invasive species removal and restoration efforts? D3b) Are volunteer opportunities well -organized and effective? Question Answer E1) Based on the review findings, what are the key recommendations for improving the program's effectiveness? E2) What are the estimated costs and resources needed to implement the recommendations? E3) What are the potential benefits of implementing the recommendations? Question Answer F1) Overall, is the Fayetteville invasive plant species management program meeting its goals and objectives? F2) What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? F3) What are the key opportunities for improvement? Status Status Status Status Status This checklist is a starting point and may need to be adapted to the specific context of the program. The review process should involve stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The results of the review should be used to inform program improvement efforts. 4F Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Pa g e / 7 PIanITGe6 • d�10a M&T­Plo SUMMARY Fayetteville's urban forest consists of all trees throughout the City on both public and private property. The trees and the overall urban forest are vital resources that provide numerous ecological, economic, and social benefits. However, invasive plant species pose a significant threat to the health and sustainability of this valuable asset. To ensure the long- term health of the urban forest, it is critical for Fayetteville to regularly review and update its programs for managing invasive plant species. By conducting the program review and applying the recommendations provided in this Report the City of Fayetteville will be position to: Address evolving threats: Invasive species are constantly adapting and evolving, requiring frequent reassessment of management strategies. New invasive species may emerge, and existing species may develop resistance to current control methods. Updating the program allows for incorporating new knowledge and implementing more effective approaches. Adapt to changing environmental conditions: Climate change and other environmental factors can significantly impact the distribution and abundance of invasive species. By reviewing and updating the program, Fayetteville can ensure it is adaptable and capable of responding to these changing conditions. Optimize resource allocation: Limited resources must be used efficiently and effectively. A review process can identify areas for improvement in resource allocation and ensure that program efforts are focused on achieving the most significant impact. Improve program effectiveness: Regular evaluation and feedback are crucial for identifying program weaknesses and areas for improvement. This information can be used to refine existing strategies, develop new interventions, and ultimately enhance the program's overall effectiveness. Maintain public support: An effective invasive species management program relies on public awareness and support. By demonstrating commitment to continuous improvement and transparency, the program can build trust and encourage broader community engagement. Ensure a sustainable future: Invasive plant species can have devastating consequences for the health and diversity of the urban forest. By proactively managing these threats, Fayetteville can ensure the long-term sustainability of this valuable ecosystem and safeguard its ecological, economic, and social benefits for future generations. Regularly reviewing and updating Fayetteville's invasive plant management program is crucial for maintaining a healthy and resilient urban forest. This proactive approach will require ongoing commitment and collaboration, but it will ultimately contribute to a more sustainable and vibrant City for all residents. PIanITGe6 Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page / 8 -, dev 10o mofh Plo RESOURCES • Arkansas Native Plant Society: anps.org/category/native-plants/Missouri Department of Conservation mdc.mo.gov/trees-plants/problem-plant-control • Arkansas One -Call. Damage prevention information, local contacts and rules for safe digging in Arkansas: Dial 811 or 1 (800) 482-8998 • Arkansas State Plant Board (phone: 501-225-1598): aad.arkansas.gov/arkansas-state-plant-board • City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Ordinance #5820 https://library.municode.com/ar/Fayetteville/ordinances/code_of ordinances?nodeld=749989 • City of Fayetteville Invasive Plants and Native Alternatives: www.fayetteville-ar.gov/3028/Invasive-Plants-and- Native-Alternatives • Invasive Plant Atlas: invasiveplantatlas.org • MP44, "Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control," University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Research and Extension, Arkansas 2021. See MP44 online at www.uaex.edu • National Invasive Species Information Center: invasivespeciesinfo.gov • University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension (phone: 501-671-2000): uaex.edu/yard- garden/in-the-garden/native-plants • University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service's Invasive Plants in Arkansas List: www.uaex.uada.edu/environment-nature/ar-invasives/invasive-plants • Watershed Conservation Resource Center's "Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide �., PIanITGeo Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page 19 developereof TreePlotter ATTACHMENT A: ORDINANCE #5820 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 5820 File Number: 2015-0496 AMEND CHAPTER 177 LANDSCAPE REGULATONS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 177 LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION, AND TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL REVISIONS WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council passed Resolution 101-15 requesting that City staff examine the need and propriety of submitting a proposed ordinance that would regulate or prohibit the sale or use of certain invasive plant species in Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, City staff assembled a team of thirteen diverse stakeholders who identified eighteen invasive plant species that warrant restrictions based on the economic and environmental harm that they cause. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.01 Purpose by adding a new subsection (B)(12) as follows: "Discouraging the new installation of identified invasive plant species and encouraging the removal of existing invasive plant species." Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.01 Purpose by adding a new subsection (C)(8) as follows: "Plants identified as invasive in Section 177.09: Invasive Plant Species are prohibited from being installed in all development projects that require a landscape plan review." Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.02(B) by replacing "Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee" with "Urban Forestry Advisory Board." Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.03 Landscape Plan Requirements by adding the words "Combined Plan" to the beginning subsection (C)(5) and by adding a new subsection (C)(7)(h) as follows: "Plants listed in Section 177.09: Invasive Plant Species shall not be installed in developments requiring a landscape plan review." Section 5: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adds a new Section 177.09 Invasive Plant Species as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED and APPROVED on 11/3/2015 Approved: Attest: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer PIanITGe6 Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page / 10 dev 10mOf —Pl- Exhibit A 177.09 Invasive Plant Species The following plants shall not be installed in development projects that require a landscape plan review. Asian Wisteria Japanese Honeysuckle Wisteria sinensis, Wisteria floribunda Lonicera japonica Bamboo Kudzu Pyllostachys Spp. Pueraria montana Bigleaf Periwinkle Littleleaf Periwinkle Vinca major Vinca minor Callary/Bradford Pear Mimosa, Silktree Pyrus calleryana Albizia julibrissin Burning Bush Multiflora Rose Euonymus alatus Rosa multiflora Bush Honeysuckle Sericea Lespedeza Lonicera maackii, Lonicera fragrantissima Lespedeza cuneata Chinese Privet Shrubby Lespedeza Ligustrum sinense Lespedeza bicolor Creeping Euonymus Tree -of -Heaven Euonymus fortunei Ailanthus altissima English Ivy *Cultivars that do not produce flowers or fruit are not Hedera helixHeavenly Bamboo considered invasive. Nandina domestica* /PIanITGeo- Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 Page / 11 D page left intentionally blank Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment November 2012 Prepared By plan -it GAO Funding assistance was provided by a grant from the Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community Forestry Program through the USDA Forest Service. Special thanks to the U.S. Forest Service Urban Forestry South -Centers for Urban & Interface Forestry team for their assistance. FOREST SERVICE U Sy " MENT OF AGRIC��� Prepared For The Arkansas Forestry Commission -Urban & Community Forestry Program, Urban Forestry South -Centers for Urban & Interface Forestry, and the City of Fayetteville ARKANSAS FORTRY f COMMISSION I I ARKANSAS page left intentionally blank Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... I Urban Tree Canopy in Fayetteville.................................1 Ecosystem Services............................................................1 Urban Forest Management Scenarios .............................2 Recommendations and Summary....................................2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................3 MAJOR FINDINGS................................................................6 METHODOLOGY................................................................. 7 Data Inputs, Imagery and Land Cover Classification..7 Terminology........................................................................ 8 RESULTS................................................................................... 9 Land Cover in Fayetteville................................................9 Tree Canopy in Fayetteville............................................10 Tree Canopy by Land Use and Parcels .........................11 Tree Canopy in the Street Rights-of-Way....................15 Tree Canopy by Census Blocks.....................................16 Tree Canopy By Riparian Corridors .............................18 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES...................................................19 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS ...... 21 2002 — 2012 Comparison................................................21 Targeting Areas to Plant Trees......................................27 Tree Canopy Cover Goals and Policy ..........................30 Management...................................................................... 31 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................33 SUMMARY.............................................................................. 35 APPENDIX............................................................................. 36 Urban Tree Benefits........................................................36 Land Cover Classification Methods & Accuracy ........ 38 Additional Maps for Potential Planting Sites ..............41 References.........................................................................42 page left intentionally blank FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment provides a benchmark of Fayetteville's current tree cover. The study delivers essential data layers, maps and tools to enhance urban forest management, policy and decision -making, and planning. Additionally, by calculating some of the services and benefits the tree canopy provides, City staff and elected officials have information that places a value on trees and forests in their community in order to promote sound environmental and land use plans and policies. Geographic information systems (GIS), Land Use / Land Cover data, and high -resolution summer imagery provide the basis for this assessment. The data and technologies were used to assess Existing UTC and Possible Planting Areas (PPA) for assessment boundaries with different planning scales and intents. These included Fayetteville's city boundary, 6 land use types at the parcel -level, 2010 census blocks, riparian corridors by watershed boundary, and street rights -of -way. This report presents results for current land cover and UTC distribution, compares canopy cover to 2002 conditions, estimates tree canopy benefits through multiple scenarios, and offers an evaluation, custom maps and tools, and recommendations for setting and achieving UTC goals. URBAN TREE CANOPY IN FAYETTEVILLE This study encompasses 55.4 square miles (35,437 acres) defined by the city limits of the City of Fayetteville, in Washington County, Arkansas. Based on a land area (after excluding water) of 34,586 acres, the City of Fayetteville has 12,441 acres (36%) of existing tree canopy, 17,757 acres (51%) of possible planting area, and 4,388 acres (13%) that is likely unsuitable for tree planting. Riparian buffer analysis reveals there is 60% tree cover along Fayetteville's streams and rivers. Canopy cover within land use categories ranged from 18% (Commercial) to 45% (Agriculture) while the street rights -of -way average 13% cover. Residential properties average 41% UTC with 6 available planting sites per acre. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Percent of Existing UTC and PPA Types Citywide A. PPA Impervious PPA Vegetation 10.2% 41.1% A*$ Unsuitable UTC 11.8 % PPA Agricultural 0.9% ExistinTC 36.0g U% Trees and forests in communities provide many "ecosystem services", or direct and indirect economic and environmental benefits such as removing air pollutants, storing and sequestering carbon, mitigating stormwater runoff, conserving energy through shade and wind block, improving public health, and providing wildlife habitat. Fayetteville's tree canopy currently provides an estimated $3.5M in air quality services each year and $64M in total stormwater management. Additionally, 50,000 planting sites were mapped near residential buildings where energy conservation plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 and associated carbon emissions reductions could be maximized. The impact on ecosystem services from increasing and decreasing canopy cover is presented in this report. URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Management scenarios are presented and discussed involving further mapping, analysis and evaluation of Fayetteville's urban forest. Comparison of canopy cover and benefits (2002 — 2012) — urban forests are dynamic and constantly changing. Three (3) methods were used to assess gains and losses in tree canopy. Target areas to plant trees — an analysis of potential tree planting sites focused on (1) areas most vulnerable to urban beat island effects, (2) wildlife habitat and linking of corridors, and (3) current land use types. Other attributes were added to this GIS layer for additional prioritization. Evaluating Fayetteville's canopy cover and tree preservation ordinance — at 36% UTC, Fayetteville is 4% (-1,400 ac) below the national recommendation of 40%. Scenarios to reach 40% and an evaluation on the City's tree preservation ordinance are presented. Management of the urban forest on city owned properties — gains and losses in tree canopy on city properties is evaluated for future management purposes. RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY Understanding how and where trees are concentrated and distributed across Fayetteville is essential for maintaining a healthy and sustainable urban forest. This study provides the most up-to-date analysis to foster this overarching goal. Fayetteville currently has 36% tree cover with 52% of the City classified as possible planting space. A comparison and trends assessment indicates canopy cover has decreased from around 37% to 36% (approximately 750-acre net loss) from 2002 to present. Forest regeneration and new tree planting are helping to offset only some of the losses from new development. Broad recommendations offer suggestions on using the results of this assessment as well as ways to create, expand, or strengthen urban forestry practices in the City. As development and economic progress continue, communities and public officials place a value on their tree cover when drafting and revising policies that affect trees. Fayetteville's leaders, business community, and citizens shape their urban forest in tree planting and protection ordinances, and should use the results from this study to reevaluate whether changes in the City's landscape the past 10 years is acceptable for their health, the environment, and the local economy and community. Tree canopy cools impervious surfaces on hot sunny days therefore reducing the effects of radiant heat escaping back into the atmosphere (Dooming, 2011). plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 INTRODUCTION Trees provide many economic, social, and environmental benefits that form the basis of livability in urban municipalities. Therefore, it is important for urban development to work closely with urban forest health protection and management goals in order to maintain community livability. Geographic distribution of land use plays a critical role in maintaining a uniform urban forest. Each category of land use has unique management objectives and regulatory constraints. Whotier, iL F P. - L. Fayetteville ��W 7 I .,. This Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (UTC) in Fayetteville represents an opportunity to better understand baseline conditions of tree canopy, the distribution of existing canopy vs. potential tree canopy, and development of tools to incorporate urban forest benefits during policy and planning processes. It involves the use of high -resolution muldspectral imagery, GIS, and remote sensing technologies, training and development of custom tools, ecosystem benefits modeling, and reporting to characterize existing and potential UTC. The products and outcomes of this study will support developing and monitoring of UTC goals, provide detailed data for management plans and ordinances, and foster greater understanding of UTC benefits. This analysis of urban tree canopy aims to reveal and provide a better understanding of the benefits of the City of Fayetteville's green infrastructure, expanding upon previous studies by the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association (FNHA). This study looks at the urban forest's relation to air quality, stormwater control, and carbon sequestration and storage. With funding in part provided by the USDA Forest Service (USDA FS), the Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community Forestry (AFC) program contracted with Plan -It Geo, LLC to map Fayetteville's urban tree canopy plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 3 G C 0 (UTC). This assessment examines the area and percent cover for existing tree canopy, possible planting area (in vegetated grass areas and paved impervious areas), and areas unsuitable for planting (buildings, roads, water, agricultural fields, etc.). These metrics were calculated for six (6) assessment boundaries: (1) Fayetteville City boundary, (2) land use, (3) census blocks, (4) riparian corridors, (5) street rights -of -way, and (6) parcels (see Table 1 on the following page). The assessment was accomplished by using newly generated land cover data and assessment boundaries provided by City GIS. The land cover classification includes the following eight (8) classes for the City: (1) tree canopy, (2) other low-lying vegetation, (3) bare soil/dry vegetation, (4) water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, (7) agriculture, and (8) other impervious surfaces (parking lots, driveways, etc.). See Figure 1. Specific objectives of this assessment were to: t Map and assess eight (8) land cover classes across Fayetteville. Map and quantify existing urban tree canopy and possible planting areas for the City and five other finer scale assessment boundaries. Estimate Urban Forest Ecosystem Services, including air pollution removal capacity, carbon storage and sequestration, and stormwater management, broken out by the City, residential land uses, and watersheds. Create a series of Urban Forest Management Scenarios describing how UTC has changed over time and what current vs. future projected tree benefits and tree canopy could look like. This involved developing a GIS layer for prioritized potential planting locations, a plug `n play Canopy Calculator tool, and an evaluation of the City's tree preservation ordinance. Provide training to City staff, volunteer organizations, state agency officials, and others in a workshop demonstrating how to use the data and tools and conduct ecosystem services analysis. In addition, presenting the results to the Fayetteville City Council. The Fayetteville Urban Tree Canopy assessment provides data and tools to develop local and regional urban forestry goals, policies, outreach, and management plans to sustain and enhance the existing urban forest. In addition to this report, Plan -It Geo, LLC has also provided GIS data layers and Excel spreadsheets to accompany reported results. Only a fraction of the information available from this assessment is provided in the report. Fayetteville and other partners are encouraged to conduct additional analyses to answer specific questions related to local planning policies and concerns. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 4 G C 0 Table 1. List and description of UTC assessment boundaries for this study. Assessment # of Types Description Map Boundary or Features r City Boundary 1 City of Fayetteville r G Land Use Categories Used: Agriculture Land Use Commercial �J Agriculture i Commercial Land Use 6 Industrial Industrial Public Land E2 Public Residential Residential Public Right -of -Way 2010 U.S. Census data provides demographic data at the tract, Census Blocks 1,894 block group, and block level. The most detailed `block' level was used for this project. Buffered streams and rivers, Riparian segmented by watershed Corridors 69 boundary into finer -scale reaches to provide a better planning scale for this assessment. SRiparian Areas : " •f, ' Street RCV, Street Rights -of -Way 903 The public rights -of -way (ROW) along streets. :.', l� u �111 Parcels _ Parcels 28,768 Tax lots from the county - assessors property database. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 MAJOR FINDINGS Based on Fayetteville's analysis of aerial imagery, Land Use / Land Cover, ecosystem services, and potential tree planting sites, the following represents the major findings from this study. Fayetteville has 36% urban tree canopy cover based on 2010 imagery. t Canopy trends indicate a loss ofpossibly 1.5% UTC since 2002. t Residential lots cover 31 % ofFayettevAfe with an average tree cover of41 % citywide. This represents 113 of the City's total tree canopy. I 19% of the City's tree canopy is on publically owned properties. t The current urban forest removes nearly 1.3Mpounds ofairpollutants from the air annually, valued at $3.5Mper. year. This equates to 1.1 billion pounds of stored carbon with an annual carbon sequestration rate of8.4Mpounds ofCO2 taken up by the tree canopy. Storm water Savings o At 36% UTC, Fayetteville's tree canopy is valued at an estimated $64 million based on avoided stormwaterfacility construction costs. o If canopy declines, at 30.0% canopy cover, it is valued at $44M. o At 40% UTC with 4% of -new canopygrowth from regeneration (natural forested areas), it is valued at $65M o At 45% UTC with the new canopygrowing over streets and parking lots, the tree canopy would be valued at $85M. Natural forest regeneration plays a large role in UTCgams in Fayetteville. Examples are provided in the Canopy Change section of this report. t There are 90,000potential tree planting locations near residential buildings. If trees are planted to maximize cooling in summer, energy conservation as trees reach maturity would be significant. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 METHODOLOGY The following section describes the data and methods used for land cover classification and the terminology for defining and assessing the urban tree canopy (UTC) and potential planting areas (PPA). Brief methods for the comparison of tree canopy cover from 2002 to 2010 are included in the Results section further below. DATA INPUTS, IMAGERY AND LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION Numerous GIS data layers from the City and County were used in the process of mapping land cover classes and in the UTC assessment process. Examples include streets, buildings, water bodies, streams, parcels, land use, publicly owned properties, watersheds, and GIS layers from Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association's Green Infrastructure Plan. One -meter resolution imagery from summer 2010 (National Agricultural Imagery Program — NAIP) was used as the basis for this UTC Assessment. The final land cover classification data includes eight (8) classes: (1) tree canopy, (2) grass / open space, (3) bare soil/dry vegetation, (4) water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, (7) agriculture, and (8) other paved surfaces (parking lots, driveways) shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Land cover with 8 classifications as an overview and an inset map. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 7 G C 0 TERMINOLOGY The UTC types assessed in this study are defined and described below. The area and percent of each was reported for six assessment boundaries. More details are provided throughout the report. Existing forest canopy is comprised of all forests and individual trees mapped from the 2010 summer NAIP imagery. For the purposes of this study, water was excluded from the total study area when calculating percent UTC. Excluding water from the study area (35,437 acres) creates total land area (34,586 acres) which was used to create all UTC metrics. Possible planting area (PPA) is defined as the total land area where no tree canopy cover currently exists and it is biophysically possible to plant trees. In this analysis, mainly grass and open space constitute "PPA — Vegetation" while impervious surfaces such as parking lots makeup "PPA — Impervious". These are combined to report Total PPA. This does not equal to potential canopy but rather the space on -the -ground that is available for tree planting opportunities. Unsuitable UTC, for this study, was the combination of bare soil, dry vegetation, roads, buildings, agricultural land use, and water. Soil and dry vegetation are considered unsuitable given they comprise baseball infields, industrial lots, and vegetation that is lacking completely or unmaintained. Some areas mapped as Unsuitable UTC could become PPA through natural and human processes over time. Agricultural lands from the county land use data were sub -categorized as a PPA type but are generally considered as Unsuitable UTC. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 8 G C 0 RESULTS Detailed land cover and UTC assessment results are presented below. Land cover results are presented first, followed by results for each assessment boundary with specific tables, maps and graphics for Existing UTC, Possible Planting Areas, and Unsuitable UTC. LAND COVER IN FAYETTEVILLE This study encompasses 55.4 square miles (35,437.4 acres) defined by the city limits of Fayetteville. The two predominate land cover types for the study area are green vegetation (grass and open space) at 41% (14,518 acres) and secondly tree canopy at 12,441 acres as shown in Figure 2. "Other impervious", consisting of parking lots, driveways, patios, and other paved surfaces, is third comprising of 10% of Fayetteville or 3,539 acres. The next four land cover classes including roads, buildings, water, soil and dry vegetation each individually fall under 10% for land cover and as a whole comprise of 14% of Fayetteville's land cover. Aw Fayetteville City Limit; L.._..i Tree Canopy Figure 3. Tree canopy classification overview and inset map. r Land Cover Distribution by Acres Green Veg. 14,518 ac Water 851 ac ideSoil and Dry Veg. Tree S7r, nr Canopy 12,441 ac J Figure 2. Distribution ofland cover in Fayetteville. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 TREE CANOPY IN FAYETTEVILLE As seen in Table 2 and Figure 4, Fayetteville's current UTC covers 12,441 acres or 36% of the total land area. In addition to tree canopy, total possible planting area (PPA) in Fayetteville is equivalent to 18,057 acres or 52% of the total land area. The remaining 4,088 acres (11.8%) of land area is considered unsuitable for planting additional trees. Table 2. Metrics for Fayetteville showing UTC and PPA in acres and percent. Total Land 2010 2010 Acres Area UTC UTC % (acres) (acres) City of 35,437 34,586 Fayetteville 12,441 36.0% 50%4 • Existing, Tree, Canopyiq Figure 4. Percent distribution of UTC and PPA for the City of Fayetteville. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G'C0 10 TREE CANOPY BY LAND USE AND PARCELS Various policies, regulations, ordinances, and city codes influence tree canopy in Fayetteville. To provide data that advances urban forest management, six (6) broad land use categories were assessed for tree canopy and possible planting areas. Parcels from the county tax assessor's database were provided which included broad land use categories. Public lands were derived from parcels with `exempt' status and the Public Rights -of -Way occur outside of all parcel boundaries. This was the finest scale assessment boundary and included 28,768 records. Results can be queried and symbolized using GIS to drill down and identify specific planting opportunities in subdivisions, land use types, or neighborhoods. Table 3 provides complete results for UTC and PPA land use metrics. Table 3. UTC and PPA Results for 6Broad Land Use Categories. Total TotalDistribution Total Land %of Total UTC Existing Distribution Possible Possible Land Use Category Acres Area City Area (acres) UTC of UTC by Planting Planting of Total PPA (acres) % Land Use by Land Use acres /o Agriculture 9,880 9,757 27.9% 4,353 44.6% 35.0% 5,329 54.6% 29.5% Commercial 3,985 3,943 11.2% 702 17.8% 5.6% 2,705 68.6% 15.0% City of Industrial 957 949 2.7% 258 27.2% 2.1% 549 57.9% 3.0% Fayetteville Public Land 6,731 6,106 19.0% 2,285 37.4% 18.4% 3,190 52.2% 17.7% Residential 11,017 10,968 31.1% 4,475 40.8% 36.0% 5,038 45.9% 27.9% 2,867 2,863 8.1 % 368 12.9% 3.0% 1,247 43.6% 6.9% •- - iWeliglivEn TOTALS 35,437 34,586 100.0% 12,441 36.0 100.0% 18,058 52.2% 1 100.0% As an example, Commercial properties makeup 11% of the City, have 18% average tree canopy cover which represents almost 6% of UTC citywide, have 69% possible planting area largely from turf grass areas and parking lots, which constitutes 15% of all the PPA citywide. Distribution of Land Use Distribution of Existing UTC Public Right Of W Residential 8.19 31.1% Agriculture • 7.9% Industrial Commercial 2.7% 11.2% by Land Use Public Right Residential Of W.ry ;.07a 36.0% Agriculture blic La 35.09Y Industrial Commercial 2.1% 5.6% Distribution of Total PPA by Land Use Public Right Of Residential Wa 27.9% 6 Public Land 17.7% Industrial Commercial 3.0% 15.0% Figures 5--7. The Distribution ofLand Use, UTC by Land Use, and PPA by Land Use. Maps in Figures 8-13 on the following pages illustrate how the land use and parcels data can be used together with UTC and PPA metrics to target specific properties for tree planting as well as monitoring the effectiveness of ordinances. Maps are shown for commercial, residential, and public properties by the percent of Existing UTC and Total Possible Planting Areas. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 11 GCO .• . i ...41 i Fayette, ille Cap Limits R_. Percent Tree Canopy in Commercial Parcels ,. c10% 10%-25% 4F 25%-40% de >40 % Nan -Commercial Parcels Lill I. ft ij kl •� i � 0 1 2 Miles "i 0 1 2lGlometers 1 r•, r i r Fayetteville Citr Limits, � I Percent Total PPA in Commercial Parcels -25% 25%-50% 1 _ 1 >75% Non -Commercial Parcels s Ills e I 1 � • � r .ta � I +�•14 1 •. �"^A DIY �' r EI1 2 Miles Nlam.^ Figures 8-9. Existing UTC and Total PPA Percentages for Commercial Properties. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 12 GCO ' '� ri ' � � .', 1. .T ��{V _ 7 �} • � - r .II ._ r LPL' :r� �'r'�; �•:y � • 11L~ �� al� HOW M am, ' 1 � III■ O� > -AL � a• �'c 1 r '�1�•, :.. i -.8e� _ r , � •I'r••• � r I���1 i111 l T Imu 1 lu ^1.Jr 'ram +� �1� �,• - �. a, ' • ;Y� — _ 1 = �71 It 1 1� 1 x III M �` •'4 r , e _ ram^�• •� -_C t j,'y. r r.4 �...s�- areal `'~ :r•'.j\ i i,✓ t r �. ems'•••... ..d Fayetteville City Li 4, G..i -j i g # 1—•.: •_+ t :.i •..� Percent Tree Canopy;_._.._.._.. in Residential Parcels !� - + -� + F �;_ ;4h r � yfar go wAS iso I ■, �� ■ q oaf lr�� r■ ■ �� 3� NO y�►►-r s �C _ ■ d5 +h >~ u . '�'. "}......... .N--... .... il�e- "�K }+'i • Ptl..�t -Pill � 1 � r . � yr• _ ti.,� Fayetteville ur, Limits '1 i 1 ra ,:i Y ` "r .w• ra Percent Total PPA �i�t - - - -•1 i _ J. s9. i in Residential Parcels17 • r� 0 1 2 Miles N h: "r + 30%-45€:o >45% i L 0 1 2 Kilometers Non -Residential Parcel _ t ' ! „i —r Figures 10-11. Residential parcels color -coded by Percent Existing UTC and Total PPA. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 13 G C 0 :. r Nj • rr i S 1.r Fa elteville City Lim� t.+.._....._.._.J E r� 1 •. s _ Y >y �"i. Y. t Percent Tree Canopy� _.._ � i • - in Publically Owned ParcelsI•.. •—' kL• w' 15%-30% . 0 1 2 Miles N i 30%-45% r �, 1 i >45% i•t it 0 1 2IGlometers Nan-Publically Owned Parcels !" .,-.r, 5; Wo ti � y�11 R_- i �. i f• � _I fir 'Y •��_- i A ._ Tj?y ■ �� J. Figures 12-13. Publicly owned parcels color -coded by Percent Existing UTC and Total PPA. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G'C O 14 TREE CANOPY IN THE STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY The City of Fayetteville's urban forestry program plants, manages, and maintains trees in the street rights -of -way (ROW). This is where the City has the most direct influence on tree canopy aside from tree preservation or other private property ordinances. Key findings in Fayetteville's ROW are: ROW total land area is equal to 2,863 acres, or 8% of the total city land area. Existing UTC in the ROW is 368 acres or 13% average cover. This represents 3% of all UTC citywide. PPA — Vegetation totals 611 acres or 21% of the ROW and PPA — Impervious totals 636 acres or 22% of the ROW. There are an estimated 15,000 potential planting sites in the ROW, or 5 per acre. If 25% of these sites were planted, grew to 30' tree crown spreads, this would generate 61 acres of new tree canopy. 61 acres is 4% of the acreage required to reach 40% citywide UTC. Other UTC and PPA results for the ROW can be seen in Table 3 and Figures 5-7 in the Tree Canopy by Land Use section. 0Fayetteville City Limits Tier 1 Planting Potential (Best) i (UTC<10% & PPA>50%) Tier 2 Planting Potential (Good) (UTC<20% & PPA>25%) Tier 3 Planting Potential (Some) (UTC<30% & PPA>25%) _ All Other ROW Figure 14. Potential planting area in the Street ROW. The GIS queries in the map legend show 3 colors based on ranges ofExisting UTC and Total PPA. As an example, streets colored red have less than 10% UTC and greater than 50% total planting area. 11 t _? LJ IN r S," 0 1 2'Miles -- r 0 1 21Clometers plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 15 G C 0 TREE CANOPY BY CENSUS BLOCKS The 2010 U.S. Census data provides social and demographic information at a variety of scales, specifically in GIS format from large to small as census tracts, block groups, and individual blocks. In Fayetteville, 1,894 census blocks were assessed for UTC and planting areas. Figure 19. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color -coded by Percent UTC. Darker areas have more tree cover than lighter colored areas. F:,y,nte fl, c,tyy A, Percent Tree Canopy by Census Block <15% 15% - 30% K 30%-d5% K al5% Figure 16. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color -coded by Percent of Total PPA. Darker areas have more planting potential from grass and open space as well as suitable paved (impervious) areas. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 16 G C 0 Figure 17. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color -coded by Percent of Total PPA. Darker areas have more planting potential from grass and open space. Agricultural land use areas were excluded from percentages. Figure 18. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color -coded by Percent of Total PPA. Darker areas have more planting potential from suitable paved (impervious) areas such as parking lots, driveways, etc. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 17 G C 0 TREE CANOPY BY RIPARIAN CORRIDORS Fayetteville's streams and rivers, or riparian corridors, provide many ecosystem services such as erosion and sediment control, stream temperature regulation, and wildlife habitat. Conservation buffers along riparian areas are a best management practice where development is often restricted and natural vegetation is encouraged to maintain natural processes. In this study, to provide assessment results at a useful scale, Fayetteville's riparian areas were split along watershed boundaries and then segmented manually into smaller stream reaches. This resulted in 69 riparian corridor "segments" which were buffered by 100 feet and analyzed for UTC and PPA. Key findings included: • 49 (of 69) riparian corridors segments have greater than 50% existing canopy cover. • 14 have greater than 50% potential planting area (grass and open space). • Three watersheds with the largest amount of riparian area for tree planting are: o Hamestring Creek (78 acres of PPA; 1,559 potential planting sites) o Mud Creek -Clear Creek (92 acres of PPA; 3,037 potential planting sites) o Town Branch -West Fork White River (122 acres of PPA; 3,729 planting sites) Figure 19. Riparian buffer segments color -coded by percent Existing UTC. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 18 G C 0 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Forest benefits are referred to as "ecosystem services", and describe ways in which urban forests contribute to improving quality of life. We tend to take for granted the direct and indirect benefits trees provide because they are not assigned a dollar value. Examples include: t Providing habitat and protecting biodiversity Decreasing stormwater utility costs, erosion, and flooding Reducing urban heat island effect and cooling costs Improving property values, tax revenues, recreation opportunities, and public health and well being Absorbing carbon dioxide annually through carbon sequestration and through carbon storage Improving air quality, water quality and groundwater recharge CITYgreen software was used to estimate the benefits of Fayetteville's existing urban tree canopy and scenarios with decreased and increased canopy cover. CITYgreen, a GIS software developed by American Forests using research from the U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), was used to calculate current and potential benefits related to carbon storage (cumulative amount of carbon stored in trees over time), carbon sequestration (the rate that carbon is captured), air pollution removal by trees annually, stormwater benefit of urban forests. CITYgreen Parameters Used: 1.) Reference City for Air Quality: Tulsa was chosen as the closest, most representative city for the U.S. Forest Service reference city for air pollutant removal capacity of the urban forest. 2.) Soils: from the choices of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A, B, C or D, soil type "C" was chosen as most representative. C type soils allow for less infiltration (clay) and are more restrictive soil type than B (loam). 3.) Construction cost per cubic foot (cu. ft.): $3/cu. ft. was used as a conservative average for stormwater facility construction cost. 4.) Replacement Land Cover Type: when tree canopy is "replaced" in the CITYgreen model, the replacement land cover chosen was Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover 50% - 75%. This is more conservative than replacing the tree canopy with commercial or residential development which has a much higher curve number (CN). plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 19 G C 0 Table 4. Summary ofBenefits from Current and Future Projected Scenarios of UTC in Fayetteville. City of Fayetteville "Tree Canopy & Environmental Benefit Scenarios" SCENARIOS Benefit Type Citywide Decline to Increase :�i increase 44:La Increase #2b Residential UTC% 36% 30% to 40% to 45% to 45% 41% Air: Annual $ Benefit ...... $3.5 million $3.0 million $4.0 million $4.5 million $5.0 million $1.3 million ::.(,tlalkty ; Lbs. Removed/Year .... 1.3 million 1.1 million 1.4 million 1.6 million 1.8 million 461,000 x_arrl�on Total CO2 stored ...... 1.1 billion 915 million 1.2 billion 1.4 billion 1.5 billion 391 million Storage & Annual Rate Stored ..... 8.4 million 7.1 million 9.5 million 10.7 million 11.9 million 3.0 million Sequestration Stormwater Total $ Benefat....... $64.1 million $43.9 million $65.5 million * $67.1 million * $84.9 million ** $22.2 million SavingsTotal Gallons Benefit ... 21.4 million 14.6 million 21.9 million 22.4 million 28.3 million 7.4 million * For Scenarios "Increase #1 and #2a", new projected tree canopy was assumed to be forests (natural regeneration), not individual yard trees. ** For the Scenario "Increase #2b", new projected tree canopy was assumed to overhang impervious surfaces, resulting in a larger $ value. Plan -It Geo then used i-Tree Design, a free web -based tool developed by the U.S. Forest Service, to estimate benefits such as energy conservation from a common tree. A red oak tree was modeled at 8" diameter at breast height (dbh) and then projected 25 years out (20" dbh). See Figure 20. i-Tree Design Fayetteville, AR, USA Get started with these easy steps Select your tree's species: 0ai.. florthem red E liter the width (diameter) gr circumference of your tree's trunk at 4.5 feet above ground: MCXh F-a circumference Fni (inches) rhls meaaunemerd hips us compute whaf brewers coo t8amew at hm" freight' or dbx' select what type of condition best describes yourtree: Good J Forecast your future benefits: F-2s (1-99 veas) Calculate current oenents for ,our tree and estimate future annual oenents of entering the numoer of rears to 'grow your tree Plant your trees: use the tree tool jiN atrow ale map to locate ,our euseng tree or place a virtual tree - Place the marker as dose to the base for center of the tree 3s V sslo!e •h=r..r.a -,-n.!rig �pTi-'. dc�we Check here to evaluate energy etfem: v, Draw your structure: use the drawing tool above the map © to ounlne our house or budding - Be sure to outline-condlboned' living area only. garages aria olherunneatea n uncoolea spaces should not be included - Double clta the last point to finish the tradng - You can also use U to delete .our last point or use i tg to ;ancel Ine entire drawing This structure was built: posF1980 D Horne Less desirable More deslrawe Pre,W!ed pranbrg Zones to maximize bee behelim will be ehown around the sbucture and can be burned olfand on by pressing the * toot Hover your cursor Over ddkrent zones to erprae the �mpads each location free on various benehL as displayed below the map Figure 20. Output from i-Tree Design software showing that a young red oak tree (8" dbh) provides $18in annual energy savings ifplanted on the west side of residential home. If the tree grows for 25 years, it would be expected to reach 20" dbh and provide nearly $48 in annual energy savings. With 90, 000 potential planting locations near residential homes to Fayetteville, planting one -quarter (114) of these could provide roughly $600, 000 in energy savings annually when those trees reach maturity. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 20 G C 0 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Using the land cover data and UTC assessment results, further analysis provides a presentation of different management scenarios introduced below. GIS data models and interpretation were utilized to produce these scenarios. Sample maps or tables are presented for each scenario and provided as additional data along with this report. Comparison of canopy cover and benefits (2002 — 2012) — multiple data layers and methods were used to assess gains or losses in tree canopy over the roughly ten-year time period. Table 4 in the Ecosystem Services section illustrates scenarios that quantify decreases and increases in benefits as canopy cover changes. Target areas to plant trees — potential tree planting sites were modeled citywide using the land cover data and GIS analysis. Attributes were created focusing on (1) areas most vulnerable to urban beat island effects, (2) wildlife habitat and linking of corridors, and (3) current land use types. Multiple other attributes were added to the GIS planting points for prioritization. Evaluating Fayetteville's canopy cover and tree preservation ordinance — this entails an analysis of Fayetteville's current canopy coverage in comparison to the national recommendation of 40% and recommendations on the effectiveness of the tree preservation ordinance. Management of the urban forest on city owned properties — tree canopy is evaluated for gains or losses for future management purposes. 2002 — 2012 COMPARISON Fayetteville's urban forests are constantly changing over time resulting from natural and man-made processes, including tree growth and planting, and mortality and development. Monitoring forest change provides important information about the effectiveness of forest policy, community action, and natural processes impacting the urban forest. Today, urban forest managers have access to a variety of tools designed to evaluate forest cover at different spatial scales. This assessment uses three different approaches to evaluate forest change that has occurred since 2002. While no single available approach provides precise quantitative measurements of forest change, the combined methods elucidate several important trends. Agents of change. heavy winds, flooding, and ice storms such as the 2009 storm illustrated on the right can cause heavy damage and natural loss to forest canopy. Canopy Comparison Methods Canopy cover between the two time periods was compared using three methods presented here. 1. i-Tree Canopy Method: • A point -based statistical analysis was conducted using the i-Tree Canopy tool to compare canopy cover across Fayetteville based on current and 2002 high resolution Google Maps imagery. This method has been used to evaluate canopy cover in 20 cities across the country (Nowak and Greenfield, 2012). ---------- plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 21 G C 0 • Tree canopy was assessed for each time period at 770 randomly distributed points. • Results: 37% (13,147 acres) and 35.3% (12,509 acres) of the City was forest cover in 2002 and 2010 respectively (based on total area), for a net loss of 1.7% (640 acres). 2. GIS Land Cover Comparison Method: • Two previous land cover assessments mapped canopy cover in Fayetteville in 2001 and 2002 from satellite imagery. Although the assessments provided the best available data at the time, the overall accuracy of the final land cover products were below standards required for direct comparison with this assessment. Therefore, a manual GIS-based review and editing approach was conducted to provide an initial level of quality control in a comparison between the 2002 canopy data at 39% and the 2010 UTC results at 36%. • Forests greater than one -quarter acre from each time period was overlaid to identify significant areas of change. Areas were validated in this GIS-based approach by visually comparing with imagery from each time period and correcting obvious errors. • Results illustrate total forest canopy gains of 502 acres and losses of 1,249 acres, for a net loss of 747 acres (2%). See Figure 21. Tree Canopy Gained 502 Acres f7V7 Tree Canopy Replaced 1,092 Acres by Impervious Areas Tree Canopy Replaced by Non -Impervious 157 Acres Areas Net Change -747 Acres 1 �Tw /...-- 1.4 ".F I%L � 1 Tree Canopy Change 2002-2010 y Gain K Replaced by Impervious Replaced byNon-Impervious 'I �_-- p a 0 1 2 Miles i , . I I I I 0 1 2 Kilometers Figure 21. Comparing forests using GIS analysis to show significan t gain and loss areas. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 22 3. Growth of Trees from New Residential Development • Canopy growth from newly planted trees was estimated by digitizing individual tree crowns from current imagery and comparing canopy area to the expected canopy size at the time of planting (2002). • COF identified 22 new developments where tree plantings were known to occur around 2002. Within the new developments canopies from 250 randomly selected trees were digitized to measure current canopy areas in square feet. The estimated starting point of 40 square feet was subtracted from current canopy to estimate growth since planting. Figure 22. Individual tree crowns added about 23 acres per 1,000 newly planted trees between since 2002. • Results for 250 sampled trees on residential properties: o Total canopy area in 2011: 66,801 sq.ft. (estimated at 10,000 sq.ft. in 2002 as the starting point) o Total canopy growth = 56,081 sq.ft. (1.29 acres) o Average annual tree growth = 224 sq.ft. per tree • Residential canopy cover averages 41 % citywide while it averages around 6 or 7% in the 22 subdivisions assessed in this task, implying newly planted trees are not yet compensating for the loss of trees removed during development. When extrapolated out forty (40) years, the sampled 250 trees are expected to comprise about 5.7 acres of canopy, or 0.02% of Fayetteville's total area. Using this assumption, planting 1,000 trees each year for 40 years would yield about 23 acres of forest canopy annually. With an expected survival to maturity rate of about 70%, accumulated over 40 years a total of 13,000 acres of new tree canopy would be added. We estimate that around 60 medium sized mature trees are equivalent to one acre of forest canopy. Given mortality rates in the region, the City and residents should expect to plant around 80 trees to produce one acre of mature tree canopy in the future. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 23 G C 0 Canopy Change and Interpretation Assessing urban tree canopy change presents many technical challenges given differences in image quality, availability, classification methods, and level of QA/QC. Data and computing capabilities are constantly making higher levels of accuracy and precision in land cover mapping possible. Comparisons with Fayetteville's 2001 and 2002 classifications were challenged given the satellite imagery used as the input image for the 2001 assessment was unavailable and noticeable errors of under- and overestimation were visible. The fact that two independent methods (i-Tree and land cover data) used to assess canopy change yielded similar values provides confidence in both the stated canopy percent values for each time period and the methods used to present a trend in cover. Table 5. Canopy comparison analysis results from three (3) methods. Analysis Method Canopy Change Change Description Percent & i-Tree Canopy 1.7/o o Loss Citywide City-wide statistical estimate comparing 2002 and 2011 tree canopy. GIS Overlay 2% Loss Citywide GIS analysis of gains and losses since 2002 in forest areas greater than '/a -acre. Tree Growth in 0.1% Growth per Canopy growth over 8 years reflects the challenge of Developments 1,000 trees planted reforestation compared with losses to development. Overall Trend 1.5% Loss Overall, canopy cover is in decline. Recommendations for Comparing Canopy Change Over Time Based on the comparisons done within the scope of this project, the following recommendations are offered for conducting reliable UTC comparisons over time: Use the same city boundary given they change over time due to annexations Because UTC percent is calculated based on land area which excludes water, ensure that the area of water is the same and/or accurate in both time periods. Use similar image resolution and quality and LiDAR (Light Detection & Ranging) when possible. Conduct time -intensive Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) for quality comparisons. o Accuracy of each time period should be 95% or greater to ensure losses are demonstrating actual canopy change. o Early forest regeneration is difficult to map with remote sensing and can be subjective with manual processing. Canopy mapping with sufficient detail to map individual trees will aid in mapping early canopy growth over time. Canopy Change analysis within i-Tree Canopy version-5.0 can be effective, but is still subjective to the analyst's preference. Use multiple interpretations to arrive at confident values. A process known as "object fate analysis" can be conducted to assess change in land cover across time periods, though initial research shows this is a time -intensive and expense method. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 24 G C 0 Figure 23. Examples of tree canopy increases from natural regeneration and street/yard planting. �; :: tr{ 'k •-'.,r .w '�' a+ai►;1^: ire ��_ .7.,�7ii� • ��� � r� ;ram � '„�. •jr • _ Ir � . ,• Wit. rL►, plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G C 0 25 Figure 24. Examples of tree cover loss during development (mapping result shown at bottom). 1 AF wi plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 26 GCO TARGETING AREAS TO PLANT TREES The land cover, land use, UTC, and other data were inputs to a sophisticated GIS model to automate the mapping of potential tree planting sites. The resulting GIS points will assist the City in targeting areas to plant trees, evaluating the effectiveness of tree preservation ordinances, and goal setting. Available planting sites exist where there is a lack of trees and adequate planting area exists in grass and herbaceous cover. To get a more realistic estimate of where trees could be practically planted, exclusions and constraints were applied in the model (see Table 6). After removing these areas from grass and open space in the land cover data, the remaining spaces were converted into potential planting site points. Table 6. List and description of the main rules used to map potential tree planting locations. GIS Layer(s) R Rule Applied V Reason Tree Canopy Buffered by 10 feet To allow for spacing and growth of existing trees Buildings Buffered by 5 feet To avoid tree and building conflicts Agricultural Land Use Buffered by 15 feet To allow for farming and related uses The City should ground -truth (field -verify) the points over time to exclude points that are invalid due to conflicts such as safety, utilities/power lines, and small trees not seen in the 2010 canopy mapping. The model resulted in roughly 190,000 sites, so prioritizing them is crucial. To prioritize sites, new attributes were added to the GIS planting sites layer. For example, land use types from parcels were spatially joined (overlaid) to each site. For proximity to urban heat islands and wildlife habitat corridors (as well as other high value areas), similar overlays and distances assumptions were used. Sites that meet each criterion can now be queried, symbolized, and counted. The list in Table 7 below shows the types, their count, the criteria used, and then calculates the impact on citywide UTC if 25% or 50% were planted. Maps on the following pages and Appendix offer many examples. %of Additional Table 7List of attributes added to each potential planting Additional UTC Acres site(GISpointdatabase) forprioritization andpossible UTC Acres Needed to Reach impact on UTCgoals. from Planting: 40%UTC Goal: Total # Planting Site of 25% of 50% of 25% of 50% of Attribute Planting General Criteria Used Planting Planting Planting Planting Sites Sites Sites Sites Sites City Owned 6,447 On City Owned Property 26 52 2% 4% School 1,100 On School Parcel 4 9 0% 1% Wildlife Habitat 47,181 Within 50 ft of Large Forests 191 383 14% 27% Along Riparian Corridor 18,360 Within 100 ft of Riparian Corridor 74 149 5% 11% Energy Conservation 69,153 Within 50 ft of Building 281 561 20% 40% Park 7,898 On Park Parcel 32 64 2% 5% Urban Heat Island 37,131 Within 50 ft of Large Impervious Area 151 301 11% 22% Trail 29,033 Within 100 ft of Trail 118 236 8% 17% Near Park 20,065 Within 1/8 mi of Park 81 163 6% 12% Front Yard 45,461 Within 25 ft of Rights of Way 184 369 13% 26% Near School 1,557 Within 1/8 mi of School 6 13 0% 1% Air Quality 5,691 Within 50 ft of Highways/Arterials 23 46 2% 3% • Numbers reflect planting sites in "Developed" areas with the exception of Riparian sites which include all * Projections based on trees with an average 30' crown spread (15' radius) plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 G'C0 27 Urban Heat Island Effect — refers to developed areas that are hotter than surrounding rural areas due to the abundance of man-made materials there which absorb the sun's energy much more than trees or other plants, and in turn warm the air around them (Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, "Trees and the Urban Heat Island Effect", 2010). Tree shade lowers ambient air temperatures which limits the formation of ozone and smog. Trees also absorb ozone which reduces air pollutant concentrations. t L ,,f) Fayetteville City Limits Urban Heat Island Census Blocks Heat Island Planting Site Priority - Low Prioritizes census blocks by percent impervious and number of planting sites High .s 0 1 2 Miles N 0 1 2 Kilometers Figure 29. Census blocks with the largest contiguous impervious surface area and highest number ofpotential planting sites. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 28 G C 0 Wildlife Habitat — urban forests provide essential habitat for wildlife and provide opportunities for the community to experience nature in the city. The GIS planting site points were modeled with ecological and corridor data from the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association (FNHA), land use, and large contiguous forested areas. Figures 26-29 illustrates querying planting locations near habitat. Figure 26. Potential tree planting sites along riparian corridors for improving water quality and decreasing storm water runoff. Figure 29. Potential tree planting sites along riparian corridors and near forested lands provide a higher quality wildlife habitat and often provide important wildlife corridors. Figure 27. Potential Planting Areas by Land Use. :- 0 n. !;%.r rayettevmeutyumas '-r R Figure 28. Potential tree planting sites in Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association (FNHA) core areas provide another potential for increased wildlife habitat. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 29 GCS? TREE CANOPY COVER GOALS AND POLICY One objectives of this study is to compare canopy coverage to the national recommendation of 40%. At 36% UTC, bridging the 4% gap (1,383 acres) can be accomplished in a number of ways. Here are 2 very different scenarios showing what it might take: Using Plan -It Geo's Canopy Calculator tool (Figure 30 below), 40% UTC can be achieved by increasing Commercial properties from 18% to 20% and Residential lots from 41% to 50%. Natural forest regeneration is a driver of canopy gains based on results from this study and a cost-effective path. With an estimated 500 acres of forest gain in 10 years (not considering losses), a similar trend could in theory help the City reach 40% UTC in 30 years, but would require a cessation of forest loss during development. Figure 30. Plan -It Geo's Urban Tree Canopy Calculator tool used to set future goals in Fayetteville. Another objective is to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of Fayetteville's tree preservation ordinance followed by recommendations if the ordinance is not working. The Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter under Fayetteville's Unified Development Code provides a framework for maintaining urban forest quality while the City grows and develops. As the Chapter objectives state, trees provide a variety of benefits that contribute Fayetteville's natural beauty and livability for its residents, including temperature and climate regulation, air and noise pollution reduction, storm water, flood, and erosion mitigation, provision of wildlife habitat, energy conservation, and property value enhancement. The Chapter aims to promote these benefits through the preservation of on -site trees during development, using on -site mitigation strategies when preservation in not possible, off -site preservation, off -site forestation projects, or financial contributions to a tree escrow account. How can UTC assessment be used to measure successes resulting from the ordinance? Measuring the incremental success of tree preservation and protection is important for meeting stated goals into the future. Of the many tools available to urban forest managers, this UTC assessment provides a snapshot of city-wide forest canopy extent as seen from above, and its requisition meets the goal of conducting an assessment by end of 2012. The following results can be used to evaluate the relative success of the Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter: • Overall forest canopy percent change across Fayetteville: 37% in 2002 to 36% in 2010. • Riparian areas canopy cover averages 61%, well above the citywide forest cover of 36%. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 30 G C 0 Urban Heat Islands: Canopy percent averages 22% among census blocks with large impervious areas, and just 9% in high priority areas mapped in this study. • Rights of Way: Canopy percent averages 13% with only 4% of the total tree canopy overhanging impervious surfaces across the City. Additional Tasks to Measure Preservation and Protection Success Additional analysis steps can be conducted to measure Preservation and Protection success that were outside the scope of this analysis but could be implemented internally by COF staff: • Using this Assessment Data. Use the new data to evaluate whether recent developments have met preservation requirements (e.g. Minimum Canopy Requirements). • Conduct Periodic UTC Assessments. As the Chapter recommends, periodic assessments can evaluate ordinance progress. Consider using NAIP or i-Tree Canopy (Google Maps and Google Earth) during intermediate years to track development -specific progress. • Assess Hillside / Hillslope Overlay Districts for canopy change over time. • Hedonic Pricing models can be used to assess canopy's contribution to property values. • Track Registry Tree growth of individual registry trees to ensure longevity and protection. Other forestry tools for measuring preservation success Today's urban forest managers have access to host of tools which can enhance the effectiveness of management strategies. Many tools are inexpensive or free and can be used to target specific goals and locations. • Tree Inventories provide the greatest level of detail regarding individual tree conditions. Requiring developers to conduct a post -development tree inventory could be a cost-effective way to initiate Fayetteville's citywide inventory. • i-Tree Eco provides the best available science to value benefits received from urban trees. • Localized Ecological Studies can be used to assess impacts from specific development and mitigation strategies by directly measuring impacts before and after implementation. • Developer Workshops hosted by Fayetteville's urban forestry staff to promote best management practices (BMPs) and specific development strategies (such as ordinance requirements or recommendations like cluster development). MANAGEMENT The City currently owns and maintains 543 properties that include civic buildings, parks & open space, trails, and more. UTC and PPA metrics were calculated for each property and joined to the land use data layer at the parcel -level. This way queries and custom maps of these properties can be created along with other information. Results were summarized for all city owned properties and the results can be seen in Table 7. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 31 G C 0 Table 7. Tree canopy and planting potential metrics summarized for all City Owned Properties. %of Distribution PPA PPA PPA PPA Total # of Planting Total Land Area Total City UTC UTC of %Total Vegetation Vegetation Impervious Impervious Planting Sites per Acres (acres) Area 4,763 4,136 11.7% (acres) o �o UTC 2,355 56.9% 18.9% (acres) % 1,491 36.0% (acres) % 195 4.7% Sites Acre 6,447 1.56 City Owned Properties 1 Using the results from the analysis steps described above, gains and losses of tree canopy was estimated for city owned properties (see Figure 31 below). This resulted in a loss of tree canopy for 54 acres or 1.3% of City Owned Properties. This information should be used as a general trend and not an exact measure of UTC change. Tree Canopy Gained Tree Canopy Replac by Impervious Areas Tree Canopy Replaced by Non -Impervious Areas Net Change 135 AcresA. '�- 163 Acres Figure 31. Canopy change for City Owned Properties from 2002-2010. plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 32 GCO RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this assessment, the following general recommendations are offered for using the data and for managing, maintaining, and monitoring a healthy, sustainable, robust working urban forest. 1. Share this report to promote cohesion among the City, AFC, FNHA, and other partners and community stakeholders: People are part of the urban forest. Use this report as a catalyst among urban forest managers and community stakeholders to meet Fayetteville's natural resource goals. Solicit feedback from community partners for the refinement of tree preservation ordinances, tree planting initiatives, and steps to encourage survivability and forest health. Develop best management practices (BMPs) such as maintaining higher canopy cover in ecologically sensitive areas (wetlands), parking lots, schools, and commercial properties. 2. Monitor, adapt, and enforce existing tree Preservation and Protection ordinances. Streamline tree -related policies and identify if codes are working against local goals. Enforce requirements in the Tree Preservation plan, especially the 90% survival rate for forested areas and tree plantings. Collaborative planning can reduce costs and provide consistency for public works officials, planners, developers, and stormwater and resource managers. 3. Develop a regional urban tree canopy assessment report in Arkansas. Utilize the information gained from this assessment and others in the state to compile and compare results. Involve interdisciplinary partners in the process and draft an appropriate call to action. 4. Assess tree canopy every 8-10 years to monitor trends and assess the effectiveness of public education & outreach campaigns and the tree preservation ordinance. Tools such as i- Tree Canopy can be used in between comprehensive GIS-based assessments. 5. Disseminate the land cover and UTC assessment data from this project broadly. While it is current, encourage its use for applications such as water supply planning, stormwater modeling, land use planning, green infrastructure, and Low Impact Development (LID) design. 6. Foster academic partnerships. Recommend that the University of Arkansas become a Tree Campus USA and work with local schools to educate and plant/care for trees. 7. Explore all potential partnerships to achieve urban forest goals: public/private including corporate and academic sponsors, council representatives, environmental quality and stormwater associations, volunteers, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood associations. 8. Promote hardy, climate -adapted, and long-lived tree species that are appropriate for Fayetteville's environment to insure investments in trees achieve maximum benefits. 9. Target areas for tree planting using the assessment data. Use results to justify targeted public tree plantings in the public rights -of -way and greater private planting in commercial landscaping. Ground -truth possible planting areas and planting site locations. Make these data sets available on a GIS webmap as social assessment tools available to residents and businesses. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 33 G C 0 10. Create a central repository for monitoring tree planting and tree removals on public and private property, possibly using a web -based application that is open to the public. 11. Ensure consistency in future UTC assessments by using comparable image resolution, classification techniques, and QA/QC procedures. LOAR and 1.5-2.0' multispectral satellite imagery acquired at similar times would provide an ideal data set. 12. Create or update an existing targeted education and outreach campaign using the ecosystem benefits values. Use the data, maps, tools, and tree benefits to help non -profits, residents, and businesses visualize their role in reaching, maintaining and expanding Fayetteville's urban forest for social, environmental, and economic benefits that are relevant to them. 13. Work urban forestry goals and design specifications into other environmental planning initiatives such as wetland restoration projects, open space conservation easements, green infrastructure & low impact development (LID) plans, and energy efficiency programs. 14. Assess forest stands at risk from development by overlaying zoning or future land use data and developable slope %. Quantify and locate areas at risk that if developed would impact overall citywide canopy cover goals as the economy improves and development follows. 15. Promote cost-effective professional development in urban forestry. eLearn Urban Forestry is a state-of-the-art online, distance -learning program geared specifically toward beginning urban foresters and those allied professionals working in and around urban and urbanizing landscapes, including service foresters, natural resource planners, landscape architects, city officials and public works employees. eLearn Urban Forestry provides free access to learning modules, with a link to the Continuing Forestry Education (CFE) group, where for a small maintenance fee you can get ISA or SAF credit. Visit elearn.sref.info/ for more details. 16. Provide an environment for natural forest regeneration. This study shows that grass, herbaceous, and shrub/briar land cover types are naturally regenerating into forests, contributing to the City's overall tree canopy and ecosystem services. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 34 G C 0 auk"JOVYWIVIN Urban forests are dynamic resources that are constantly changing through natural and human processes. Managing urban forests effectively requires an understanding of where trees are presently, where they can be planted equitably to maximize benefits, and where physical restrictions may prevent their growth. This assessment provides COF will their first high -resolution UTC data set and citywide estimate of 36% tree cover. While agriculture and residential land uses have similar average tree cover (45% and 41% respectively) and they makeup similar proportions of the total tree canopy (35% and 36% respectively), residential areas provide 28% of the total possible planting area citywide and are most realistic for canopy gains that benefit the community most. These results indicate that one of the most cost-effective means to advancing urban forestry in the city may be education and outreach on the benefits of urban tree canopy. Based on assessing land cover across several broad land use types, tree planting that focuses on vegetation land cover, such as grassy areas, and impervious land cover, such as parking lots, which are concentrated on public lands and residential land use types will have the greatest impact for increasing Fayetteville's urban tree canopy. As population density and impervious cover increases, the necessity of planting trees will also increase. Regeneration, be it natural or by strategically planting seedlings and saplings, is important to the success and future of Fayetteville's urban tree canopy. This study shows that natural regeneration is occurring and adding to canopy cover, but invasive species control and forest management is needed. It is import to sustain the health, environmental, and social benefits received from urban forests by consideration of tree maintenance and forest preservation during development through utilizing a specific urban forest management plan and furthermore the setting of goals. These plans should be dynamic in order to adjust with continuous forest change. On future periodic assessments, techniques for monitoring gains and losses need to be consistent and include strict quality control / quality assurance methods to reliably track change over time. Additional technology tools are becoming available such as open source wiki-style mobile and web -mapping applications to engage the public in tracking and caring for trees. Balancing new development with the protection and conservation of environmental values related to forest cover such as wetland habitat, air quality, and climate adaptation related to carbon storage and energy conservation will be an ongoing work item. The economic benefits of urban tree canopy alone are incentives to continue in this direction. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 35 G C 0 APPENDIX Additional details on Fayetteville's 2012 urban tree canopy assessment are provided including supporting information on urban tree benefits, land cover classification methodology and accuracy, addition tree planting site maps, and literature citations. URBAN TREE BENEFITS The benefits of urban trees include environmental, economic, and social values. These "ecosystem services" are direct or indirect benefits provided by urban forests and individual trees that are often dismissed or underrepresented when valuing infrastructure because they don't readily have an associated dollar value. Types of tree benefits are listed and briefly described below. While none alone are a "silver bullet", when combined, trees and the urban forest are an impressive part of the solution for sustainability during urban planning and community development. Environmental "Services" of Urban Trees: Air Quali — trees absorb, trap, offset and hold air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and CO2. Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Carbon — trees store and sequester carbon through photosynthesis as well as offset carbon emissions at the plant due to energy conservation. Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff Mitigation — trees infiltrate, evapotranspire, and intercept stormwater while also increasing soil permeability and ground water recharge. Erosion control — tree roots hold soil together along stream banks and steep slopes, stabilizing soils and reducing sedimentation issues in water bodies. Urban heat island effect — trees cool the air directly through shade and indirectly through transpiration, reducing day and nighttime temperatures in cities. Increased wildlife habitat — Trees create local ecosystems that provide habitat and food for birds and animals, increasing biodiversity in urban areas. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 36 G C 0 Economic "Services" of Urban Trees: t Proper , value — numerous studies across the country show that residential homes with healthy trees add property value (up to 15%). Energy conservation — trees lower energy demand through summer shade and winter wind block, additionally offsetting carbon emissions at the power plant. t Economic Development — trees attract businesses, tourists, and increase shopping. Stormwater facilities — trees and forests reduce the need for or size of costly gray infrastructure. Pavement — tree shade increases pavement life through temperature regulation (40-60% in some studies). Social "Services" of Urban Trees: Public health — trees help reduce asthma rates and other respiratory illnesses. Safe walking environments — trees reduce traffic speeds and soften harsh urban landscapes. Crime and domestic violence — urban forests help build stronger communities. Nature and trees provide settings in which relationships grow stronger and violence is reduced. Connection to nature — trees increase our connection to nature. Noise pollution — Trees reduce noise pollution by acting as a buffer and absorbing up to 50% of urban noise (U.S. Department of Energy study). plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 37 G C 0 LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION METHODS & ACCURACY Introduction to Image Classification and Accuracy The goal of image classification for the City of Fayetteville (COF) was to convert a landscape comprised of complex uses and cover types into target categories that are meaningful for the management of the City's urban forests. The object -based classification approach used in this analysis provides the ability to segment landscape features at a fine scale with a high level of precision, based on the 1 meter horizontal resolution of the input imagery. Classification accuracy assessment describes how well the classification is able to translate the complex landscape into target land cover classes. Five target land cover classes (1. Tree Canopy, 2. Impervious Surface, 3. Green Vegetation and Agriculture, 4. Soil and Dry Vegetation, or 5. Water) were and three impervious sub -classes were initially mapped (for a total of eight classes) for the COF using four -band National Agricultural Inventory Program (NAIP) aerial photography from 2010. A single color infra -red image was mosaicked from multiple Geotiff image tiles purchased from USDA NAIP headquarters in Utah. Feature Analyst software (FA) was used to segment the COF mosaic into desired land cover classes. Additional vector layer inputs were used to further segment classification categories. Target land cover classes were selected because they segment the landscape into categories that are useful for urban forest management. Tree canopy describes the current forest cover as seen from above, but is only part of Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment. Subcategories of impervious surfaces segment areas where it may be impossible to plant trees (such as roads and buildings) and areas where trees offset many of the negative impacts of impervious materials (such as parking lots and sidewalks). Areas comprised of green vegetation are important for UTC assessment since they represent the easiest transition to additional forest cover through tree planting. In this assessment, all agricultural areas were classified in the vegetation category and later differentiated from other green vegetation using the agricultural land use data provided by the COF. Soil and dry vegetation is excluded from possible planting areas since these areas represent either current development, or areas where live vegetation is not supported. For this classification, water was directly digitized in combination with input data provided by the COF. Accuracy Assessment Accuracy assessments serve two main purposes; Accuracy assessments provide information to map producers about what methods are working and where improvements need to be made for creating the best possible product from available resources. Accuracy assessments also provide information to map users who need to understand how closely the intended classification categories represent the true classes observed on the ground. Procedure More than 100 sample points were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random numeric value. Sorting from lowest random value to highest, at each sample point, a 3x3 pixel (9 m2) reference sample unit was digitized onto the NAIP imagery and assigned one of the five target land cover classes. The procedure was repeated until an at least 100 pixels were sampled from the three dominant land cover classes (Tree Canopy, Impervious Surfaces, and Green Vegetation). Sample units were then intersected with the classified map to compare with the reference samples, as presented in the sample error matrix below. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 38 G C 0 Interpretation Statistical relationships between the reference pixels (representing the true conditions on the ground) and the intersecting classified pixels are used to understand how closely the entire classified map represents the COF landscape. The sample error matrix represents the intersection of reference pixels manually identified by a human observer (columns) and classification category of pixels in the classified image (rows). The white boxes along the diagonals of the matrix represent agreement between the two pixel maps. Off -diagonal values represent the number pixels manually referenced to the column class that were classified as another category in the classification image. Overall accuracy is computed by dividing the total number of correct pixels by the total number of pixels reported in the matrix (238+165+220+72+66 = 761 / 819 = 930/o), and the matrix can be used to calculate per class accuracy percentages. For example, 260 pixels were manually digitized in the reference map as Tree Canopy, but only 238 of those pixels were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map, with 22 pixels misclassified as Green Vegetation. This relationship is called the "Producer's Accuracy" and is calculated by dividing the agreement pixel total (diagonal) by the reference pixel total (column total). Therefore, the Producer's Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (238 / 260 = 0.92), meaning that we can expect that 92% of all tree canopy in the COF were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map. Conversely, the "User's Accuracy" is calculated by dividing the number agreement pixel total by the total number of classified pixels in the row category. For example, 241 classification pixels intersecting reference pixels were classified as Tree Canopy, but three pixels were identified as Green Vegetation in the reference map. Therefore, the User's Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (238 /241 = 0.99), meaning that pixels classified as Tree Canopy the classification were actual tree canopy in the COF. It is important to recognize the Producer's and User's accuracy percent values are based on a sample of the true ground cover, represented by the reference pixels. As with any statistical relationship we can compute the level of confidence with which the classified map values represent the reference map of the COF. Confidence intervals are used to report the lower limit and upper limit of the expected percent values of each classification category. In the matrix above, the 95% confidence interval describes the range of values we would expect to observe 95 out of 100 times given a randomly distributed selection of reference pixels. For example, if the accuracy assessment was repeated 100 times, we expect that tree canopy accuracy would fall between 88% and 95% for Producer's and 97% and 100% for User's accuracy for at least 95 of the 100 samples. Relating Accuracy to the Classification Map Accuracy assessments provide important information regarding how well the landscape was classified into target land cover classes, but what do Producer's and User's accuracies mean for interpreting land cover results? It should be noted that for both the classification map and the error matrix, land cover classes are interrelated, meaning that if a pixel is incorrectly omitted from one category, it is also incorrectly committed to another category. For example, 22 pixels in the sample error matrix were erroneously omitted from the Tree Canopy class and erroneously committed to the Green Vegetation class. The classification map reports 36.5% of the COF is covered with Tree Canopy. The Producer's accuracy of 92% can be interpreted as up to 8% of the overall landscape may be tree cover but was classified as another land cover category. Conversely, the User's accuracy of 99% indicates that if a pixel is classified in the classification map as Tree Canopy, we are 99% confident that the pixel is tree canopy in the reference map. When combined, these two figures indicate that 36.5% probably underestimates the true canopy percent (and that the Green Vegetation category probably contains some actual tree canopy). Figure 32 below uses work by Pontius and Millones plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 39 G C 0 (2011) to illustrate the total map area of each classification category where there is agreement between the reference and classification map (blue), where classification categories contained committed (pink) and omitted (green) pixels. The figure below uses concepts defined as Quantity and Allocation disagreement to estimate true land cover percent values based on statistical results. ®Comission or Loss ■Agreement or Persistence a Omission or Gain Water Sail and Dry Vegetation Z o Green m Vegetation U Impervious Surfaces Tree Canopy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percent of Study Area Figure 32. Land Cover Accuracy Assessment per land cover class Land Cover Classes A total of eight land cover classes were mapped for Fayetteville including four impervious sub -classes Figure 33. An additional example of the land cover mapping data in Fayetteville. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 40 G ni LIZell: Fa lie C Limit Trails J -_ .,-� - Highways �- 1 T0 In Parks Buildings T Rights of Wayn _ if Parcels Containing Parks Vt•-" ".cif •L�.•t"�.�� •J*:.r / / IIAPAI • '.. %.J Fyn. •.�.....'..� +` 41 ) P � 1 • ITT •• .• s yarn. �� �. M•� s 1 � �.• • •• • • d { i-. •• {, �nF - - 3 J -{�' � •• �10-•'%:,gs � 1. ri left •� (((• •:./•:••fill• y � - �� ..(, "Y 1. : `•. ii ( '�' R•.�t� Lr�i` Y't. ' ^ilk' _ i• •. gc i •- S Fayetteville City Limits 0 Air Quality Planting Sites - Highways REFERENCES Downing, Adam, 2011. Ecology, Air. What's a Tree Got to Do witb It? htW://www.ecology.com/2011/09/13/air-tree/. Accessed November 2, 2012. Pontius, R. and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 32, 15: 4407- 4429. The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Urban Foresty. urbanforestry.accessfayetteville.org//. Accessed November 2, 2012. plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 42 G C 0 m r- '�IS1 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 2024 "At 4"ua- od- IL an WW" Xf J�l t 0 Acknowledgments Funding for this effort provided by the City of Fayetteville The City of Fayetteville, AR Contributors Fayetteville City Council Fayetteville Development Services - Urban Forestry Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee Fayetteville Geographic Information System (GIS) Division Fayetteville Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Fayetteville Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Advisory Board Fayetteville Planning Commission Fayetteville Public Works - Engineering and Park Maintenance Fayetteville Sustainability and Resilience Fayetteville Urban Forestry Advisory Board Community members of Fayetteville GIS Analysts, Gunder Coaty and Rosemary Hatch Document Design: Brittany Phillips Design Plan Prepared By: Chris Peiffer, PlanIT Geo Plan Edited By: John Scott, Urban Forester City of Fayetteville Photos, unless noted, are from the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS LETTER FROM THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE In Fayetteville, trees are a source of pride and hold a special place in our City's identity. Our urban tree canopy is part of what makes Fayetteville unique and attractive to residents and visitors. The City of Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan will serve as a blueprint to guide Fayetteville during rapid growth, helping to make sure our growing community remains healthy, vibrant and green. A coalition of residents, staff, stakeholders, consultants, and board members created this plan for Fayetteville by reviewing our past and current conditions and considering what the future holds for Fayetteville. I want to express gratitude to all contributors to the Urban Forestry Management Plan. The direction outlined in this plan will help us maintain and grow our urban forests, which continue to provide direct benefits to our community. MAYOR LIONELD JORDAN A LETTER FROM FAYETTEVILLE'S URBAN FORESTERS Trees and forests are the silent workhorses in our City that provide us with many benefits. Trees give us one of the most basic elements of life: oxygen. Trees shelter us from the sun during the blazing summer months. Trees filter pollutants from the air and give us cleaner air to breathe. Trees absorb rainwater and help with stormwater control when located correctly. Trees help make our lives livable. Scientists are making discoveries about trees every year. Within the last ten years, we have learned that trees communicate with each other. We are learning about the complex web of relationships trees have with each other and other organisms. In the past thirty years, we have learned that trees produce chemicals we absorb in our skin that naturally lower our blood pressure and reduce our anxiety levels. We arejust scratching the surface of what we know about trees. The City of Fayetteville has a strong relationship with trees and tree preservation. The collaboration with our community shows how important trees are to our residents. Trees and our urban forests continue to be a high priority for our residents as illustrated in the survey results from this Plan, the Park and Recreation System Master Plan, Energy Action Plan, and City Plan 2040. We are thrilled to have a plan that embraces our residents' priorities and will help guide us through future growth. Our City is changing quickly, and these changes impact trees. This plan is a guide to help us continue to grow and change while remembering the importance of trees. Over the past ten years, Urban Forestry staff has strengthened our tree preservation and landscape codes, added flexible elements for development in code, and clarified our Unified Development Code. The Urban Forestry Management Plan has a vision to continue strengthening, clarifying, and adding flexibility to our Tree Preservation and Landscape codes. The Urban Forestry Management Plan will also help focus our efforts to maintain, grow, and enhance our urban forest programs for the next ten years. Fayetteville's award -winning Urban Forestry programs lead the state in innovation, public outreach, technology, and progress. This plan will help continue this progress, strengthen those attributes, and guide us on what we can do for our urban forests. We are excited to continue to serve Fayetteville with award -winning programs by implementing the recommendations of this plan. MELISSA EVANS, URBAN FORESTER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JOHN SCOTT, URBAN FORESTER, PARKS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 3 1 ;I FkAd6mq7 Aba �i TABLE OF CONTENTS Definitions and abbreviations 06 1.0 Executive Summary 07 2.0 Introduction 11 About Fayetteville 12 Background and History 13 Trees as a Public Good 14 A Closer Look - Quality of Life and Environmental Benefits 15 Building on the Progress 19 Time is Now 23 Plan Purpose and Vision 24 3.0 Current Conditions 25 Tree Inventory 26 Challenges 27 Tree Inventory 28 Tree Ordinance 37 Summary of Fayetteville's Key Urban Forestry Programs and Resources 38 Tree Equity 39 Native Prairie 41 The University of Arkansas 43 Tree Management Team 45 4.0 Planning Process 46 Public Engagement 49 Internal Engagement 51 5.0 Vulnerabilities 53 Development and Land Use 54 Easement 55 Climate Change Impacts 57 Urban Tree Pests and Disease 60 6.0 Vision and Recommendations 62 Guiding Principles, Goals, Strategies, and Actions 65 Fayetteville's Tree Canopy Goal 66 Priority Planting Areas 68 Guiding Principles with Goals, Strategies and Actions 69 Staffing Level Recommendations 80 Implementation 81 7.0 Conclusion 88 Appendices and References 90 Appendix A Canopy Goals 93 Appendix B Urban Forestry Audit 94 Appendix C Tree Planting Criteria 110 Appendix D Ordinance Evaluation 115 Appendix E Existing Management Plans Cross Referencing 121 References 128 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS CARBON SEQUESTRATION - The action of capturing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in another form that canot be immediately released. CARBON STORAGE - The total amount of carbon in a forest or tree. DBH - Diameter at Breast Height, which is a industry standard of tree size. This is measure of diameter of the tree, 4.5 feet above the ground. NET TREE - Refers the number of trees that reach a level maturity that is past their most vulnerable stages of growth. NO NET LOSS - For the purpose of the Urban Forestry Master Plan, no net loss is defined as balancing canopy loss, regardless of cause, with canopy growth through private and public tree plantings and natural regeneration across the city. PRIVATE TREES - Trees on private property and not maintained by the City. PUBLIC TREES - Trees along streets, in medians, parks, and in high use areas on City owned lands. UDC - Urban Development Code, this is the document that contains the City's ordinances. UFMP - Urban Forestry Management Plan Supplemental Material Contains more in-depth information and data. Supplement 1- Urban Forestry Benchmarks Supplement 2- Canopy Goal Setting and Priority Areas Supplement 3- Tree Inventory Summary Supplement 4- Public Survey Results Supplement 5- Staff & Board Member Survey Results Supplement 6- US Forest Service Urban Forest Audit Supplement 7- Recommended Tree List and Sister City Climate City Assessment Supplement 8- Invasive Plant Species Program Review Supplement 9- Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Project 2012 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 6 wy it '1' � `I Q'-:,'-,�i/ d• .A �' � �� tn� 11 y t fife• CY; _. _ �: •. /% r If +s�,r )•,w,yr�•� ''1y?s • �d'e,�c '�. t� �i: S �' � Rai :� � `; ! st ,, it a�'•�l�% se Alr sa►: �. ,: ..l� �, r� y r lj i�,� l ; i [ ^ � a 1 tTi�. ` � t � >y� .r-..F '%1 q—.��74, • ..•�' -• •�uti'. ()� - !' q ~ .�• . {-'did _ yt R. ��� _ w.- - -.'� f,-pc a: + tt �� ems: —'—AMR n _ �—'-�-�� ic•�>7�f�`,wt, �✓< ��-1 fst .r:i Xl. ����(.�3[�.7�(tO+. Y�_�:;•.' r'i..`�,, .� ^n� ,C 7f v ''tom? '1 i rt �'-'�y.�� - J '_ , , �T� ^_ 1 x• •.'�yN•�ai)�,- L.• ,..�o�..],•.4. r.'��,y.•+1f +t. 6�1�5"11r-J�h�-�a• r1� ^ �i. �' >_ '�.�-�I-1:V.}aC���IR, �^��..y�! � w}^'�. r�-p -�f` s: i''t. D�,�,� "^�r SIN`-T,V�."yGR ••✓%t"�'y�.'�Mi_ ,.a; �. n ,' 'X 7Tr-. - t , _ : Y/it ��.•:� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The quality of life for Fayetteville's community members is strongly improved by its trees (collectively known as the urban forest), as trees make a vital and affordable contribution to the sense of community, enhance and create pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods, provide energy savings, reduce stormwater runoff, and improve air quality. Future climate predictions indicate that heat waves will become more frequent, and the average yearly temperatures are expected to continue to rise. In addition, it is anticipated that the region will experience more frequent extreme weather events and temperature changes, prolonged periods of drought, and shortened or disrupted natural seasons. Protecting, maintaining, and expanding Fayetteville's urban forest is essential to preserving and improving quality of life for all residents. PURPOSE The City's Urban Forestry Management Plan ("Plan") aims to provides goals and a roadmap for the City to preserve and expand tree canopy cover and maximize the benefits of Fayetteville's urban forest. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 URBAN FOREST KEY FINDINGS 1. 39.4% of the City was shaded by urban tree canopy cover in 2019. 2. Fayetteville's Tree Equity Score is 87 out of 100. The regional average is 77 and the national average is 85 (see page 36 in the Current Conditions section for more details). 3. The citywide urban forest provides an annual estimated benefit of $55 million by improving air quality, health savings, energy savings, and reducing stormwater volume. (Endreny, 2018) 4. An estimated 741/6 of public trees (Trees comprised of trees along streets, in medians, alleys, parks, and trees in high use areas on City owned lands) are 12 inches in diameter or less, 75% of trees are in good condition, and the most common maintenance need for public trees is clearance pruning (8%), removals (6%), and watering for tree establishment. 5. Fayetteville's Urban Forest Audit Score (page 65) based on U.S. Forest Service criteria is 73% (completed in 2023). The Audit evaluates and scores 11 categories of sustainable urban forest management categories according to industry standards and best practices. 6. A sample inventory of 2,712 public trees and 848 private trees was completed in 2022. The trees are diverse - the top ten species only comprise 441/o of all trees. 7. Fayetteville has an estimated 25,000 public trees in maintained areas. 8. The 25,000 publicly -maintained trees provide an estimated $2.5 million over their life in ecosystem benefits. MANAGEMENT KEY FINDINGS The City's public trees are managed by three different City departments— Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs; Public Works; and Development Services. 1. 1.00 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs (Park Planning & Urban Forestry Division) and oversees tree plantings, Arbor Day Celebration, the Tree City USA program, specifies new tree plantings in public spaces, is the Staff Leader for the City's Urban Forestry Advisory Board (UFAB), works on Code changes, outreach, budgets, and advises maintenance best management practices. 2. 6.00 FTEs in Public Works perform public tree maintenance. 3. 1.00 FTE in Development Services manages trees as part of private development in accordance with Chapter 167 "Tree Preservation and Protection" within Fayetteville's Unified Development Code and Chapter 177 "Landscape Requirements Code." 4. City staff and commission members face several shared challenges and priorities, including staffing issues, ordinance standards, and infrastructure conflicts. Over 50% of participating staff have identified these as key concerns. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 9 ALIGNING CITY AND COMMUNITY PRIORITIES The Urban Forestry Management Plan complements existing city and regional planning efforts such as the City Plan 2040 comprehensive plan for Fayetteville, the Park and Recreation System Master Plan, Energy Action Plan, and the Climate Action Plan (in development as of 2024). Involvement from stakeholders and residents has been key to development of the Urban Forestry Management Plan and establishing the Plan's priorities. A diverse group of city staff, residents, and community stakeholders provided perspectives on the most important issues faced by the urban forest. Collectively, this group prioritized preserving existing trees and incorporating healthy, climate - tolerant or native trees into the City's built environment, particularly in underserved areas. The Plan's goals reflect these values and priorities. URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES URBAN FOREST VISION GUIDING PRINCIPLES Healthy Trees, Healthy City: Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover: We value and appreciate The vision for Fayetteville's urban the benefits and services provided by the trees in our community. These forest is to cultivate a thriving, benefits and services should be maximized and equitably distributed diverse, and well -maintained tree across the City by growing an urban forest that is sustainable and resilient canopy that enhances the livability, to current and future challenges. health, and sustainability of our community for current and future Maintenance and Management: We care for our trees and the generations. citywide urban forest to ensure the benefits are available for current and future generations. Our operations and investments prioritize sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and equity. Tree Preservation and Protection: Our existing tree canopy cover and the investments made in planting and caring for the urban forest are preserved through sound but fair policies and regulations that align with shared priorities in the City and best practices. Funding and Levels of Service: The programs and staffing involved with the trees in our community have the resources necessary to meet current and future demands and challenges. Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship: A sustainable urban forest requires a shared commitment from the City and the community. We will foster tree stewardship in our community through equitable and impactful community education and engagement. Table 1. Summary of the vision and guiding principles for Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan aims to achieve 44.41/o canopy coverage across the City over a 30- year planning period with a 1.2% increase in the first 10 years. The Plan recommends planting an average of 1,850 net trees per year, with a focus on 60% being large -canopy trees at maturity. The City's priority is to maximize the number of trees planted while ensuring they can be maintained to maturity. The City, developers, and private landowners will collectively contribute to reaching the canopy cover goal (For information on goals see page 66- 67). Tree canopy analysis is conducted every 10 years to track progress towards our goals and determine what needs to be modified to achieve the canopy goals, as required by City Code section 167.03.C. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 10 40 W• 44 �� • . •. • • �i IT S.S. • • LOa 0 to &Vo Vo > *• • Section 2: *` A .. � �►� Introduction . . �,In 2022, the City of Fayetteville committed to developing ..� the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan ("Plan") and • • 40 conducting a sample inventory of public trees to support the • Plan. The Plan was developed with a shared commitment fir. from the City, its partners, and the community to manage 4 j • and grow a sustainable and equitable urban forest. t -ems J�3 �,h ABOUT FAYETTEVILLE Figure 1. Maps displaying the location of Fayetteville, Arkansas within Washington County. Nestled within the picturesque Ozark Mountains in the northwestern part of the state, Fayetteville, Arkansas, is a vibrant and growing community that harmoniously blends urban development with natural beauty. As the heart of Washington County and home to the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville exudes a unique character that attracts residents, students, and visitors alike. Fayetteville is the second most populous city in Arkansas with 93,949 people as of the 2020 U.S. Census. Fayetteville's location between the Springfield Plateau and the Boston Mountains within the Ozarks gives rise to a wide variety of land forms and environmental features including native prairie wetlands, steeply sloped and forested uplands, and a variety of streams and water bodies. Fayetteville's urban forest plays a crucial role in enhancing social interactions, well-being, human health, and community engagement, making Fayetteville a more livable and enjoyable city. Ozark Mountains from Fayetteville. Source: Experience Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas - Urban Forestry Management Plan - 2024 12 Photo showing circa 1890 Fayetteville, looking northwest from Mount Sequoyah; fayettevillehistory.org BACKGROUND AND HISTORY Before the arrival of European settlers, the Ozark Mountains were home to a unique and diverse ecosystem. Understanding the pre -settlement forest conditions, as documented by early explorers, is crucial in appreciating the ecological history of the region. These descriptions reveal a landscape dominated by oak and hickory woodlands, with widely spaced trees creating an open canopy. The forest was punctuated by open glades and patches of prairie grass, adding to its distinctiveness. Shortleaf pine forest ecosystems thrived on the drier, south and west -facing slopes, further enhancing the area's ecological diversity (National Forest Foundation, 2014). Fayetteville's evolution into the modern city has integrated the surrounding forests into its urban landscape, supporting a network of verdant public spaces and parks. Heavily wooded areas still thrive within the city limits, contributing to Fayetteville's reputation as a green, forested city. The earliest settlers in the area were Native American tribes who lived off the land and hunted and gathered food from the natural environment. Later, with the arrival of European settlers in the early 19th century, the landscape began to change. The first settlers cleared large areas of land for farming, which led to deforestation and loss of habitat for many species of plants and animals. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrialization began in Fayetteville. Sawmills and other factories sprang up, leading to further deforestation and pollution of the local waterways. The construction of railroads and highways also had a significant impact on the natural environment as large areas of land were cleared to make way for these transportation routes. As Fayetteville continued to grow and develop, urbanization became a significant factor in altering the natural environment. The population increased, and more land was needed for housing, development, and infrastructure. This led to further deforestation and loss of habitat, as well as increased pollution and degradation of waterways. Despite these significant changes, Fayetteville has also taken steps to preserve and protect its natural environment. A pivotal moment in Fayetteville's Urban Forestry history came in 2000 when Mary Lightheart protested the removal of trees at a proposed development and climbed into a massive oak tree, living there for three weeks. She and 50 other activists were protesting a new shopping center that would cause the removal of a large stand of mature oak trees. Activists helped bring light to tree preservation and the importance of trees. The following year, a stronger tree preservation ordinance was enacted. This action has led to the City of Fayetteville leading the state in progressive urban forestry programs. The residents of Fayetteville made it clear that trees are vital to this City. This commitment to the natural environment is carried on by Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan and the City's programs for trees that are detailed in the Current Conditions section. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 13 TREES AS A PUBLIC GOOD A diverse and healthy urban forest works to the benefit of the community, the environment, and the economy. Trees make cities more livable by decreasing summer temperatures and improving well-being. Greater contact with natural environments correlates with lower levels of stress, improved performance, and fewer sick days. Residents in areas with more greenery are three times more likely to be physically active and less likely to be overweight than residents living in areas with little greenery. Cooler Pavement Diminishes Urban Heat Islands Tree canopy lowers temperatures by shading buildings, asphalt, and concrete. Trees deflect radiation from the sun and release moisture into the air, reducing surface temperatures by as much as 36 degrees. Lower temperatures diminish fumes from heated asphalt and mitigate the urban heat island effect. Improve Air Quality Trees produce oxygen and clean the air by removing pollutants that would otherwise contribute to human health problems such as asthma and other respiratory diseases. Protect Wildlife and Ecosystems Preserving and planting trees provides valuable habitat for wildlife, supports pollinator species, and provides favorable conditions for beneficial soil microorganisms. Save Energy and Lower Energy Costs for Buildings As natural screens, trees insulate homes and businesses from extreme weather, keeping buildings cooler and reducing air conditioning bills. Shade trees planted on a sunny exposure can provide savings of up to 50% in the summer. In winter, evergreen trees provide a barrier to cold winter winds. Conserve Water and Soil A tree's root system draws water into the soil and their canopy slows rainfall, reducing runoff and yerosion while removing contaminants. In contrast, impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots allow water to run off unfiltered and at high volumes, increasing the likelihood of flooding and impaired water quality. Other benefits include increased property values, reduced pavement wear, aesthetics, health, traffic calming, public safety, among others. View a compilation of research on urban forest benefits and services prepared by the Alliance for Community Trees (www.actrees.org). Tree benefits are quantified in the following section. "In light of the ongoing effects of climate change, trees and their associated canopy have innumerable benefits and an urban forest plays a role in carbon sequestration, mitigating stormwater issues, filtering pollutants, increasing property values, improving public health, and reducing the heat island impacts associated with urban areas." FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLAN, 2040 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 14 A CLOSER LOOK Trees come in various forms: shade trees, flowering trees, edible fruit and nuts trees, and trees with vibrant fall colors. All types contribute benefits and services to the urban ecosystem. The environmental benefits of trees in urban areas are identifiable and measurable, while other benefits are tangential and experiential, such as the feeling of walking a quiet tree -covered trail. Park and street trees create a sense of community, offering opportunities for people to come together and engage in various activities. These shared spaces foster a sense of belonging and connection among residents. Additionally, Fayetteville's urban forest provides a respite from the hustle and bustle of city life, offering peaceful retreats where individuals can relax, unwind, and enjoy nature. Research summarized in the following paragraphs shows the presence of trees and greenery in urban areas reduces stress, improves mental well-being, and encourages physical activity, all of which contribute to healthier and happier communities. Moreover, Fayetteville's urban forest creates opportunities for environmental education and volunteering, inspiring residents to learn about nature, participate in tree planting initiatives, and engage in environmental stewardship. INCREASES ENCOURAGES SOCIAL ATTENTION SPANS INTERACTION- I I NSPIRES PHYSICAL ACTIVITY C IN W=(�! in, Figure 2. Human health and social benefits of trees. IMPROVES MENTAL HELPS CHILDREN HEALTH IMPROVES SOCIAL LEARN COHESION ■■■ ■■ ■■ n ■■ ■■ ■■' Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 16 Studies have found that the amount of trees and vegetation in common spaces such as parks are related to a sense of neighborhood safety and more social activity. In turn, greenery in cities enhances the strength of social ties among neighbors (Kim, et al., 2020). Encounters with nature in cities also lead to enhanced positive attitudes, decreased stress levels, improved attention spans, and better performance on cognitive memory assessments (Wolf, et al., 2020). Tree canopy cover and greenspaces in cities motivate and provide opportunities for people to be physically active. The percentage of greenspace within a two mile radius of a person's home has been associated with the percentage of residents reporting good health, particularly among the elderly and those with lower socioeconomic status groups that are typically less likely to get sufficient physical activity. Research shows that community residents are three times as likely to be physically active when living in areas with more greenspace (Ulmer, et al., 2016). Opportunities to experience urban nature —whether it's a view of a street tree out a window or actually being outside in nature— are key to the mental well-being of city residents. People are happier, experience a greater sense of well-being, and have reduced stress levels when they live in areas with more greenspace nearby or on a tree canopied neighborhood street (White, et al., 2013). Tree cover near schools has a positive effect on student performance. Children with challenges concentrating are more focused following a 20-minute walk in an urban park or tree canopy covered sidewalk than they do after walks in other urban settings without trees and greenery (Taylor, et al., 2009). Trees in neighborhoods and parks connect children to nature. The link between time spent in natural settings and health outcomes has been the center of focus for healthcare and insurance industries in recent years. Trees and greenspaces have shown to increase longevity, reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease, reduce anxiety and depression, improve immune function, and reduce stress hormones. A study in 2016 of 108,000 people found a 12% lower rate of non -accidental mortality among those with the most greenery in a 820-foot (250 meters) radius around their homes (James, et al., 2016). In addition, hospital patients placed in rooms with views of nature experienced shorter stays in the hospital compared to patients in rooms that faced other buildings Nihandoust, et al., 2021). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 16 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF TREES Research over the past several decades provides valuable quantified data on environmental benefits for urban forest researchers, managers, and practitioners. This data can be used to communicate tree benefits to residents and stakeholders and to incorporate trees into infrastructure design such as stormwater management. It can also be used to develop strategies that reduce inequities. A tree canopy assessment conducted by the City in 2020 (with 2019 imagery) determined that 39.4% of the City (14,000 acres) was shaded by tree canopy. In 2022, a sample inventory of 2,712 public trees and 848 private trees was conducted to estimate the composition and structure of public and private tree populations. These datasets were used to calculate the following benefits of the citywide urban forest and public tree population. Citywide Tree Canopy The citywide tree canopy across public and private land provides an annual estimated benefit of $55 million by improving air quality and reducing stormwater volumes (Endreny, 2018). Public Trees Public trees are comprised of trees along streetscapes, in medians, alleys, parks, trees in high use areas on City -owned land. The 2022 sample inventory of public trees determined there are 42,000 trees in public spaces, and 25,000 are maintained. The 25,000 publicly maintained trees were used to calculate the benefits and services below. Using i-tree tools, it is estimated that the 25,000 trees provide $71,615 in ecosystem benefits annually. It is also estimated that they sequester (capture)1.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide annually, worth $33,613. The air quality benefits equate to $23,949 annually in services. $14,053 of stormwater benefits are diverted from the 25,000 trees. Using these three benefits, the 25,000 public trees provide a yearly total estimated $71,615 in ecosystem benefits (Tree Inventory Summary). CARBON BENEFITS ...... $33,613 AIR QUALITY BENEFITS $23,949 STORMWATER BENEFITS $14,053 TOTAL BENEFITS ...... $71,615 Photo of Eastern towhee habitats are supported by healthy urban forests. Source: Audubon Arkansas Assuming an average tree lifetime of 37.5 years based on the i Tree model, the 25,000 maintained public trees are estimated to generate $7.5 million in ecosystem benefits over their lifetime. Similarly, the 42,000 trees in public spaces are projected to provide over $4.2 million in ecosystem services under the same lifespan assumption. (For more informaation see Supplement 3, Tree Inventory Supplement page 10) Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 17 TOTAL FOR AMOUNT FOR 2712 AVERAGE 25,000 ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS TREES PER TREE PUBLIC TREES Overall Monetary Benefit ($) $7,767 $2.86 $71,599.65 Air Quality Monetary Benefit ($) $2,598 $0.96 $23,949.30 CO (Carbon Monoxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 12 0.004480 112.00 CO Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $8 $0.003 $71.72 NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide)Pollution Removed (Ibs) 55 0.02 505.90 NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $11.1 $0.004 $102.69 O3(Ozone) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 1,046 $0.39 $9,643.25 03 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $1,233 $0.45 $11,366.70 PM2.5 (Particulate Matter 2.5 microns) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 28 0.01 257.65 PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $1,339 $0.49 $12,343.93 SO2 (Sulfur dioxide) Pollution Removed (Ibs) 21 0.01 189.07 SO2 Removed Monetary Benefit ($) $0.01 $0.000004 $0.09 Pollutants Removed (Ibs) 1,169 0.43 10776.27 Carbon Sequestrated Monetary Benefit IR4 I P33,13.57 ($) Carbon Sequestered (Ibs) Annually 156,765 57.8 1445102.2 Stormwater Monetary Benefit ($) $1,524.53 $0.56 $14,053.56 Evaporation (ft3) 289,960 106.9 2672938.6 Interception (ft3) 290,397 107.1 2676967.0 Transpiration (ft3) 613,646 226.3 5656762.4 Potential Evaporation (ft3) 2,500,561 922.0 23050897.7 Evapotranspiration (ft3) 1,892,393 697.8 17444623.9 Runoff Avoided (ft3) -22,804 J t 210213.8 CO2 Storage (Ibs) 5,348,466 1972.1 49303704.8 CO Benefit ($) $124,39T $45.87 $1,146,668.Vr Carbon Dry Weight (Ibs) 2,917,345 1075.72 26892933.08 Carbon Storage (Ibs) 1,458,672 537.86 13446459.26 "Ibs" = pounds; "gal" = gallons; ItT'= cubic feet Table 2. Estimated annual benefits of Fayetteville's public trees Source: USDA Forest Service i-Tree research To understand the annual ecosystem benefits above, it important to understand the difference between carbon sequestration, and carbon storage. Carbon sequestration is the action of capturing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in another form that cannot be immediately released, and carbon storage, which is the total amount of carbon in a forest or tree. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 18 BUILDING ON PROGRESS A review of the 2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (Supplement 9, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Project 2012) was completed to track progress and build upon successes. A summary of the 2012 recommendations with progress information follows. 1. Share this report to promote cohesion among the City, AFC, FNHA, and other partners and community stakeholders: • People are part of the urban forest. This report can be used as a catalyst among urban forest managers and community stakeholders to meet Fayetteville's natural resource goals. • Solicit feedback from community partners to refine tree preservation ordinances, tree planting initiatives, and steps to encourage survivability and forest health. • Develop best management practices (BMPs), such as maintaining higher canopy cover in ecologically sensitive areas (wetlands), parking lots, schools, and commercial properties. 2024 Update. On Going and Complete. The old and new Urban Forestry Plan will be available on line. Staff regularly meets with the Urban Forestry Advisory Board to discuss ordinance changes and tree -planting initiatives and stress the importance of planting the right tree in the right place for longevity. The Urban Forestry Advisory Board advises staff on ordinance changes and tree - planting initiatives. The board is made up of a diverse group of community stakeholders. Staff has developed a Best Management Practices to ensure we care for new yearly plantings. We set our planting goals based on what we can maintain and grow to maturity. 2. Monitor, adapt, and enforce existing Tree Preservation and Protection ordinances. • Streamline tree -related policies and identify if codes are working against local goals. • Enforce requirements in the Tree Preservation plan, especially the 90% survival rate for forested areas and tree plantings. • Collaborative planning can reduce costs and provide consistency for public works officials, planners, developers, stormwater, and resource managers. 2024 Update. Integrated and Complete. Urban forestry staff continually review policies and codes and regularly adjust to necessary changes. We inspect all projects for a 90% survival rate. We collaborate with planning, sustainability, park maintenance, stormwater engineers, and others throughout the city for many projects. 3. Develop a regional urban tree canopy assessment report in Arkansas. Utilize the information gained from this assessment and others in the state to compile and compare results. Involve interdisciplinary partners in the process and draft an appropriate call to action. 2024 Update. Incomplete. Fayetteville is one of the few cities in the state that conducts regular tree canopy assessments, completing a study every ten years. Only a handful of other cities in the state have followed suit. Bentonville, for example, completed tree canopy studies in 2013 and 2019. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to advocate for a more regional approach, with additional cities undertaking similar assessments. Urban Forestry staff would enthusiastically participate in a coordinated, regional canopy assessment led by the NWA Regional Planning Commission, which could provide a more comprehensive picture across Northwest Arkansas. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 19 4. Assess tree canopy every 8-10 years to monitor trends and assess the effectiveness of public education & outreach campaigns and the tree preservation ordinance. Tools such as the I -Tree Canopy can be used between comprehensive GIS-based assessments. 2024 Update. Integrated and Ongoing. Urban Forestry Staff has worked with the GIS department and receives NAIP imagery as it is released, we can get regular canopy updates every two years. GIS has used the standards to give us tree canopy assessments every other year. We received one in 2015, 2017, and 2019 and are getting canopy assessments for 2021 and 2023. The City's urban foresters frequently participate in public education and outreach campaigns. Since 2012, the City has expanded its educational efforts and launched several new programs: • A ban on invasive plants was implemented, accompanied by an informational packet and a public outreach campaign to raise awareness. • An "Invasive Plant Bounty" program was created, which has since been emulated nationwide. • The 'Amazing Trees of Fayetteville" initiative highlights significant or unique tree species within the City. • "Tree Price Tags" were hung in high -traffic areas, showcasing the ecosystem benefits of the City's trees. • The City now participates annually in school events like Symbols Day and Forest Awareness Day, reaching hundreds of elementary students. These new programs have steadily increased public participation and engagement each year Since 2012, the City Council has amended the Tree Preservation ordinance seven times, strengthening the code, closing loopholes that enabled clear -cutting, adding Low -Impact Development mitigation options, and clarifying key aspects of the regulations. 5. Disseminate this project's land cover and UTC assessment data broadly. While it is current, encourage its use for applications such as water supply planning, stormwater modeling, land use planning, green infrastructure, and Low Impact Development (LID) design. 2024 Update. Integrated and Complete. The Urban Forestry staff has several tools to help with the above, and we use GIS and the multitude of layers to plan green infrastructure. The staff has included LID features in many of the City's details, and engineering has included LID in the stormwater management of new developments in our city. Our maps are available to everyone. 6. Foster academic partnerships. Recommend that the University of Arkansas become a Tree Campus USA and work with local schools to educate and plant/care for trees. 2024 Update. Ongoing. We have been in touch with several groups at the University of Arkansas to encourage them to become a Tree Campus USA, but we have not been successful. We maintain regular contact with the University's Landscape Architecture department and have also reached out to the Sustainability Department at the University of Arkansas. Our staff regularly collaborates with public and private schools in Fayetteville. We have organized tree planting projects with students at Butterfield Elementary, Haas Hall Academy, The New School, and Washington Elementary. Additionally, we have been involved with the Fayetteville High School Advanced Placement science program, which oversees the monitoring and removal of invasive plants at McNair Middle School. Furthermore, we have taken part in numerous regional activities aimed at educating children about the importance of trees. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 20 7. Explore all potential partnerships to achieve urban forest goals: public/private including corporate and academic sponsors, council representatives, environmental quality, and stormwater associations, volunteers, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood associations. 2024 Update. Ongoing. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry has partnered with Compassion Fayetteville, Beaver Watershed Alliance, Illinois River Watershed Partnership, the NWA Land Trust, Arkansas Urban Forestry Council, and other groups. In 2022, we started partnerships with several Property Owners Associations. 8. Promote hardy, climate -adapted, and long-lived tree species that are appropriate for Fayetteville's environment to ensure investments in trees achieve maximum benefits. 2024 Update. Active, Integrated and Complete. In 2023 the City of Fayetteville codified the use of native Ozark trees as the recommended tree species. We have stressed the right tree for the right place. We actively promote using only Ozark native trees and shrubs in development. We updated the recommended tree species list and are working on a new one. 9. Target areas for tree planting using the assessment data. • Use results tojustify targeted public tree plantings in the public right-of-way and greater private planting in commercial landscaping. • Ground -truth possible planting areas and planting site locations. Make these data sets available on a GIS web map as social assessment tools for residents and businesses. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Over the last five years, we have used Tree Equity Score to locate new planting locations. We also use heat maps and other tools to help us plant trees in the most needed locations. Before that, we have always used income, access to trees, heat islands, and other factors to locate new tree plantings. 10. Create a central repository for monitoring tree planting and tree removals on public and private property, possibly using a web -based application open to the public. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. The Urban Forester in the Parks, Natural Resources, and Cultural Affairs department receives all city planting plans and tracks the annual removal and planting of trees. The staff has also created a spreadsheet to monitor tree removals during the development review process. However, the current workload in the Development department has made it challenging for the staff to keep up with this data, and they hope to receive additional staffing soon. The Urban Forester has prioritized collecting this data in 2025. 11. Ensure consistency in future UTC assessments using comparable image resolution, classification techniques, and QA/QC procedures. LiDAR and 1.5-2.0' multispectral satellite imagery acquired at similar times would provide an ideal data set. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. With NAIP imagery, we can bring regular reports closer together; however, rapid technological advances may not always make this possible. We will continue to try to do this. This field has made many advances over the past ten years, and aerial imagery allows us to compare information. However, the imagery gets more accurate and improves each year. The latest data will be the most accurate. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 21 12. Create or update an existing targeted education and outreach campaign using the ecosystem benefits values. Use the data, maps, tools, and tree benefits to help non -profits, residents, and businesses visualize their role in reaching, maintaining, and expanding Fayetteville's urban forest for social, environmental, and economic benefits that are relevant to them. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. We use trees' benefits and values daily with developers and internal customers. This topic is talked about frequently. We won an award for placing price tags on trees that showed the benefits of each tree. 13. Work on urban forestry goals and design specifications for other environmental planning initiatives such as wetland restoration projects, open space conservation easements, green infrastructure & low impact development (LID) plans, and energy efficiency programs. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Goals are something we continue to assess and focus on for tree preservation. We will have new goals when we complete this document. Forestry is starting to move towards other natural resource management. The foresters worked with the engineering department on specifications for BMPs for stormwater; this included tree preservation, usually near a stream. Staff created mitigation options and codified the options for green roofs, green facades, and other LID features. 14. Assess forest stands at risk from development by overlaying zoning or future land use data and developed slope percent. Quantify and locate areas at risk that, if developed, would impact overall citywide canopy cover goals as the economy improves and development follows. 2024 Update. Modified and Integrated. The staff has not assessed at -risk forests in the city using zoning codes and future zoning. However, staff uses multiple maps when reviewing development projects such as the enduring green network, heat island map, flood plan, Hill Side Hilltop Overlay District Nature Based Climate Resilience Score, and other available mapping tools. We use these tools to recommend conservation in the form of tree preservation easements and tree preservation on each project. We identify high -priority areas during our reviews of each project. 15. Promote cost-effective professional development in urban forestry. eLearn Urban Forestry is a state-of-the-art on line, distance -learning program geared toward beginning urban foresters and those allied professionals working in and around urban and urbanizing landscapes, including service foresters, natural resource planners, landscape architects, City officials and public works employees. eLearn Urban Forestry provides free access to learning modules with a link to the Continuing Forestry Education (CFE) group, where you can get ISA or SAF credit for a small maintenance fee. Visit elearn.sref.info/ for more details. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Urban Forestry staff codified ISA and other entities as a requirement for internal and external foresters. The city supports employees who want to become certified arborists and allows travel for continuing education. Staff continue to meet continuing education requirements to maintain credentials. 16. Provide an environment for natural forest regeneration. This study shows that grass, herbaceous, and shrub/briar land cover types naturally regenerate into forests, contributing to the City's overall tree canopy and ecosystem services. 2024 Update. Integrated and On Going. Last year, Urban Forestry undertook two major forest regeneration initiatives. The department has been systematically converting City -owned hay fields into native forests and savannas. For instance, a hay field at Bayyari Park was planted with 75 large Ozark native trees, while Rodney Ryan Park gained 56 Ozark native trees to restore the original savanna landscape. Additionally, Harmony Pointe Park is slated for an upcoming reforestation project. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 22 THE TIME IS NOW It is critical for Fayetteville's environment, economy, and community well-being that the City act now to sustainably manage the urban forest. The City has a Comprehensive Plan for how Fayetteville will grow and change with development. Among other plans in place or in development is the City's Climate Action Plan. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan supports and builds on the goals and policies of these plans and supplements those with vital analyses, studies, metrics, and strategies relating to the City's natural environment and specifically, the urban forest. Undeveloped areas contain native trees and vegetation, fertile soils, vital water resources, natural prairie, and wetlands. Protection and conservation of these critical areas is up to the citizens and the choices made by the City. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan provides the roadmap with goals and supporting recommendations to manage, grow, preserve, and strengthen the urban forest through invigorated partnerships that align with city and community priorities. PLAN PURPOSE AND VISION The Urban Forestry Management Plan serves as a guide to proactively manage, care for, protect, and expand the City's tree canopy while navigating these competing pressures. The Plan provides a strategic and systematic framework for the sustainable stewardship, enhancement, and utilization of trees within Fayetteville. This Plan serves as a roadmap to guide decision -making and actions related to the urban forest. Caring for and prioritizing the urban forest is an important part of maintaining a sustainable and vibrant city. However, urban forest management must also support the City's goals including economic development, transportation, urban design, and the goals of property owners. In recognition of this, Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances requires'a tree canopy analysis and an Urban Forestry Effects Model study' or their current equivalent studies within the current geographical boundaries of the city every ten (10) years (UDC 167.03). SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: The Plan ensures that the ecological benefits of trees are maintained and enhanced, contributing to the overall environmental health and resilience of the City. QUALITY OF LIFE AND COMMUNITY WELL- BEING: The Plan provides strategies to create and maintain accessible and inviting greenspaces that enhance the quality of life and foster community pride. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION: The Plan's overarching goal to increase canopy enables the City to maximize the urban forest's contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. PUBLIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The Plan provides recommendations for public tree maintenance and risk management. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH: The Plan includes recommendations for community engagement, outreach, and education to raise awareness about the value of trees, promote responsible stewardship, and support the community in tree planting and maintenance activities. LONG-TERM VISION: A vision for the urban forest ensures decisions made today have a positive impact on future generations. It provides a framework for adaptive management, allowing for adjustments based on changing conditions and priorities. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 24 Section 3: Current Condi ns .y IF IN, I r All CURRENT CONDITIONS The urban forest includes streetscapes, parks and open space, trail and waterway corridors, commercial and residential properties, among others. While the Plan primarily addresses public trees, all trees across ownership types and the care of these trees contribute to the health, sustainability, and associated benefits of the urban forest. The current conditions of Fayetteville's urban forest and tree populations are characterized by the type of setting (public or private) and the party responsible for maintenance (the city, property owners, or others). Public trees are comprised of trees along streetscapes, in medians, parks, and trees in high use areas on City - owned land. View the illustration below for a summary of the tree types in Fayetteville. Ar Figure 3. Illustration of the types of trees in Fayetteville. TREE INVENTORY PUBLIC SPACE TREES In October 2022, a sample inventory of public and private trees in Fayetteville was conducted by a contracted Certified Arborist accredited by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The tree inventory was intended to gather data that informs the current extent, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs of the urban forest that can be addressed in the Plan. The University of Arkansas property was not included in this plan's public or private tree inventory. Note, the sample public and private tree inventory analysis was conducted in October 2022. Due to ongoing tree maintenance and the dynamic characteristics of trees, changes such as condition, tree size, and maintenance needs may have changed since the analysis. Additional summaries and analyses of the sample public and private tree inventories from 2022 are provided in the Tree Inventory Supplement. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 26 CHALLENGES FACING FAYETTEVILLE'S URBAN FOREST EXTERNAL CHALLENGES Urban forests across the country face common stressors including urban heat, poor air quality, weather extremes, pressure from development, and invasive plants, pests, and diseases. These challenges are often intensified by conflicting priorities and a shortage of resources. COMMUNITY GROWTH Fayetteville's urban forest has been growing and changing as development and redevelopment occurs in the City. In many ways Fayetteville and the northwest region of the state are fortunate to be such a highly desirable place to live, work, recreate, and study. Rapid growth in northwest Arkansas is predicted and the effects are already being felt. From 2010 to 2020, Washington County's population rose by 21.1% and almost half of that growth was in Fayetteville alone. Specifically, Fayetteville is experiencing a 28% growth rate and is now the second largest city in the state, replacing Fort Smith (NWARPC). According to Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., the Fayetteville -Springdale- Rogers metropolitan area has a 76% population growth projected from 2022 to 2060. EQUITY Like many cities, the tree canopy cover in Fayetteville is not equitably distributed across the City. As a result, some neighborhoods experience higher surface and ambient temperatures, poorer air quality, and more frequent flooding than neighborhoods with greater canopy cover. Additionally, the lack of access to trees and greenspace impacts residents' physical and mental health, sense of community, and overall well-being. CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is an overarching challenge that is compounding the issues facing Fayetteville's trees. In addition to the known pests, diseases, and weather that the native trees have evolved to withstand, the new changes in temperature and weather extremes bring a new onslaught of pests, diseases, and wet/dry cycles. Healthy trees can play a significant role in making Fayetteville more resilient to weather and climate extremes by sustaining the natural ecosystem health, yet the ability of urban forests to achieve their full potential is often significantly limited due to poor tree health stemming from reactive fixes instead of holistic solutions, limited training of tree care professionals, and insufficient municipal budgets. INTERNAL CHALLENGES Proper and timely management of the trees in accordance with current best management practices. The need for updated tree -related regulations that preserve, protect, and grow the urban forest aligned with best practices and City priorities. Limited financial and operational resources to address the gradual and immediate impacts of climate change. Concerns regarding the organizational structure and communications with having three Urban Forestry groups working in three different departments. Preparing for emerald ash borer and other emerging tree pests and diseases. Strategic tree planting programs and initiatives needed to sustain and expand tree canopy and the associated benefits. Educating and revitalizing community tree stewardship. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 27 2022 PUBLIC TREE SAMPLE INVENTORY Fayetteville's urban forest is a diverse ecosystem consisting of young and mature trees of varying species, function, and associated benefits. A sample inventory was conducted including public trees and private trees (utilizing public rights -of -way for visual assessments). The University of Arkansas property was not included in this plan's public or private tree inventory. A total of 2,712 public trees were inventoried and used to estimate the total public maintained tree population at 25,000 trees. For more detailed information, refer to the Supplement 3, Tree Inventory Summary. Based on the sample and assumptions, it is estimated that Fayetteville has 25,000 public trees, which are trees along streets, in medians, parks, and high -use areas. The map below shows the locations of the trees surveyed to collect the data used to create this plan. GL 660 41 Wilson Park • M Walker Park t Kessler Public Trees Surveyed Figure 4. Overview of the sample inventory of public trees completed in 2022. 4 171 Q. To grow a healthy and diverse urban forest, the public tree population must be well understood and managed. The data from the 2022 sample tree inventory were examined and assessed to determine the species, size, health, structural integrity, quality of the growing space, and maintenance needs, among other key characteristics for management that is representative of the citywide public tree population. For more detailed information, refer to the Tree Inventory Summary Supplement. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 28 SPECIES DIVERSITY Species composition data are essential since the types of trees present throughout the City dictate the amount and type of benefits produced, tree maintenance activities required, budget considerations, and influences species selection for future plantings. It is estimated the current public tree population consists of 111 different species and 54 unique tree genera, which is relatively average in terms of species diversity in the region based on benchmarking research. Princeton elms comprise the highest percentage of trees with 7% of the total tree population, followed by post oaks at 6% and willow oaks with 6%. The top ten most common species make up 449/o of the total public tree population— slightly lower than average compared to benchmarking research— which is a potential indicator of a healthy level of tree species diversity. If the most common tree species comprise less than half of the population, it may be a sign that the tree population is relatively diverse due to the number of unique tree species and their frequency of occurrence. The remaining 56% of public trees are made up of other species that are primarily pin oaks, blackgums, red maple, northern red oak, bald cypress, and hackberry. Refer to Supplement 3, The Tree Inventory Summary, for more details. 111 unique public tree species SPECIES (TOP 10) Princeton Elm Post oak Willow oak Pin oak Blackgum New Harmony Elm Red maple Other Tree Northern red oak Species, 56% Bald cypress Hackberry 75% of public trees in good condition 55% of public trees are 0 to 6 inches in diameter \A/:11-... --I, G-01 New irmony m , 3% e, ;rn red oak, 3% Bal d cyp ress, Hackberry, 3% 3% Figure 5. Overview of the species results of the 2022 sample inventory of public trees. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 29 SIZE AND RELATIVE AGE DISTRIBUTION The distribution of public tree ages and size classes influences the structure of the citywide urban forest and impacts present and future management costs. An unevenly aged urban forest offers continued flow of ecological benefits and a more uniform workflow allowing managers to more accurately allocate annual maintenance schedules and budgets. To optimize the value and benefits of Fayetteville's trees, the public tree population should have a high percentage of large canopy trees which provide greater ecosystem benefits. There must also be a suitable number of younger, smaller trees in the urban forest to replace large and mature trees in decline. Having a healthy percentage of young trees in the urban forest will ensure a sustainable tree population. To compare Fayetteville's urban forest structure to industry -recommended standards, the `ideal distribution' is used (Richards,1983 and 1993). The diameter at breast height ("DBH" measured at 4.5-feet above grade) is used to measure relative age. Based on the sample inventory and estimated public tree population, the size distribution of Fayetteville's public tree population is similar to the ideal age distribution. Generally, an ideal distribution has a larger proportion of small diameter trees compared to larger diameter trees. Below is an chart that shows the ideal distribution and Fayetteville's distribution. Tree Size Tree in the 0-6 in class/ Young trees Trees that are 6-12 class Trees that are 12-18 class Trees that are 18-24 class Trees that are 24-30 class Trees that are over 30" DBH Table 2. Comparing public tree size classes iaeai uistribution Faye• 40% 55% 25% 19% 15% 14% 10% 6% 6% 4% 4% 2% ne's uistribution It is estimated that 55% of Fayetteville's public trees are in the 0-6 inch class compared to the recommended 40%. In contrast, the City also has less 6-12-inch trees (19%) compared to the ideal distribution of 25%. The size and relative age distribution of Fayetteville's public trees indicates the population is relatively young given the City has more small -diameter trees and fewer trees than the ideal percentage for each of the larger size classes. This distribution may be an indication of an increase recently in planting efforts. The City should expect a growing demand for maintenance as the large number of young/ small trees mature. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 30 CONDITION Understanding current and changing conditions plays an important role in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation. An analysis of the condition can provide an indicator of how well the trees are managed and how they are performing given site -specific conditions. A total of 1,283 observations were recorded during the tree inventory. Crown dieback was the most frequent observation recorded. It is estimated that 30% of the citywide public tree population has some level of crown dieback and 6% have cavity decay present. Mechanical damage due to lawnmowers, weed Tree maintenance needs are assigned for public safety trimmers, construction, or other may comprise 5% of reasons and by tracking these needs, managers are able the public tree population followed by poor structure to better plan and manage Fayetteville's public trees and with 4%. the citywide urban forest. Findings from the sample inventory of public trees were used to identify potential trends in tree condition and make the management recommendations to improve condition or minimize the deterioration of trees. Tree health was evaluated by a contracted ISA Certified Arborist based on the condition of the wood, foliage, and structure. T Based on the analysis, it is estimated that three out of four public trees (75%) are in good condition and 15% are in fair condition with only 5% of trees in poor or dead condition. The dead trees or trees noted for removal should be addressed and planned for immediately. Trees classified as "Fair" or "Poor" should be examined to determine the necessary mitigation or plant health care, if any, to improve their condition. OBSERVATIONS AND DEFECTS Tree defects were recorded during the 2022 sample inventory to describe further a tree's health, structure, or location. Using a system of 20 observation categories, the arborist found the public trees exhibited 11 of the 20 categories. For more detailed information, refer to page 7 of supplement 3, the Tree Inventory Summary. The data reveals several key insights about tree management. Of the recorded observations,17% of the defects or concerns identified were potentially preventable and fixable. This indicates that many issues are primarily human -caused, highlighting the crucial role of proper tree care practices. For example, poor tree structure can be prevented through timely and appropriate young tree pruning. Implementing industry best practices and standards would reduce the number of improperly pruned trees. Additionally, selecting quality nursery stock, proper planting techniques, and soil amendments can prevent poor root systems. Trees with suboptimal locations or hardscape damage could have been avoided by selecting species suited to the site and ensuring adequate root space. Furthermore, the data shows the impacts of deferred maintenance, with about 35% of the recorded observations potentially addressable through proactive pruning and plant health care. Lastly, simple measures like adequate mulch rings, growing space, tree grates, and general awareness could have prevented many instances of mechanical damage. Addressing these areas can enhance the long-term viability and benefits provided by the urban tree canopy. MAINTENANCE NEEDS The City's current practices of proactive, routine pruning of public trees have resulted in a low overall maintenance need. Only 8% of the public tree population requires clearance pruning, 6% need removal, 3% require pruning around utilities, and 1% need routine pruning or crown cleaning. While newly planted trees should be structurally pruned (training pruned) within five years, this was not an observable need in the sample inventory. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 31 INTERPRETATION OF PRIVATE TREE ANALYSES AND ESTIMATES Though less data was collected for private trees during the 2022 sample inventory, this data is valuable in providing information about the citywide urban forest. A total of 850 private trees were inventoried from the public rights -of -way. Based on industry research and benchmarking of comparable cities, it is estimated that there are 80,000 trees in maintained areas on private property. The sample inventory analysis estimates that oaks (Quercus) comprise 19% of the tree population, maples (Acer) 12%, and pines (Pinus) 9%. The top ten most common tree genera account for 78% of the private tree population, while the top ten most common tree species make up 57%. The most prevalent tree species are pin oak (9%), loblolly pine (8%), red maple (8%), arborvitae, London planetree, hackberry, eastern redbud, eastern red cedar, Princeton elm, and black cherry. Most private trees fall into the 0-6-inch (39%), 6-12-inch (20%), and 12-18-inch (23%) size classes. Only 2% of private trees exceed 30 inches in diameter. Similar to public trees, it is estimated the private tree population is primarily in good condition (70%) with only 4% in poor condition and 2% consist of dead trees. Based on the contracted ISA Certified Arborists observations of private trees from the public rights -of -way, it appears that the most common maintenance needs are pruning for clearance (9%), removing hardware from trees (6%), and utility pruning (2%). SUMMARY OF TREE INVENTORY ANALYSIS Understanding the extent, structure, condition, characteristics, and maintenance needs of public trees enables Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Program and Transportation Department's right-of-way crews to effectively budget, plan, and address maintenance and planting needs in a sustainable, safe, and equitable manner. For private trees, understanding the extent, health, composition, and other factors provides the Urban Forestry Program with a better picture of the entire urban forest. Challenges such as pests and diseases, invasive plant species, climate resiliency, among other threats to the urban forest can be addressed for private trees by providing resources, education, training, and other support to property owners to support growing a sustainable and resilient urban forest. Additional summaries and analyses of the sample public and private tree inventories from 2022 are provided in Tree Inventory Summary supplement. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 32 URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT- A SNAPSHOT Urban Tree Canopy Assessments (UTC) provide the comprehensive data and information needed to develop goals and strategies relating to tree planting, preservation, tree equity, risk management, and the data to support community outreach and education. This information can be utilized with other city planning efforts for sustainability, equity, human health, climate resiliency, stormwater management, water quality, wildlife preservation and enhancement, air quality improvements, and development guidelines, among many others. UTCs provide a baseline understanding of existing canopy cover across the entire city. In addition, these assessments can provide an analysis of possible planting areas citywide and by various planning boundaries. This baseline assessment should be utilized to measure the progress resulting from implementing this plan. 2019 UTC Findings - Citywide The City of Fayetteville is 35,712 acres in size. Tree canopy covers 14,081 acres of this area (39.4%) according the analysis of 2019 imagery. Figure 6. Map displaying the tree canopy from 2019 imagery. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 33 URBAN TREE CANOPY (UTC) FINDINGS - OVERVIEW A consultant provided an analysis and a report with recommendations on Fayetteville's tree canopy cover change from 2002 to 2010, and in 2020, the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) Department assessed the existing tree canopy and possible planting areas citywide using imagery from 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The historical imagery and related assessments provide information on the canopy change over time though this section focuses on the most current assessment from 2019. The summaries below provide an overview of the baseline conditions relating to urban tree canopy cover and possible planting area in the City. For more information on GIS methodology, see GIS Study. Z3.5% 33.2 1.9% Figure Z Citywide tree canopy results (2019). Source: City of Fayetteville Field Shadow ■ Tree Urban Water Urban Tree Possible Shadows Caused Impervious Waterbodies Canopy Planting Area by Structures Area ("Water") ("Tree") ("Field") ("Shadow") ("Urban") Figure S. Examples of the land cover classes. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 34 UTC COMPARISON 2015 Urban Tree Canopy 2017 Urban Tree Canopy 2019 Urban Tree Canopy Legend Land ClassdKalw � rn� •Srrm. �vWr. Gay � 11M Land Class Chary — Swarp Or� b.Mkwq 14v^ feral n..i Figure 9. Comparison of canopy in 2015, 2017 and 2019 High -resolution GIS assessments of land cover were completed to identify the extent and opportunities for urban tree canopy cover. The City conducted these assessments based on 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019 imagery to analyze canopy cover change. A consultant provided an analysis and report on the City's tree canopy cover change from 2002 to 2010 (in 2012), and in 2020, the City's GIS Department completed the Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity study, report, and supporting web map for the 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019 time periods to examine the correlations between canopy cover and socioeconomic data. (Equity Tree Study). The difference in reported tree canopy from 2002, 2010 to 2013 and the following years may be due to several factors beyond actual changes in tree canopy: • Variation in imagery used for the different years of the study. • Different methods in computing canopy. • Improvements in the technology and methods used to assess and map the tree canopy. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery, captured during the peak growing season, provides optimal data for tree canopy analysis. For this and future reports, the city will use the 2015 city boundary, encompassing 35,457 acres. As the city grows, it can provide data for the new boundaries alongside information based solely on the 2015 city limits. This 2015 boundary will be used to evaluate the success of the ten-year canopy coverage goal (40.6%) outlined in the plan. Utilizing GIS and NAIP imagery to measure canopy coverage represents a valuable, innovative technology that increases the accuracy of these assessments. ACTUAL CITY BOUNDARY City Boundary Tree Canopy Year (Acres) (Acres) 2013 35,456 14,518 2015 35,457 14,217 2017 35,457 13,934 2019 35,712 14,081 Table 3. Comparison of boundary used for GIS data. STUDY WITH 2O15 BOUNDARY Canopy Study Boundary Study Canopy Percent (2015) Percent 40.95% 35,457 40.95% 40.10% 35,457 40.10% 39.30% 35,457 39.30% 39.43% 35,457 39.71% Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 35 As shown in the previous figure, Fayetteville has demonstrated a proactive commitment to urban forest management by assessing tree canopy cover over several time periods and implementing the recommendations as resources allow. By monitoring the state of tree canopy cover, the City can better understand the urban ecosystem's health and make informed decisions. Fayetteville's urban forestry efforts have made commendable progress, and the 2024 Urban Forestry Management Plan builds on the progress and guides the City toward a long-term vision. The City must continue its commitment to reassessing canopy cover over time. By measuring changes in tree canopy cover, city planners, urban forest managers, and policymakers can understand how changes and regulations are affecting the health and vitality of the City, as well as the quality of life of residents. Urban forests are dynamic systems that are impacted by a variety of factors, including urbanization, climate change, and invasive species. LAND COVER CHANGE OVER TIME From 2013 to 2019, the canopy cover decreased from 43.0% to 39.4% and the land cover classified as field decreased from 41.0% to 33.2%. Urban land cover increased by 3.5% going from 20.0% to 23.5%. This is an increase of 1,400 acres or 2.2 square miles of urban land since 2013. The data is representative of the changes occurring in the City overtime as development increases. 45.00% 40.95% 41.0% 39.40% 0 2013 0 2015 6 2017 2019 40.00% 35.00% 33.2% 30.00% 25.00% 23.5% 20.0 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 3.0% 1.9% - - = 0.00% Tree Field Urban Water ■ 2013 40.95% 41.0% 20.0% 3.0% ■ 2015 40.10% 33.0% 23.0% 3.0% ■ 2017 39.30% 34.0% 23.0% 2.0% 2019 39.40% 33.2% 23.5% 1.9% Figure 10. Examples of the land cover classes analyzed as part of the tree canopy study. 2.0% 1.6% Shadow 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.6% In Fayetteville, the urban forester within Development Services actively monitors and tracks tree canopy cover change through development regulations and is supported by the urban forester in Parks, Natural Resources, and Cultural Affairs. Comprehensive worksheets and data, along with GIS data, are utilized to track on a monthly and yearly basis. This tracking includes forecasting future canopy growth and loss, and providing staff with clear and reliable guidance on a wealth of information and specifically the following: Areas impacted the most by the removed canopy Areas to add canopy The time it will take to replace the canopy (This can even be tracked on a parcel level or development project level) Change in tree canopy cover can be used to inform future policy and decision -making. For example, by tracking changes in tree canopy cover over time, city planners can identify areas where new trees may need to be planted to maintain or increase overall canopy cover. The information can also be used to inform land -use planning and development decisions, such as determining where to locate new parks or green spaces. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 36 TREE ORDINANCES IN FAYETTEVILLE Chapter 167 in the Fayetteville Urban Development Code (UDC) is the Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance. This preservation ordinance preserves and protects trees and natural areas in the City based on the type of project and its location. The regulations require a tree preservation plan and canopy cover retention or the planting of trees to meet minimum canopy cover requirements by zoning designation for proposed development projects. The table below summarizes the tree minimum canopy cover requirements by zoning designation that are factored into the canopy goals recommended in the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Note, the zoning designations in the table below are consolidated into generalized categories. Specific zoning designations and details for each are available in the UDC, Table 1 of Chapter 167.04.C. MINIMUM TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS ZONING DESIGNATION (CONSOLIDATED) Residential (single-family, residential office, residential intermediate, multi -family) Neighborhood Services (includes limited and general) Neighborhood Commercial Community Services Thoroughfare (includes commercial and urban thoroughfare) Central Business Commercial Downtown Core Main Street Center Downtown General Neighborhood Conservation Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial General Industrial Institutional Planned Zoning District* Percent Minimum Canopy 15-25% (depending on designation) 20% (for both sub -categories) 20% 20% 15% (for both categories) 15% 10% 10% 10% 20% 15% 15% 25% 25% Table 4. Minimum canopy requirements byzoning designation according to The Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. All residential zoning districts and C-1 districts within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have their percent minimum canopy requirements increased by 5% to a total requirement of either 30% or 25%. Chapter 177, Landscape Regulations, is the ordinance aimed to meet the following goals: a greener, more attractive city with reduced heat, noise and air pollution; and increased property values. The City of Fayetteville requires developers to include landscaping in their building plans to beautify property, provide shade, and screen the perimeters of parking lots, utilities, incompatible uses, and vehicular use areas. Those requirements are found in this chapter of the UDC. The Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual, created in 1999, updated in 2006, and condensed in 2016, aligns perfectly with the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection and Chapter 177: Landscape Regulations. This alignment ensures that the manual is a reliable and comprehensive tool for developers and others involved in the development process. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 37 14 , '*-,#. ''., TREE CITY USA. _Arbor Dav ihoundation ' 28 YeOY ars Tt J. A cursory review of existing tree -related ordinances in Fayetteville was conducted based on industry tools and resources, comparisons of findings from benchmarking research, input gathered from internal stakeholders, and a cross-examination of regulations compared to industry standards and best practices. Appendix C provides a summary of the evaluation of Fayetteville's tree -related ordinances. This integrated approach aims to balance goals for tree canopy cover, development, and other priorities in the future. SUMMARY OF FAYETTEVILLE'S KEY URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES The Urban Forestry team in Public Works performs tree maintenance on street trees not adjacent to private property. They also maintain trees in parks and along the trails. Tree preservation and protection for new development is performed by the Urban Forester in Development Services. Residential reviews are performed by the Urban Forester in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs. Development Services administers Chapter 167 of the Unified Development Code to ensure Fayetteville maintains, enhances, and preserves trees and the City's natural beauty. The City's Urban Forestry Advisory Board advises the City Council and the Mayor on urban forestry issues. Fayetteville Code of Ordinances Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection to preserve and expand the City's urban forest. Chapter 177 regulates landscape for developments. Volunteer opportunities for tree stewardship and education. Tree City USA accreditation and Arbor Day celebrations. Amazing Trees of Fayetteville program and on line inventory. Celebration of Trees Event and other events celebrating and educating attendees about Fayetteville's urban forest. The City has an invasive plant ordinance, encourages Ozark native trees, and discourages trees found to have issues. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 38 TREE CANOPY EQUITY Tree canopy is often not distributed equitably across city landscapes and ownership types. The American Forests organization created the Tree Equity Score (TES, www.treeequityscore.org) tool to measure tree equity across 150,000 U.S. neighborhoods and 486 municipalities in urban areas. Each community's TES indicates whether there are enough trees for everyone to experience the health, economic, and climate benefits that trees provide. The scores are based on how much tree canopy and surface temperature align with income, employment, race, age, and health factors. A 0- to-100-point system makes it easy to understand how a community is doing. The TES can be used by Fayetteville's community leaders, tree advocates, and residents to address, and evaluate the urban forests through the lens of social equity, guide technical decisions and implementation of the 2024 Urban Forestry Management Plan. A score of 100 represents tree equity. Based on a 2022 analysis, Fayetteville's overall tree equity score is 87 out of 100. Based on the nationwide dataset for 197,505 U.S. Census -defined urban areas, the average score is 85 (as of 2023). EQUITY IN TREE GANOPY COVER (TREE EQUITY 5GORE TO( '- 0 City Boundary 0 0-63 TES 0 64-79 TES 0 80-89 TES 0 90-99 TES ■ 100 TES Figure 11. Map showing the Tree Equity Scores for Census Block Groups in Fayetteville. Source: American Forests' Tree Equity Score Tool Compared to other cities in the state, Fayetteville's Tree Equity Score of 87 is the second highest score out of 10 cities in the study (see figure on the next page) and has the fourth highest score out of eight U.S. Cities commonly used in comparing Fayetteville (see figure on the following page). Fayetteville's score is based on a combination of metrics listed in the figure 12. Tree equity is being increasingly acknowledged as a priority, and confronting the past practices, to ensure that communities, landscapes, and policies are more intentional about enhancing historically disinvested areas. Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan seeks to increase canopy in the greatest need areas. Urban Forestry staff has been actively using and will continue to use equity as a criteria for tree planting projects Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 39 TREE EQUITY SCORE INPUTS Mw • Existing Canopy Population Income Employment Density 'rCl1r Surface Race Age Health Temperature Figure 12. Tree equity data matrix. COMPARISON OF TREE EQUITY SCORES IN ARKANSAS, AVERAGE: 77 r7 77 77 72 70 66 59 \o oe aa\e fie\` CP F° � �e C-,Q Figure 13. Tree equity score inputs and Comparison of Tree Equity Scores for select Arkansas cities based on a 2023 study. Source: American Forests' Tree Equity Score Tool. COMPARISON OF TREE EQUITY SCORES IN SELECT U.S. CITIES, AVERAGE: 87 G'7 �O 1P el �4 ,�� O� 410 4�0 0 Figure 14. Tree equity score comparison for select U.S. Cities. Source: American Forests' Tree Equity Score Tool. *Note, the Tree Equity Score tool utilized data from EarthDefine and found the canopy cover percentage to be 35.6%, the UFMP utilizes the 39.4% determined by the City. The numbers by EarthDefine are only used for this comparison. For more information about the data sets and input refer to https://www.treeequityscore.org. Fayetteville, Arkansas - Urban Forestry Management Plan - 2024 40 NATIVE PRAIRIE ; Photo of Wilson Springs Preserve, a 121-acre preserve with the largest wetland remnant in Fayetteville and one of the last tall grass prairies in the region. Source: City of Fayetteville In considering a plan for Fayetteville's urban forest and goals to increase tree canopy cover, it is important to evaluate areas of the City where it may not be preferable or permitted to plant trees. While some native prairie lands have been lost to development and other areas are being restored, it's important to consider the native habitats and ecosystems and whether they support growing trees that survive and thrive. Historically, areas of the City were covered in tallgrass prairie, which supported a variety of grasses, wildflowers, and other plants, as well as large grazing mammals like bison and elk. Fayetteville's native prairie land is a rare and valuable ecosystem that is home to a diverse array of plant and animal species. As mentioned in the background, much of Fayetteville's native prairie land has been converted to other land uses, such as agriculture, urban development, and transportation infrastructure. However, there are still some remnant prairie areas in and around the City that provide important habitat for native plant and animal species. One example of a native prairie area in Fayetteville is the Wilson Springs Preserve, a 121-acre site that is the largest wetland remnant in Fayetteville and one of the last tall grass prairies in the region (Northwest Arkansas Land Trust). Based on GIS maps provided by the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust (NWALT) and the City of Fayetteville, there are areas of the City that may lend themselves to prairie restoration. The following map provided by Northwest Arkansas Land Trust (NWALT) illustrates an overview of native prairie lands that may lend themselves to future prairie restoration. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 41 CANOPY COVER IN HISTORIC NATIVE PRAIRIE LAND Native prairie (NWALT CalliesPrain__ ' ,iesPraineAd�acent source) Restored or protected prairie (City source) —.N&m L Canopy in native prairie undary Figure 15. Map of the canopy within native and restored prairie land. Total Prairie Acres Total Canopy in Prairies % of Canopy within Prairies 9,769 total native prairie 1,957 total canopy acres 20% canopy in native prairie land land acres in native prairie land Figure 16.Acres of native and restored prairie land. Protected Prairie -related Areas Acres* . Woolsey Farmstead and Wet Prairie Sanctuary 50 ■ Westside Prairie 40 ■ Wilson Springs Preserve 121 ■ Underwood Park 5 (estimated) ■ Callies Prairie 33 Gulley 3 TOTAL 252 acres Figure 1 Z Native and restored prairie land. As shown in the map and tables above, the City has nearly 10,000 acres of land that was native prairie land. 20% of the native prairie land contains tree canopy which amounts to 1,957 acres of canopy. Over time, the City and organizations have actively restored and protected or preserved portions of this native prairie land as shown in the previous table. Based on the figures provided by the City, 252 acres of prairie have been restored and/or protected while other native prairie land has been reshaped by development or is vulnerable. In Appendix A explores priority planting areas with a consideration to preserve or restore native prairie land by not introducing trees into the landscape. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 42 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS Aerial photo view of the University of Arkansas campus. Source: University of Arkansas The University of Arkansas located in Fayetteville owns and manages the urban forest within its campus. The Universities goals for their urban forests may differ from those of the City. While the urban forest within the University contributes benefits to all City residents, the environment, and local economies, the City does not have authority to determine how canopy is preserved, expanded, or reduced. Therefore, an analysis was conducted to look at the amount of canopy on University grounds and the section of this Plan that discusses priority planting areas considers excluding these areas within the University. The University property was not included in this plan's public or private tree inventory. The University of Arkansas properties were not included in goals or future visions. However, its property and trees were included in the GIS canopy cover measurements. The University, as an independent entity, owns and manages its property, and is not bound by the landscape requirements, tree maintenance practices, or any other landscape regulations enforced by the City of Fayetteville. In the context of this plan, the University operates with a degree of autonomy within the City. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 43 TREE CANOPY COVER WITHIN THE CAMPUS OF THE U OF A University Canopy Acres Area (Ac) Canopy 377 campus 22 acres of 6% canopy on acres canopy on campus campus Citywide Acres 35,712 Citywide Canopy Acres 14,081 Citywide Canopy % 39.43% Citywide Canopy Acres Excluding University 14,059 17 rft` F .J . 1 � e Table 5. Canopy within University of Arkansas property Figure 18. Map displaying tree canopy on University of Arkansas property within the urban core. University of Arkansas property in urban core ■ Canopy within University of Arkansas property As shown in the map and table above, an analysis of tree canopy cover within the University of Arkansas (UA) property in the urban core (excludes the UA Department of Food Science properties to the north) was completed as part of the study. A total of 377 acres of University property were mapped and it was found that within those areas, there are a total of 22 acres of canopy resulting in a 6% canopy for the University of Arkansas. Although the main U of A campus covers a relatively small area compared to the entire city, the benefits of its tree canopy for students, visitors, and residents warrant ongoing coordination and communication with community institutions and stakeholders. While the University, as state property, is exempt from city development regulations like tree preservation, it is still important to maintain positive relationships with University stakeholders. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 44 TREE MANAGEMENT TEAM The City's urban forest is governed by a variety of policies, regulations, programs and departments; each bringing important expertise, perspective and resources. Combined, the financial support is estimated at nearly $700,000. Due to this shared management, Fayetteville is a leading city in urban forestry, having been recognized as a Tree City USA for 28 years, the fifth longest running designation in Arkansas. Fayetteville has also received more Growth Awards than any other city in the state, with 10 awards as of 2023. Department Division Count of Title Certifications FTEs Development Development 1.00 Urban Forester ISA** Certified Arborist Services Review Parks, Natural ISA Certified Arborist, Resources and parks Planning & 1.00 Urban Forester ISA Municipal Specialist, Cultural Affairs Urban Forestry ISA TRAQ*** Public Works Park Maintenance 6.00 Urban Foresters 1 3 ISA Certified Arborists Table 6. Summary of the departments and staff involved in urban forest management in Fayetteville. * Full-time employee or full-time equivalent, ** International Society of Arboriculture, *** Tree Risk Assessment Qualification DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES The management of the city's urban forest is divided across three municipal departments. The Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Department oversees the City's Urban Forestry Program, which is led by one of the Urban Foresters and supports public street tree maintenance crews. In addition to these responsibilities, the Urban Forester also creates and manages tree planting initiatives, public outreach programs, provides guidance on hazardous trees, and serves as the staff liaison to the City's Urban Forestry Advisory Board. Development Services' Urban Forester provides services related to development plan reviews and other supporting services. Specifically, the Urban Forester administers, reviews, and monitors regulations within Chapter 167 of Fayetteville's Unified Development Code titled, "Tree Preservation and Protection" and Chapter 177 "Landscape Requirements Code." Public Works has six Urban Foresters in Public Works Park Maintenance for public street tree and park tree management. The Parks Maintenance Division was integrated into Public Works in 2021 and continues to support Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs in operations, facility improvements, and tree activities. Sharing public tree maintenance and management responsibilities across departments can yield many benefits, such as utilizing limited resources efficiently. It is critical that workflows are clear and understood. Fayetteville's urban forest continues to grow and change, public awareness of the City's urban forest and its programs is increasing, and the beneficial impacts of trees to mitigate climate change are understood better than ever. In turn, it is anticipated the service demands will continue to rise, especially as the City implements the Plan's strategies to increase tree canopy cover. As service demand continues to increase so does the need to find methods to increase capacity and efficiency under strained fiscal support. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 45 A V RR A gg- W. 14 fi log, ,A on VN I I .WjV As 51 va, A_ kv jo Av Section 94 Planning AM, A7 "f oA UA o at, 44 A till;. PLANNING PROCESS Evaluating the alignment of existing policies and plans in Fayetteville with urban forest management elements ensures a strong connection among the programs that manage the urban forest and the projects and initiatives that support them. Proper alignment of urban forestry program recommendations reduces the risk of wasting resources and enables success of key projects that support urban forestry goals. Plans cannot live in isolation, therefore, cross-examining various plans and documents brings to light any projects or initiatives that are a misplacement of resources and time. Tree regulations in the City provide the foundation from which tree canopy cover can be preserved, protected, and expanded while aligning with industry standards and best practices. Regulations for trees on private property are the primary tools for urban foresters to guide private landowners and developers in sustainable practices. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 47 Several documents and resources were reviewed and indexed during the development of the Urban Forestry Management Plan. These documents included: E N E R N A! - City Plan 2040 (2020 update): The City of Fayetteville adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1970. The plan, and all of its subsequent updates and revisions, seek to establish a framework of goals, policies, and guidelines to direct future physical, economic, and social development. Energy Action Plan (2018): This plan is structured around one overarching goal: reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for activities occurring in Fayetteville. While GHG reduction is the guiding goal, a host of co -benefits accompany these actions. The plan outlines ways that the City can increase energy efficiency, transition to cleaner fuel sources, improve public health outcomes, build more resilient local businesses, among other core principles. Active Transportation Plan (updated February 2023): The plan serves as a r i ; guiding document for Fayetteville infrastructure and program development related to active transportation. It outlines a network of sidewalks, trails, and bicycle facilities to provide walkers, cyclists, and other users with clear pathways and connections to important city destinations. FAYETTEVILLE AIM ; - It Park and Recreation System Master Plan (2023): This plan was in development during the planning stage of the Urban Forestry Management Plan. In February 2023, the Park and Recreation System Master Plan was completed. It exemplifies the City's values in providing a thriving park system for all ages, abilities, and activities. The strategic plan will guide the future of Parks and Recreation for the next decade. It evaluated the existing conditions of the park network and identified areas for growth, improvement, and preservation. Climate Action Plan: The goal of the Climate Action Plan will inform future policies, programs and actions undertaken by the City and to assist the City in its efforts to remain resilient to the anticipated changes in the climate to preserve the quality of life for those who live, work and play in Fayetteville. Carbon sequestration helps to mitigate carbon dioxide levels. Our urban forests help sequester and store carbon. The relevant plans and studies are summarized above to demonstrate the parallels among urban forest and other planning efforts in the City. The Urban Forestry Management Plan's long-term framework aims to complement goals and policies within these City plans and studies that pertain to trees in Fayetteville. This evaluation of existing resources serves to reduce conflicting priorities in the City. For more information and cross plan goals see Appendix E: Existing Plan Cross Referencing. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 48 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Engaging internal and external stakeholders is critical to the success of an urban forestry management plan. By involving Fayetteville's staff, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders, the urban forestry team gained a better understanding of the community's needs and concerns. This engagement was woven throughout the development of Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan, shaping a final plan that reflects the diverse needs of all stakeholders. To raise awareness and encourage participation, the project team utilized the City's "Speak Up Fayetteville" website (speakup.fayetteville-ar.gov). The website provided background information, project timelines, draft outcomes, and a platform to launch the public survey, allowing the community to stay informed and provide feedback. From December 2022 through mid -January 2023, a 14-question on line survey was launched on the City's Speak Up Fayetteville website to learn how trees impact the lives of Fayetteville's community members, to gather feedback on canopy goals and priority planting areas, to identify where the City should prioritize resources and investments, and to recognize the benefits and services provided by trees that the community values most. A total of 169 responses were received. The following provides an overview of the engagement garnered from the effort followed by a summary info -graphic. The majority of respondents own a home in Fayetteville (61%) and are between 25 and 35 years old (28%). Respondents are engaged with their urban forest in that they understand and ?KA. appreciate trees providing shade and reducing surface temperatures (62%) and would like to see trees planted where there is historically less canopy coverage _ (50%). The trees planted should be resilient to pests and diseases, changing climates, �... limited space, and storm events (40%). To improve public tree health, respondents support setting and achieving canopy goals that are based on reducing heat, improving ecosystems, expanding canopy cover in under served communities, and increasing the benefits trees provide (741/o). They would also like to see more trees and preservation incorporated into development projects (66%) and planting trees that can coexist with sidewalks and underground utilities (41%). Future resources and __ -- ----- — investments that result from the Plan should be focused on strengthening ordinances °••• for private development (70%), purchasing land for conservation (54%), planting trees on public property (51%), and partnering with private property owners to plant trees on private property (41%). To achieve canopy goals, respondents would like to see parks and greenways prioritized (69%), followed by planting trees along streets (68%), on commercial and industrial property (60%), and on school and campus grounds (40%). The kinds of trees respondents would like to see planted include trees and priority areas that are climate -based (56%) and location -based using the right tree right place principle and replanting trees that were removed (25%). Most respondents support watering the street trees adjacent to their property during periods of drought (73%). The success of this engagement effort is largely attributed to the City's commitment to share the survey and conduct outreach. The survey was announced on the City's website, the Speak Up Fayetteville project web page, social media posts, press releases, news media, and shared throughout relevant partner networks. The public comment period for the UFMP was open from September 27 to October 11, 2024, allowing time for review and comments. The plan has been presented to the Environmental Action Committee, Parks, Natural Resources, and Cultural Affairs Advisory Board, Planning Commission, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 49 169 responses 30% of participants from Ward 3 (northeast area) HOW OLD ARE SURVEY RESPONDEN" 75 and older: 1% 65-74: 8% 55-64: 12% O 45-54; 14% O O 25-34:28% 4� 18-24: 12% <18: 1% SUPPORT FOR WATERING PUBLIC STREET TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY DURING PERIODS OF DROUGHT YES Survey Timeline: 73% December 2022 - January 2023 N/A To view more information on the project, head to UNSURE NO °/ 11°/ 40/ www.fayetteville-or.gov/339/Urban-Forestry 13 � o 0 0 FOCUS AREAS FOR FUTURE INVESTMENTS DO YOU SUPPORT PLANTING WHERE TO Strengthening City purchasing MORE TREES THROUGHOUT tree code for $ land for THE CITY TO INCREASE TREE PLANT? i development conservation CANOPY COVER AND 69% Public 70% 54% ASSOCIATED BENEFITS? Spaces Planting trees Partnering with YES NO 68% Streets on public property owners CC rp property for plantings 60% & Industrial 51% 41% 40% Schools Improving 0 o O O O Other 98% ^/ conservation 22/° LOO 310�° Property easp etyial strategies 31% P WHERE TO PRIORITIZE RESOURCES TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TREE HEALTH? More resources for public 15a/ tree management Plant trees that can withstand prolonged droughts Plant trees to coexist with sidewalks and utilities More trees and preservation incorporated into development projects Set canopy goals based on reducing heat, improving ecosystems, and addressing underserved communities WHERE TO PRIORITIZE PLANTINGS Other (5%) No more plantings (1%) Addressing equity (12%) 33% 41% Replanting removed 66% trees (25%) 74% Climate - based locations (56%) INTERNAL ENGAGEMENT In August and September 2022, engagement with City staff in various departments to develop the Urban Forestry Management Plan began with an on line survey to identify workflows, measures of success, concerns, priorities, and shared goals and outcomes as it relates to trees in the City. A total of 28 of the 59 (47%) invited staff and board /commission members participated in the survey and follow-up interviews as desired. Staff participants represented the departments of Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs; Public Works; Environmental; and Development Services. In addition, members from the Urban Forestry Advisory Board, Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Advisory Board, Environmental Action Committee, Planning Commission, and Keep Fayetteville Beautiful participated. The figure on the following page provides a graphic summary of responses. Most respondents serve as advocates for public trees and park improvements, over 60% support community recreation and engagement, and half are involved with City planning. Over half of the respondents noted the staffing levels as a challenge, along with needed improvements as they relate to ordinances and infrastructure conflicts (50% each). 46%feel there is more to be done in terms of preparedness planning as well as 46% concerned with the sustainability of ecosystems. The respondents noted their top priorities to address in the Plan as procuring funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation and canopy expansion, supporting local businesses and others in the community to cooperatively grow and maintain the urban forest, and increase funding to purchase trees to be planted to support canopy goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 51 PARTICIPANTS 4 City Departments represented 5 City Boards, Committees, and Commissions represented 28 out of 59 internal stakeholders participated in the survey To view more information on the project and Fayetteville's urban forest, visit www.fayetteville-ar.gov/339/Urbon- Forestry ISSUES, CHALLENGES, & CONCERNS Staffing �' Tree (54%) Ordinances e;! � (50%) \` / Infrastructure Urban Forest a Conflicts Y (46%) Sustainability 8 == Preparedness Bud ets -- Planning nT g = 0 (46%) 0J (39%) Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Department • Public Works Department • Environmental (Sustainability & Resilience) Department Development Services Department • Urban Forestry Advisory Board • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • Environmental Action Committee • Planning Commission • Keep Fayetteville Beautiful PARTICIPANTS' ROLE(S) WITH TREES IN FAYETTEV 1 LLE Advocate for public tree & park Recreation, , OTHERS improvements community (y engagement Code City enforcement planning �mdKape ® maintenonce (43X) • Elw6orxnentd justce (39k) MOST IMPORTANT URBAN FORESTRY GOALS Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects 29% in the city Improve policies and practices to address threats 39% such as pests, diseases, and climate change Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by 43% purchasing trees to be planted Support private landowners and businesses through 43% cooperative planting programs (e.g., free yard trees) Procure funding to purchase land for tree preservation to reach canopy goals 57% IR Q-7 Ilk Nz Ali xj - §W--w �1 � r `GSA • -W r� 141 i I i t i e s !RN VT �• • , rt, r. ; �• �. 22), Flat �Y e A DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE CHANGE The Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC) estimates that Fayetteville will grow to a population of 142,496 by the year 2040. This will be an increase of an additional 48,547 people added to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimated population of 93,949 in 2020. Planning and anticipating the location, form, and function of land use and growth patterns enables the City and the existing residents to guide where and in what pattern this growth will occur. Relative to neighboring cities, Fayetteville has a large percentage of undeveloped land including swaths of canopy cover and native prairie land. However, according to the City's Urban Forestry Program, Fayetteville lost 35 acres of tree canopy cover in 2022 due to development. While the City's tree ordinances do require tree preservation, protection, and planting to mitigate canopy loss, it is projected that there will be a net loss of 20 acres of canopy solely for those development projects reported in 2022. Additionally, existing urban areas rezoned for more dense development reduce available space for trees and greenspace. Fragmentation Development often results in fragmentation of tree canopy, creating isolated populations that are less likely to cross-pollinate. This can reduce biological and genetic diversity of the ecosystem and change the species composition (Fahrig, 2003). It may also result in the loss of buffering potential, such as vegetative stabilization of stream banks. As sites become fragmented and the amount of ecosystem space is reduced, many plants and animals that rely on connected habitats may disappear from the region (Saunders, et al.,1991). Altered Soils Urban trees must often survive in compacted soils that have been altered for the built environment. A good growing medium for trees contains approximately 50% pore space (which allows the root system access to the air and water it needs to survive) and a layer of organic matter. In contrast, construction soils typically have less than 25% pore space and organic matter combined. Competition for Space Conflicts with hardscapes and utilities often occur when trees are not provided adequate space for root and canopy growth. In rights -of -way, trees may compete for space with signs and streetlights, underground utilities, and overhead electric and telephone lines. As trees outgrow available space, their roots can raise sidewalks as they search for water, air, and growing space. The resulting sidewalk repairs may require removal of the tree or application of alternative sidewalk solutions. The City has regulations and best management practices (BMPs) for addressing these situations. To prevent and address negative impacts from development, the City of Fayetteville coordinates efforts to ensure projects adhere to City requirements such as tree canopy cover, stormwater management, public safety, and accessibility. The prevention of future conflicts requires streetscape design that considers the mature size of trees being planted as well as available technologies that allow trees to thrive in this environment. Examples of these unique designs are provided in the graphic below: EASEMENTS ROOT BARRIERS SUSPENDED PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SOILS Figure 21. Streetscape design solutions for preventing or mitigating tree and infrastructure conflicts. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 54 EASEMENTS AND CANOPY VULNERABILITY Easements grant legal rights to a city, utility, or other municipality to use specific areas of private property for public purposes, such as installing utilities or constructing public infrastructure like sidewalks and roads. However, trees located within these easements can be vulnerable if not properly managed or if regulations fail to adequately preserve and protect the existing tree canopy. The construction of public infrastructure like sidewalks or roads can lead to the removal of trees due to conflicts with the design and function. Easements may also restrict the planting of trees or other vegetation that could interfere with the installed infrastructure or utilities. This restriction limits the potential for future tree canopy cover in those areas. Additionally, the installation of underground utilities in City easements can damage tree roots, potentially causing tree decline or death. Maintenance activities such as pruning or tree removal may also be necessary in easements to ensure proper functioning of public infrastructure. However, if not done properly, these activities can result in the loss of valuable tree canopy cover. An analysis of tree canopy within Fayetteville's easements was conducted in 2023 utilizing the City's 2019 tree canopy data, to determine the impact of potential canopy loss. The City contains a number of different types of easements ranging from access, aviation, conservation, drainage, utilities (e.g., gas, sewer, and water), grading, landscape, private, sidewalk, telephone, trail, and tree preservation. The potential for tree canopy gains and losses largely depends on the intended use of the easement, responsible parties, and the regulations. CITY EASEMENT TYPES ■ Conservation ■ Tree Preservation Drainage ■ Utilities Figure 22. Examples of the types of easements found in the City of Fayetteville. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 55 The table and map below describe the easement types vulnerable to canopy loss Canopy Likely Preserved Canopy At Risk Areas to Proactively ("Vulnerable Easements") Preserve Canopy Conservation, Tree Access, Null, Aviation, Drainage, Access, Landscape, Sidewalk, Preservation Utilities, Grading, Landscape, Trail, Private, Sidewalk, Telephone, Trail, Table 7. Potential vulnerability to canopy loss by easement type. - - viLy uvui ivai y Figure 23. Canopy cover within vulnerable easements. Acres of Acres of Canopy % Canopy of Impact on Vulnerable Easements in Vulnerable Vulnerable Citywide Easements Easements Canopy Cover 3,981 1,015 25% 2.6% total acres of vulnerable acres of canopy canopy within potential loss in vulnerable vulnerable (39.4% reduced to easements easements easements 36.8%) Table 8. Summary of vulnerable canopy in City easements. Based on these categories, the vulnerable easements amount to a total of 3,981 acres and within that area, there are a total of 1,015 acres of canopy or 25%. The 1,015 acres of canopy represents 7.2% of the total citywide canopy cover (14,081 acres). This means that if the trees in these easements are not protected and canopy is removed, the City's canopy cover of 39.41/o would be reduced to 36.8%. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 56 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS As the effects of climate change take hold, already stressed trees will decline more rapidly, and healthy trees will have to endure multiple stressors to survive and thrive. The extreme heat and drought will reduce water availability, the plant hardiness zone will shift and introduce invasive plant species, stronger storms will occur resulting in more downed trees and limbs due to the canopy declining, and existing and introduced tree pests and diseases will flourish as trees continue to weaken. If the City does not commit to a long-term proactive approach and disciplined investment to improve the health and reliability of the public trees, Fayetteville will fight a costly, reactive and escalating battle against failing trees, which will have a detrimental impact to public safety, budgets, tree crews, road closures, and utility reliability. The negative environmental, public well-being and scenic impacts will also be significant. With a quarter of Fayetteville's public street trees in fair or worse condition, and with climate change altering the types of species that thrive, the City's tree canopy is at considerable risk. URBAN HEAT Like many urban areas, Fayetteville is experiencing the detrimental effects of excessive summer heat. Urban heat island is a phenomenon that describes the higher air and surface temperatures in urban areas compared to surrounding rural areas. The temperature difference is largely due to the prevalence of buildings, roads, and other elements of the built environment that absorb and retain heat. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases and reduced tree canopy serve to magnify these impacts. Without strategic intervention, urban heat threatens the well-being and health of the community, particularly vulnerable populations lacking the cooling shade of trees. With urban heat rising, the concern of tree decline is at the forefront of planning in urban areas. To understand Fayetteville's urban forest vulnerability to urban heat, analyses were conducted to measure and project potential impacts on its trees. These impacts include: Increased stress on trees: Urban heat adds to stress trees are already facing from factors such as air pollution, drought, and pests, making it more difficult for trees to survive and thrive. • Reduced tree growth: Urban heat can slow down tree growth, which can lead to a decline in the overall health of the urban forest. • Increased tree mortality: Urban heat increases the risk of tree loss, which can lead to gaps in the urban forest. • Reduced air quality: Urban heat tends to hold pollutants in the atmosphere, worsening air quality. This places an additional burden on trees' air purifying capabilities while also having a negative impact on human health and the environment. • Changes in plant communities: Urban heat can lead to changes in the composition of plant communities as some species are more tolerant of heat than others. This can lead to a loss of biodiversity in the urban forest. HOT 75•+ cOo\- �c000e r Figure 24. Illustration of the temperature difference in urban areas due to the urban heat island effect. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 57 Changes in Plant Communities Climate change will have a dramatic impact on the tree species that can survive and thrive in Fayetteville. To inform the Plan's recommendations, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Forest Service Climate Change Tree Atlas was utilized to model habitat changes for tree species growing in the southeast region of the United States, which includes Arkansas. However, some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included (Iverson, et al., 2019). The tables below list tree species that may be found growing in Fayetteville and their predicted vulnerability to habitat loss due to changing conditions. It also includes the proportion of those tree species that are currently in Fayetteville's public tree population based on the 2022 sample inventory. Predicted Habitat Change Tree Species Common Name Percent of Fayetteville's Public Trees SPECIES HABITAT PREDICTED TO INCREASE Note: this list is not all inclusive or a recommendation, it is an ever -evolving list. The City will decide on the types of species to be approved. Princeton Elm 7% Post oak 6% Willow oak 6% Blackgum 4% New Harmony Elm 3% Red maple 3% American elm 3% Eastern redbud 3% Gfeeftias,T(Emerald Ash Borer) 2% Eastern red cedar 1% Winged elm 1% Water oak 1% Eastern hop hornbeam 1% Honeylocust 1% Flowering dogwood 1% Tulip tree 1% Osage orange 1% Shortleaf pine 1% Black cherry 1% Loblolly pine 0.5% American sycamore 0.4% Pecan 0.3% Overcup oak 0.3% Sweetgum 0.3% American holly 0.2% American hornbeam 0.2% Mockernut hickory 0.2% Southern red oak 0.2% Persimmon 0.2% Southern magnolia 0.1% Blackjack oak 0.1% River birch 0.1% Whftt-asi� (Emerald Ash Borer) 0.1% Sassafras 0.04% Total 51 Table 9. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to increase (low emission scenario). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 58 Predicted Habitat Change Tree Species Common Name Percent of Fayetteville's Public Trees SPECIES HABITAT PREDICTED TO NOT CHANGE Note: this list is not all inclusive or a recommendation, it is an ever -evolving list. The City will decide on the types of species to be approved. Bald cypress 3% Hackberry 3% White oak 2% Black walnut 1% Nuttall oak 1% Mulberry 1% Scarlet oak 0.4% Boxelder 0.3% Shumard oak 0.3% Swamp chestnut oak 0.1% American beech 0.1% Chinkapin oak 0.1% Pignut hickory 0.1% Bitternut hickory 0.04% Black Hickory 0.04% Total 12% Table 10. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas' predicted to not change (low emission scenario). Predicted Habitat Change Tree Species Common Name Percent of Fayetteville's Public Trees Species Habitat Predicted to DECREASE Note: this list is not all inclusive or a recommendation, it is an ever -evolving list. The City will decide on the types of species to be approved. Pin oak 5% Northern red oak 3% Sugar maple 3% Serviceberry 2% Bur oak 1% Silver maple 0.4% Shagbark hickory 0.4% American basswood 0.3% Black oak 0.2% Ohio buckeye 0.1% Black locust 0.1% Total 7F 16% Table 11. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 59 rOMW A HABITAT 51% i HABITAT DECREASE Figure 25. Climate change vulnerability of Fayetteville's public street trees. Source: USDA Climate Change Atlas Important Note: The USDA Forest Service Tree Atlas models predict habitat change for 134 native tree species in the eastern United States. The research is then modeled for tree species in the southeast U.S. including Arkansas. Some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included. With limited data currently available on the resilience and vulnerability of native Arkansas tree species, this table provides a glimpse of how the species composition of Fayetteville's urban forest may change. Web source: www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/atlas/tree/ According to the Climate Change Atlas and based on the 2022 sample inventory of Fayetteville's public street trees, 51% or an estimated 12,703 trees are expected to have their growing conditions and habitat improve and increase due to climate change.12% or 2,913 public trees in Fayetteville are predicted to not be impacted by changing climates and 16% or 3,899 trees are predicted to be negatively impacted by climate change and experience habitat loss. URBAN TREE PESTS AND DISEASES Pests and diseases add to the existing stresses faced by trees in an urban environment. Stressed trees are more vulnerable to insects and diseases, although some pests and diseases pose an equal threat to healthy trees. Climate change can create conditions that are favorable for the spread of pests and diseases. Also, prolonged drought stresses trees causing them to be more susceptible to pests and diseases. Though emerald ash borer (EAB) was found in Arkansas in 2002, it is still a concern for the ash (Fraxinus) trees across the City. From the liwsample inventory of public trees in 2022, it is estimated that 2% (600 trees) are ash trees. Currently, the City does not treat any ash trees on public land, but ash trees are no longer planted or recommended. i The insect attacks and kills healthy as well as stressed trees, causing " catastrophic loss to all ash species. Its impact on the structural integrity of host trees can cause these trees to become safety hazards. Figure 26. Emerald ash borer (EAB) insect (top), dieback (left), larvae (bottom left), borer holes (right), and larvae galleries (bottom right). Source: AR Department of Agriculture Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 60 Sudden oak death (SOD) is caused by Phytophthora ramorum, a fungus-like microorganism. At least 90 species of trees and woody ornamentals are hosts for SOD. Changing climates may cause SOD to become more widespread and harder to control. The disease produces rapid decline in oaks and other tree species; death may occur within months to years later. Symptoms include bleeding cankers on the lower trunk, and leaf spots. Control of SOD is focused on early detection and eradication of infected plants. Figure 2Z Sudden oak death (SOD) wood and bark discoloration.The lesions and discoloration of leaves of one of the 90 different tree species SOD impacts. Source: AR Department of Agriculture Dutch elm disease (DED) is caused by a fungus (Ophiostoma ulmi) that infects the vascular system of elm (Ulmus) trees. The disease propagates on a number of different elm species but the majority of cases in Arkansas have been found on American elm (Ulmus americana). Figure 28. American elm identifying features (left), leaf flagging symptom of Dutch elm disease (middle), and gallery of bark beetles that are the vector for the Ophiostoma ulmi fungus. Source: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Bacterial leaf scorch (BLS) is a systemic disease caused by the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa that disrupts the transportation of water through the tree. It is commonly transmitted by insects with piercing mouth parts, impacting sycamore, sweetgum, American elm, and various maple, oak, and other tree species. With higher temperatures and drought predicted, the impact of BLS on Fayetteville's trees is likely to increase. A B C D Figure 29. Bacterial leaf scorch observed on oak (A), redbud(B), elm (C), and maple (D) leaves. Source: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service There are other pests and diseases to monitor such as the jumping oak gall disease affecting white oak trees, tent caterpillars with a wide range of hosts, oak wilt, red oak borer insect, thousand cankers disease, laurel wilt disease, and the threat of Asian long -horned beetle that prefers maples but also has a wide range of preferred host tree species. Additional information regarding tree pests and diseases can be found at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 61 Section 6m. Vision, Recommendations, and Implementation-{� M_Z' jr !:0;;, • ��Cr_5��•. q e y. � ; �, - •s.ra _ Y r r•Jr; r �� ;, �--!!! dam!•' yr'��`Ft r � � ; � � , t a , c - � .r•-� �� • �L *� ' X 1. 't 7^`_ �� �,,j� Y Y . IN lee or Af. At '+ � % - �t�' • it KY 's.' . 1S r 'PON INTRODUCTION This section provides guidance and recommendations for the City of Fayetteville to continue to provide high levels of service now and into the future over the next 10 years. The Urban Forestry Management Plan's recommendations include those that may only take a few months and others that will require a coordinated effort that may need to continue on beyond the 10-year time frame. PLAN VISION STATEMENT "Healthy Trees, Healthy City. To cultivate a thriving, diverse, and well -maintained tree canopy that enhances the livability, health, and sustainability of our community for current and future generations." Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 63 VISION What does the urban forest and its programs look like ten years from now? The vision guides direction on where Fayetteville is headed and helps guide recommendations for the future. GUIDING PRINCIPLES What are we aspiring to achieve? These are the aspirations for the City over the next 10-years. They are key themes for organizing the plan and include a citywide canopy cover goal. GOALS How do we achieve our principles and vision? The goals are specific opportunities for the City to move toward the 10-year vision. STRATEGIES What is the approach to take? Strategies provide the general direction or method to take to achieve the goals. Priority Actions What is the next Step? This is the prioritized list of steps to take. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 64 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Management Plan aims to guide the City in managing, protecting, and growing its urban forest. The goals, strategies, and priority actions are developed based on research and analysis of available data, extensive internal and external engagement, and an evaluation of urban forest sustainability criteria. The resulting goals and recommendations address the current conditions, existing and potential challenges, and shared priorities. To achieve the vision for the urban forest, a citywide canopy cover goal 44.4 % over 30 years was established as the cornerstone metric for tracking progress in implementing the Urban Forestry Management Plan. This metric can be used by the City to track and monitor the urban forest, it resonates with residents, creating a tangible and shared vision of a lush and vibrant urban environment. Moreover, the canopy cover goal aligns with other goals and priorities in the City such as environmental stewardship, climate change resilience, public health, air quality enhancement, and temperature moderation. By using canopy cover as an overarching measure, Fayetteville ensures a comprehensive approach that not only improves the urban ecosystem but also fosters a sense of pride, unity, and responsibility among its residents. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 65 Fayetteville's Tree Canopy Cover Goal Baseline Canopy 39,4% 10 Year Target 40.6% 20 Year Target 42.5% r 30 Year Target 44.4% A 2019 2034 2044 2054 Table 11. Fayetteville's canopy goal milestones and targets. The overall 30-year goal is to increase canopy from 39.4% to 44.4%. The first step in achieving the 30-year goal is to focus on the actions necessary for the next ten years. The ten-year goal is to increase canopy by 1.2% to 40.6%. The city's goal of adding 1,850 net trees (trees that reach a level of maturity past their most vulnerable stage of growth) is flexible, with the trees coming from three sources: city plantings, tree giveaways, and citizen plantings. This innovative approach prioritizes maintaining trees to maturity over simply planting a large number. The plan starts by determining how many trees the Public Works Urban Foresters can realistically maintain over the next three years. The direct citizen tree planting program is the second component for reaching the 1,850 net tree goal. Finally, the number of trees given away will be adjusted as needed to ensure the overall target is met. By using realistic mortality rates, the city can better understand and achieve its tree -planting objectives. The example below illustrates how this flexible approach can be implemented. Planting Sources Annual Planting Survival Rate Net Trees City Planting 450 90% 405 Citizen Planting 100 90% 90 Subtotal 495 Tree Give Aways 2085 65% 1355 Total Net Trees 1850 This example shows that even though we need to adjust for fluctuation in maintenance capacity and participation in neighborhood plantings, we can still achieve our 1850 net tree goal. Using this integrated approach, along with preservation and mitigating the loss of canopy, the City of Fayetteville can be confident that this ambitious goal is achievable. City Plantings Public Works Urban Forestry staff has maintained information that lets us know how many trees our maintenance staff can care for each year. Newly planted trees require regular watering, structural pruning, mulching, and monitoring for pests and diseases. After 3-5 years, the regular maintenance is lower and requires pruning every few years as needed. We use a 90% survival rate for our newly planted trees. Communication from Public Works Urban Forestry is key to knowing what our annual tree planting will be for the following year. The number of trees planted by the City will fluctuate based on the maintenance capacity of our Public Works Urban Forestry staff. Citizen Plantings Urban Forestry Staff has created a pilot program that works directly with property owners and homeowners' associations to add trees on streets, in lots, or around detention areas. These programs are currently adding Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 66 approximately 100 trees annually to the canopy. The survival rate for these trees is estimated at 90% since the homeowners will be planting them directly and maintaining trees on their property. The annual number of these types of plantings is targeted to grow. Tree Give Aways The city currently hosts two annual tree giveaway events - the Celebration of Trees and the Invasive Plant Bounty - which provide 1,250 free trees to residents. To further expand these efforts, the city could create additional tree distribution programs around Earth Day, Arkansas Arbor Day, and National Arbor Day. Given the strong community interest and attendance at these existing initiatives, expanding the opportunities for residents to receive free trees would be a valuable program addition. Urban Tree Mortality Trees do have a lifespan that is typically much longer than humans. However, we must account for natural tree mortality, as 1.1% of the tree stock is estimated to be lost annually (Nowak & Greenfield, 2012). Our city has a diverse tree population, including forests, public, and private trees. The natural mortality in city forests is offset by replacement and natural regeneration, so the overall forest canopy remains stable. In contrast, the City actively replaces dead and dying trees on streets, parks, and other municipal properties. Private property owners are also accounted for in the biannual NAIP canopy assessment, and tree replacement programs like Celebration of Trees and partnerships with POAs/HOAs help replant dead trees and add new trees to barren yards. By addressing tree natural mortality while actively replenishing the urban canopy through public and private efforts, the city is able to maintain a healthy, sustainable tree population. This helps us focus on adding to our overall tree canopy. Development It is estimated from available data that approximately 3,728 trees are planted annually due to development activities. The tree planting numbers presented in this plan are based on a no net canopy loss, meaning a balance of canopy loss, regardless of cause, with canopy growth through private and public tree plantings and natural regeneration across the city. Development activities that remove the canopy must be mitigated to reach the canopy goals, which is part of the standards and purpose in 177.01 B1: "Promoting reasonable conservation and replenishment of valued tree canopy and vegetation" Urban Forestry staff suspects this is insufficient to replace the lost canopy from development. The primary goal of the Urban Forestry Management plan is to increase the city's overall tree canopy from 39.4% to 40.6% over the next 10 years. While development has the largest impact on the city's tree canopy, with some projects resulting in tree loss, particularly in wooded areas, other projects in less treed areas like agricultural fields are expected to gain canopy. To minimize canopy loss, the city's development code requires a minimum tree cover that must be met for each parcel, with tree mitigation required if a parcel cannot fully meet these requirements. Extensive tree planting efforts from both public and private sources will be required to achieve the targeted 1.2% canopy increase. Studying and tracking development impacts to the tree canopy is crucial for the Urban Forestery program to respond to evovling conditions. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 67 PRIORITY PLANTING AREAS Maintaining and selecting locations for trees to reach maturity requires careful planning and consideration of the location. The following maps are recommended to be used when selecting tree planting areas, these areas are high priority and can have the biggest impact. Social, economic, and environmental considerations go into locating areas for tree planting projects. Low Tree Canopy(<35%) a t' 4 Tree Equity Score <80 Low Income 8 Tree Canopy % People of Color Vulnerable & Exclusion Areas L 6m rib 4 AverageSurface Temperature —IT 601 Development & Future Land Use all Health Risk Index �y � a Figure 30. Scenarios for priority planting areas to achieve canopy goals and the Plan's outcomes. Larger Maps can be found on pages 108-111 By identifying priority planting areas to achieve the canopy goal, tree planting and maintenance can be strategically targeted where trees will have the most beneficial impact. The figure above provides an illustration of the priority areas for consideration and Appendix A provides the criteria going into the priorities along with larger maps. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 68 STAKEHOLDER- DRIVEN GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND GOALS During the data analysis, information collection, and internal and external stakeholder input gathered, a series of overarching guiding principles emerged. These principles were shaped by the feedback received from the surveys. The community's role in this process is crucial, and these priorities, along with the Urban Forest Audit and the Indicators of Sustainable Urban Forestry (detailed in Section 2) established the foundation of the Plan. Guiding Principles Goals Equitable and Resilient Canopy Cover Goals Equitable and Resilient Canopy Goal Al: Increase tree canopy cover citywide OCover We value and appreciate the benefits beginning in priority areas and purchased land. A and services provided by the trees in our community. These benefits and services Goal A2: Implement a cooperative tree planting program with businesses, institutions, organizations, should be maximized and equitably neighborhoods, and property owners. distributed across the City by growing an urban forest that is sustainable and Goal A3: Plant trees that are resilient to current and resilient to current and future challenges. future challenges such as climate change and tree pests. Maintenance and Management Goals Maintenance and Management Goal B1: Prioritize public tree maintenance and tree We care for our trees and the citywide risk management. Goal B2: Reduce conflicts between trees and other B urban forest to ensure the benefits are available for current and future infrastructure such as sidewalks and utilities. X+@ generations. Our operations and Goal B3: Manage harmful tree pests and diseases investments prioritize sustainability, fiscal that are present or expected to impact the urban forest. Goal B4: Conduct ongoing industry and professional responsibility, and equity. training for City staff interacting with trees in Fayetteville. Tree Preservation and Protection Goals Tree Preservation and Protection Goal C1: Establish or update policies and practices Our existing tree canopy cover and the to reduce the urban forest's vulnerability to tree pests, investments made in planting and caring diseases, and climate change impacts. C for the urban forest are preserved through Goal C2: Update or amend tree -related ordinances to sound but fair policies and regulations support the citywide canopy cover goal and other goals that align with shared priorities in the city in the Plan. and best practices. Goal C3: Monitor and enforce tree -related ordinances. Funding and Levels of Service Goals Goal D1: Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation and planting and to achieve other City goals. Funding and Levels of Service The programs and staffing involved with Goal D2: Increase funding to purchase trees to be D the trees in our community have the planted and supporting infrastructure in support of the resources necessary to meet current and canopy cover goal. future demands and challenges. Goal D3: Evaluate the staffing levels, structure, and resources for tree -related programs and adjust as needed to meet the goals of the Plan and growing demands of the urban forest. Community Education and Engagement Community Education, Engagement, and Stewardship Goals Goal E1: Continue to achieve Tree City USA status A sustainable urban forest requires and other industry recognitions. E 000 a shared commitment from the City the We foster tree Goal E2: Create and implement an engagement and community. will stewardship in our community through strategy for all demographics and stakeholders in the equitable and impactful community community. education and engagement. Goal E3: Provide inclusive program offerings such as events, education, and training to meet the needs of all. Figure 31. Guiding principals and goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 69 A) EQUITABLE AND RESILIENT CANOPY COVER We value and appreciate the benefits and services provided by the trees in our community. These benefits and services should be maximized and equitably distributed across the City by growing an urban forest that is sustainable and resilient to current and future challenges. STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND SUPPORT Experts and stakeholders stressed the importance of setting and achieving local and citywide canopy goals to support the long-term health and sustainability of the urban forest. For example, planted trees must be resilient to drought and extreme weather events while supporting biodiversity in the urban ecosystem. A diverse mix of tree species is necessary to ensure the ability of the urban forest to survive pest and disease outbreaks. Success is predicated on planting trees matched to the site in terms of soils, water availability, space, and desired function. Post -planting care is required for trees to become established and thrive in the urban environment. GOAL All: INCREASE TREE CANOPY COVER CITYWIDE BEGINNING IN PRIORITY AREAS AND PURCHASED LAND. Goal Al Strategies a) Procure funding to purchase land for the City to preserve and plant trees. b) Review and refine the priority planting areas provided by the Plan. c) Continue to offer free trees to citizens. d) Plant 1,850 net trees per year for 10 years and reassess citywide canopy cover. e) Coordinate with other City plans and programs. Goal Al Priority Actions Review, refine, and finalize the canopy cover goals and planting priorities. Develop a neighborhood -level and citywide planting plan to achieve the canopy goals. Align efforts with the Climate Action Plan, Energy Action Plan, the 2023 Park and Recreation System Master Plan, and other initiatives. Fully integrate tree plantings into City projects. Use the recommendation to inform the annual tree planting plan for parks as recommended in Goal E3 of the 2023 Park and Recreation System Master Plan. Continue to offer tree care information especially in the priority neighborhoods. Monitor progress toward achieving the canopy goals and planting targets. Use high -resolution imagery to assess and monitor canopy cover every two years. At minimum, reassess canopy cover citywide and by planning boundaries by 2029 for a 10-year canopy change assessment. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 70 GOAL A2: IMPLEMENT A COOPERATIVE TREE PLANTING PROGRAM WITH BUSINESSES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND PROPERTY OWNERS. Goal A2 Strategies a) Identify existing and potential stakeholders. b) Collaborate and share resources to identify program funding opportunities. c) Track progress and recognize successes. d) Conduct pilot programs to determine efficient ways to assist private land owners with tree plantings. Goal A2 Priority Actions Draft a list of existing and potential stakeholders with input from multiple departments. Organize workshops or seminars that focus on the importance of the program. Create a task force or utilize the Urban Forestry Advisory Board to collaborate on program design, priority planting locations, funding, tree selection, and ongoing maintenance. Utilize data management software to track the plantings and recognize partnerships and program success possibly during Arbor Day celebrations. GOAL A3: PLANT TREES THAT ARE RESILIENT TO CURRENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES SUCH AS CLIMATE CHANGE AND TREE PESTS. Goal A3 Strategies a) Use data and research to make decisions on approved tree species for planting. b) Select the right tree for the right site. c) Provide ongoing tree care and monitor the condition of tree plantings. Goal A3 Priority Actions Utilize the Climate Tree Atlas study in the Plan to adjust approve tree species lists. Evaluate the composition of the urban forest to inform changes to tree species selection for planting to maintain diversity. Provide watering and irrigation for public tree plantings. Evaluate measures to improve the enforcement of regulations for post -planting maintenance within Chapters 167 and 177 of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 71 B) MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT We care for our trees and the citywide urban forest to ensure the benefits are available for current and future generations. Our operations and investments prioritize sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and equity. STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND SUPPORT The community would like to see more shade trees along streets and sidewalks, recognizing that this will require additional resources. Participants in the engagement to develop the Plan stated that they would like the City to maintain street trees in a routine, proactive manner. City staff are in support of cooperative planting programs with businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals where trees can be planted in yards to shade sidewalks. The staff engaged in the planning effort also support improving policies and practices for better public tree maintenance addressing concerns such as tree pests, diseases, and climate change impacts. GOAL B1: PRIORITIZE PUBLIC TREE MAINTENANCE AND TREE RISK MANAGEMENT. Goal 131 Strategies a) Assess the public tree population for maintenance needs and potential risks. b) Develop a public tree maintenance plan. c) Develop a plan for maintaining trees that are planted toward the canopy goal. d) Stay current with industry research, tools, technology, standards, and best practices. e) Focus on planting strategies and designs that produce long-lived trees. Goal 131 Priority Actions Periodically conduct sample inventories or windshield surveys of public trees to identify changes to maintenance and risk management priorities. Create annual work plans and seek funds to implement those plans using the actions within Goal D3. Track maintenance records for public trees. Continue to add assets and management data to databases that track total asset management for more efficient maintenance planning. Acquire and maintain industry certifications and trainings for Urban Foresters. Continue to manage invasive plant species on public properties and within public rights -of -way. Support controlled burns to manage invasive and wildlife on public properties. Strengthen or establish public tree risk assessment and mitigation protocols. Develop a framework and approach to utilize more biomass resulting from public tree maintenance, removals, and post -storm cleanup. Expand efforts beyond mulching by including logs for wood products for local craftsmen. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 72 GOAL 132: REDUCE CONFLICTS BETWEEN TREES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS SIDEWALKS AND UTILITIES. Goal B2 Strategies a) Assess public trees for current and potential infrastructure conflicts. b) Identify existing and potential alternative solutions to infrastructure conflicts. c) Coordinate with internal and external stakeholders. d) Ensure trees are planted with the proper soil volume. Goal B2 Priority Actions Establish or improve protocols and checklists for evaluating current and potential infrastructure conflicts which includes potential alternative solutions to the conflict. Establish regular meetings and protocols with internal and external stakeholders for improved coordination during infrastructure and utility planning, design, construction, and maintenance phases. GOAL 133: MANAGE HARMFUL TREE PESTS AND DISEASES THAT ARE PRESENT OR EXPECTED TO IMPACT THE URBAN FORESTS. Goal B3 Strategies a) Identify the primary tree pests and diseases of concern. b) Provide information for identifying tree pests and diseases. c) Monitor public trees and the urban forest for tree pests and diseases of concern. d) Create a preliminary emerald ash borer (EAB) plan. Goal B3 Priority Actions Develop and implement an integrated pest management or plant health care plan for public trees. Integrate tree pest and disease education into the community education strategy (Goal E1 - E3). Focus on education and technical assistance with large private landowners. GOAL 134: CONDUCT ONGOING INDUSTRY AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING FOR CITY STAFF INTERACTING WITH TREES IN FAYETTEVILLE. Goal B4 Strategies a) Identify the staff and training needs and secure the annual budget required. b) Conduct internal cross -training and document training materials and protocols. c) Consider offering or supporting training of volunteers and tree care professionals. Goal B4 Priority Actions Utilize free and available on line trainings and materials where appropriate. Support the Urban Forestry Advisory Board in attending the free on line Tree Board University program developed by the U.S. Forest Service. Expand the trainings to include considerations for youth and workforce development. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 73 C) TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION Our existing tree canopy cover and the investments made in planting and caring for the urban forest are preserved through sound but fair policies and regulations that align with shared priorities in the City and best practices. STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND SUPPORT Preservation and protection of existing trees was identified as a high priority. Existing mature trees have an out sized impact on sustainability, environmental justice, wildlife and ecosystems, and human health. Exploring changes to the tree ordinances was raised in most engagement activities and sessions. Preservation and planting requirements should be robust but not unduly burdensome to developers. They should also be tailored to the biome, e.g., different standards for natural prairies compared to forested areas. Trees planted or protected should survive post -development and be replaced if they die. City staff are in support of procuring funding to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover. GOAL Cl: ESTABLISH OR UPDATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO REDUCE THE URBAN FOREST'S VULNERABILITY TO TREE PESTS, DISEASES, AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS. Goal C1 Strategies a) Quantify the urban forest's role in climate change mitigation. b) Maintain tree regulations to minimize urban forest vulnerabilities. Goal C1 Priority Actions Calculate the carbon sequestration, storage, and avoided carbon generated from the citywide urban tree canopy cover and the public tree population using industry tools such as i-Tree. Utilize the data to build support and inform climate -related plans. Update the Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual with any changes to tree -related ordinances. As needed, update tree lists that prioritize native and climate -resilient tree species. Consider updates based on the diversity of the urban forest and existing / potential pests and diseases. At minimum, maintain a list of prohibited tree species reflective of the latest research and concerns. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 74 GOAL C2: UPDATE OR AMEND TREE -RELATED ORDINANCES TO SUPPORT THE CITYWIDE CANOPY COVER GOAL AND OTHER GOALS IN THE PLAN. Goal C2 Strategies a) Monitor and track tree plantings and removals. b) Adopt a no -net -loss policy for public trees. c) Review and implement recommended changes to tree ordinances. Goal C2 Priority Actions Identify the departments, roles, and workflows (i.e., City Engineering and Transportation) and track public tree removals and plantings in a data management program. Analyze the potential causes for canopy cover gains and losses as identified in the canopy assessments of four time periods. Strengthen the mechanisms for tracking tree preservation, removals, plantings, mitigation, and canopy percentages for development projects. Use the tracking to inform potential changes to minimum canopy requirements for zoning designations as needed to support the canopy goal. Review and refine the tree ordinance evaluation worksheet completed as part of the Plan (see Appendix C). Gather feedback from internal and external stakeholders before significant changes to ordinances are made. For example, develop incentives to preserve existing canopy instead of opting for mitigation and consider updating the penalties for illegal removal of protected trees. Conserve open space and protect areas of significant riparian benefit, tree canopy, prairie, and other environmental resource through cluster development provisions, density controls, protective easements, and/or other development tools. Update design standards to be more accommodating to trees and the necessary soil volume while balancing the needs for development. Establish a policy for reassessing the citywide tree canopy cover at regular intervals to monitor the canopy goal. GOAL C3: MONITOR AND ENFORCE TREE -RELATED ORDINANCES. Goal C3 Strategies a) Distribute information and resources regarding changes to tree regulations. b) Establish a formal protocol. c) Recognize exemplary tree preservation practices and projects. Goal C3 Priority Actions Update information on the City's website and in materials as tree regulations change. Consider developing a protocol for scheduled inspections, random spot checks, record keeping, an on -site education. Develop a program that recognizes exemplary and innovative development projects that preserve and expand tree canopy cover. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 75 D) FUNDING AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The programs and staffing involved with the trees in our community have the resources necessary to meet current and future demands and challenges. STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND SUPPORT During engagement exercises, concerns were raised regarding limited resources, staffing, funding, and time to address the current climate challenges. Additional resources in Development Resources, where code compliance officers are located, are needed to inspect, monitor, and enforce tree regulations. Proactive maintenance in Public Works is needed to water, plant new trees, and monitor new trees that will mitigate the impact of climate change. Stakeholders largely supported allocating additional resources to ensure the availability of urban forest resources now and in the future. City staff support increasing funding to purchase trees to plant towards a citywide canopy cover goal. GOAL D1: PROCURE FUNDING FOR THE CITY TO PURCHASE LAND FOR THE TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING NEW TREES. Goal D1 Strategies a) Identify potential areas for land acquisition. b) Coordinate with partners for land acquisition and management. c) Lead by example and distribute information about the program. Goal D1 Priority Actions Review the priority areas for tree planting and preservation to identify opportunities for land acquisition. Consider vacant land as an initial step and utilize the City Plan 2040's Enduring Green Network map and data. Develop a multi -year program and allocate funding for land acquisition. Build support from land trusts and other organizations. Implement best management practices and share information for private landowners to learn about the opportunities for urban forest stewardship on their own property(s). Develop management plans for the properties purchased. In the long-term, consider utilizing land acquired for pilot projects such as testing new tree species for the region and in-house tree production (i.e., tree nursery). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 76 GOAL D2: INCREASE FUNDING TO PURCHASE TREES TO BE PLANTED AND SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUPPORT OF THE CANOPY GOAL. Goal D2 Strategies a) Identify the funding gap and funding source(s). b) Communicate the benefits of a robust planting effort. c) Develop and implement a tree planting program aligned with the canopy goal. Goal D2 Priority Actions Quantify the benefits and services provided by the 1,850 trees planted per year to communicate the future value added to Fayetteville's ecosystem, community, and economy. Secure the necessary funding to meet the annual tree planting targets. Provide annual reports on canopy goal progress tojustify continued funding for tree plantings. Coordinate with tree nurseries the tree species for planting to reduce costs and address tree species diversity goals. GOAL D3: EVALUATE THE STAFFING LEVELS, STRUCTURE, AND RESOURCES FOR THE TREE -RELATED PROGRAMS AND ADJUST AS NEEDED. Goal D3 Strategies a) Track and report program activities and Plan implementation progress. b) Analyze the organization of departments involved with trees in Fayetteville. rc—)conduct cost -benefit analyses and evaluate growing service demands. Goal D3 Priority Actions Develop a mission and vision statement for urban forest management in the City that align with the goals in this Plan. Share with City departments and stakeholders the progress made in implementing the Plan by using the Monitoring section's guidelines. Successes and shortcomings build awareness and supporting for changes to staffing and program structure(s). Evaluate staffing and contractor resources required to effectively plant trees aligned with canopy goals and to provide post -planting care. Determine the need for consolidating tree programs into one department, section, or division to improve efficiencies and levels of service. Consider the need and framework for establishing a City section specific to managing natural areas and open space (e.g., wetlands, bottomlands, prairies). Secure funding to implement a tree watering program for newly planted public trees. Continuously explore avenues to ensure diverse funding sources and advocate for increased operations and capital funding to address priority tree maintenance and care needs. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 77 E) COMMUNITY EDUCATION, ENGAGEMENT, AND STEWARDSHIP A sustainable urban forest requires a shared commitment from the City and the community. We will foster tree stewardship in our community through equitable and impactful community education and engagement. STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND SUPPORT Participants reported a perception of conflicting policies and priorities regarding the City's trees. City departments, partners, developers, and the community must have a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities surrounding the urban forest to develop a shared vision for addressing them. A public communications plan stemming from a citywide coordinated effort was seen as a necessary step in bringing clarity to the roles of City departments involved with the urban forest and tree care. Half of the internal stakeholders engaged support bolstering community engagement and volunteer efforts. GOAL El: CONTINUE TO ACHIEVE TREE CITY USA STATUS AND OTHER INDUSTRY RECOGNITIONS. Goal E1 Strategies a) Continue to track program activities and budgets. b) Explore the opportunities and requirements for other recognition programs. Goal E1 Priority Actions Continue to track and annually report urban forestry activities of all partners and continue to maintain Arbor Day Tree City USA designation. Strive to continue to achieve Arbor Day Foundation Growth Awards and Sterling Tree City status. Achieve an award from the American Public Works Association's Awards Program for innovative programs and outcomes resulting from this Plan. Conduct a follow-up benchmarking exercise toward year 10 of this Plan to compare program budgets and activities to other Tree City USA communities in the region. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 78 GOAL E2: CREATE AND IMPLEMENT AN ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR ALL DEMOGRAPHIC AND STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY. Goal E2 Strategies a) Identify and collaborate with stakeholders to draft the strategy. b) Implement the strategy as a coordinated effort. c) Review and adapt the strategy as changes occur. Goal E2 Priority Actions Finalize a robust community outreach strategy and a communications plan to garner support, spur behavior change, and increase participation from the community. Use the data and recommendations from this Plan. Increase outreach and marketing for improving and expanding tree canopy for the public good. Implement the outreach strategy as a coordinated citywide effort by convening with other City departments and stakeholders. Gather input and feedback from the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. As outlined in the community outreach strategy, gather input and feedback from the public regarding implementation of this Plan and changes to urban forestry programs. Identify existing and potential partners and organizations to support the implementation of the community outreach strategy and support engagement that is inclusive and equitable. GOAL El PROVIDE INCLUSIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS SUCH AS EVENTS, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL. Goal E3 Strategies a) Implement programs and services through the lens of environmental equity. b) Coordinate with new and existing community and regional partners. c) Develop strategies to remove barriers to participation. Goal E3 Priority Actions Use the outreach strategy from Goal E2 to identify community groups that represent all neighborhoods. Identify low tree canopy neighborhoods for targeted engagement. Coordinate with partners and secure funding for regular public events, training, and educational materials as outline in the outreach strategy. Make the data and information from this Plan accessible to the public online. Gather feedback for continual improvements to events, education, and trainings. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 79 Photo. Fayetteville's urban forestry programs engage with youth in the community by planting a tree at Butterfield Elementary School. Source: City of Fayetteville STAFFING LEVELS FOR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Many cities struggle to maintain adequate staffing and resource allocation. Available resources may cover short- term needs while neglecting important initiatives necessary to sustain long-term urban forest management. Determining and maintaining optimal staffing levels is critical to a program's efficiency. Optimal staffing depends on several factors including the number of public trees, how authority and responsibility is defined in the municipal code, internal and external expectations, customer service (i.e., the public), operations, and existing programs. The City of Fayetteville's commitments to public health and safety, combating climate change, and addressing inequities translates into a growing demand for both long-term initiatives, and the staff to operate them. The growing urban forest will require increased staffing levels to achieve and maintain urban forest goals. Public Works and Development Services need to add full time employees to maintain the current level of services. As the City grows these positions will need to grow. Some capacity and efficiencies for existing workloads can be improved through clarifications of roles, responsibilities, and workflows among City departments and divisions. Periodically examining program structures, staffing needs, and levels of service may identify ways to improve efficiencies, communications, and workflows within and among departments. Cities often consider consolidating their tree programs into one division or section to achieve these outcomes. Establishing a strong organizational structure with clear operating procedures is foundational in reducing future costs and addressing increased service demands. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 80 IMPLEMENTATION The framework of the goals and actions in the Urban Forestry Management Plan provides the City of Fayetteville with the means to measure progress and adapt to an ever -changing environment and availability of resources. As actions are implemented, the City may conduct new iterations of the Urban Forest Audit to gauge success, evaluate progress, and adjust accordingly. Based on the assessment of Fayetteville's urban forest resource, the programs that manage it, and the community that shapes and benefits from it, the following implementation summary is recommended. Implementing the Plan in this manner will effectively and efficiently address the City's shared challenges and priorities using available resources. As the Plan progresses, more resources will be neccessary to implement the longer -term actions. MONITORING PLAN This Urban Forestry Management Plan will be updated every ten years as outlined in the code. Revisions can be made in five years, and canopy data will be collected from GIS every two years and revised periodically. Better data will help reflect changes in the urban forest and incorporate changes in industry standards. Also, community response and industry recommendations should be considered to reach the established goals. This process should be supported by an urban forestry working group consisting of community members with various skill sets and backgrounds. Examples include the City's Urban Forestry Program, Urban Forestry Advisory Board members, other City staff, and stakeholders. The monitoring of the plan should follow the evaluation, monitoring, reporting, and revising methodology. Knowing how the City and its partners are doing will require a continual evaluation process. This section presents examples of how to monitor, analyze, and revise the Plan, which will keep stakeholders informed of the status of the Urban Forestry Program. To monitor progress toward implementing the Plan recommendations, an evaluation similar to the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit (details below in the Evaluate section) conducted to develop the initial Plan should be completed. This evaluation will identify progress and shortfalls compared to the baseline audit. In addition, a report card could be created based on the audit's outcomes and distributed to the public periodically. This will measure progress toward implementing the Plan's actions. The Report section provides a suggested structure for measuring and reporting success toward accomplishing each goal. Other indicators to measure progress may need to be developed to ensure a thorough and accurate evaluation. EVALUATE MONITOR AUDIT BENCHMARKS R[PORr CARD REPORT REVISE Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 81 EVALUATE AUDIT The U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit System provides a framework for routine evaluations of the urban forest, the programs that manage it, and the community that shapes and benefits from it. The deliverables to this Urban Forestry Management Plan project include guidance for completing an update to the audit completed in 2023 to develop the Plan. This audit system consists of 11 categories of urban forest management, sustainability, and community. Within the 11 categories are approximately 130 subcategories or elements. Each element was ranked or scored based on the consultants' evaluations in 2023 for the Urban Forestry Management Plan. It is recommended the City's urban forestry working group (or similar) complete a bi-annual audit to inform any alterations to actions and strategies. About the Urban Forest Audit The primary objectives of the audit are defined by the Urban Forest Audit System authors and adapted by the City's urban forestry consulting team to engage the full spectrum of the organizations' management team, provide program direction that increases the level of professionalism in management, conduct a gap analysis of management practices and the health of urban forests, provide strategic direction to improve the health of the urban forest, and optimize management for environmental justice and equitable distribution of resources. Urban Forest Audit Process The process of analyzing the urban forest involved extensive information and document gathering and research to identify policies, practices, programs, and standards pertaining to categories of urban forest sustainability and management as defined by Clark et al. (1997), Kenney et al. (2011), and the Forest Service. The categories are listed in Table 13. Each category has a series of subcategories pertaining to the specific category. As an example, the subcategories listed in Table 14 are in the Management Policy and Ordinances category: 1) Management Policy and Ordinances 2) Professional Capacity and Training 3) Funding and Accounting 4) Decision and Management Authority 5) Tree -related Inventories 6) Tree -related Plans 7) Risk Management 8) Disaster Planning 9) Standards and Best Practices 10) Community 11) Green Asset Management Table 13. Categories for evaluation using the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Audit System. 1.01) Climate Change (Sustainability) 1.02) No Net Loss 1.03) Risk Management 1.04) Tree Canopy Goals 1.05) Tree Protection 1.06) Utility 1.07) Human Health 1.08) Wildlife Diversity/Habitat/Protection 1.09) Performance Monitoring 1.10) Private Tree Ordinances 1.11) Public Tree Ordinances 1.12) Development Standards 1.13) High -Conservation Value Forests 1.14) Urban Interface (WUI) Table 14. List of subcategories within the Management Policy and Ordinances category of the audit Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 82 EVALUATE Measuring accomplishment of the actions will require ongoing analysis. The outcomes of the Urban Forest Au- dit System in the Evaluate section can be used to monitor change over time. These benchmark values should be tracked, and a state of the urban forest report should be prepared and distributed to the BENCHMARKS public ever 2 to 5 ears. Analysis may include an updated public tree inventor i Tree bene- fits analyses, or urban tree canopy assessments. The state of the urban forest report should include the benchmark values as reported in the Plan and the Urban Forest Audit System as of 2023, so that the City can measure and compare changes to the urban forest. The report should reflect changes to the audit system that are measured. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 83 Primary Urban Forest Benchmark Values to Measure Plan Progress Tree Equity Score (2022) Urban Tree Canopy Short-term Canopy Goals Long-term Canopy Goals Total Trees to Reach 10-year Goal Total Trees to Reach 30-year Goal Total Public Trees (alive or dead) Total Public Street Trees Total Public Street Planting Sites Total Public Open Soace Trees Citywide (UTC Assessment) Ecosystem Benefits of Public Trees 87 out of 100 39.4% 39.9% by 2029 (1,850 trees/year) 40.6% by 2034 (1,850 trees/year) 44.4% by 2054 (3,000 trees/year) 18,500 trees by 2034 (1,850 trees/year) 91,000 trees by 20S4 (3,000 per year 42,000 (estimated) 25,000 TBD Unknown 2019: $76.5 million (total) 2022: $4.2 million (annual estimate Public Trees (street and park) per Capita 0.44 Budget per Capita $6.66 Urban Foresters (3 departments) 8.00 (2023) Total Public Trees per Staff 5.000 trees for every 1.0 FTE Public Trees Pruned Public Trees Removed Public Trees Planted Number of Volunteers and/or Hours Management Policy and Ordinances Professional Capacity and Training Funding and Accounting Decision and Management Authority Tree -related Inventories Tree -related Plans Risk Management Disaster Planning Standards and Best Management Practices Community Green Asset Management Tree -related priorities Preference for improving public tree health Where to prioritize future investments To be recorded at the end of the year To be recorded at the end of the year To be recorded at the end of the year To be recorded at the end of the vea r 71% 89%, 67% 63% 65% 54% 78% 64% 73% 62% want trees for shade 74% for setting canopy goals, 66% for more trees and preservation in development 70%for improved tree code for development Table 15. Fayetteville's primary urban forest benchmark values to measure Plan progress. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 84 REPORT AND REVISE To assess the progress of the Plan's implementation, the City's urban forestry department (or sim- ilar) should track, record, and report on the success metrics identified in the Urban Forest Audit REPORT CARD that was used to develop the Plan's goals. Based on the findings from these reports, the City should revise its policies, procedures, goals, codes, and other relevant areas as needed. ■ POLICY AND ORDINANCES Urban forest policies are the foundation for preserving the environmental benefits, resiliency, and the character of Fayetteville's urban forest. • List all City -led planning efforts. • Describe related City -led tree planting efforts. • Communicate citywide canopy goals. • List recommended changes to City Code, policies, and manuals. • Distribute any recommended tree list to city staff, partners, and residents. CAPACITY, TRAINING, AND AUTHORITY Fayetteville has the capacity and expertise to provide optimal levels of service for sound urban forest management. • List the existing staff and supporting departments and partners. • Summarize roles and responsibilities of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. • Describe existing and needed certifications, qualifications, and training. • Report the number of volunteers and volunteer hours. BUDGET AND FUNDING Funding and resources enable comprehensive and sustainable urban forest management for the preservation and enhancement of tree benefits. • Report the proportion of public trees to the City population. • Report the number of volunteers and volunteer hours. • List the unfunded urban forestry needs. • Report the budget, and donations. ASSESSMENTS AND PLANNING A thorough understanding of the urban forest ensures data -driven decisions, sustainable and comprehensive planning, and amplified tree benefits. • Report the number of public trees planted, pruned, and removed. • Report the number of trees assessed for risk. • Provide a summary of existing tree canopy cover citywide every two years. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 85 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Sustainable urban forest management and equity is achieved through a partnership with the City and its residents resulting in improved well-being, human health, and local economies. • List existing and potential partners. • Report the number of planting events and trees planted. • Report the history/count of Tree City USA and supporting awards. • Report the number of volunteers, events, and volunteer hours. • Report the results of public surveys. • Report on the activities of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board. GREEN ASSET MANAGEMENT Fayetteville proactively manages the public trees, continues to grow and expand a healthy canopy, effectively mitigates climate change impact. List the existing and potential outreach platforms and initiatives. • Report the number of public trees pruned, removed, and planted. • Report the number of mitigation plantings and stormwater plantings. • Report progress towards canopy goals and tree planting targets. • Provide a map of planting areas for upcoming year. • Report on Urban Forestry Audit score every 5 years. Figure 32. Evaluation, monitoring, and reporting techniques to achieve the urban forestry goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 86 REVISE ♦ Completion of this Plan is a critical step towards meeting the vision for Fayetteville's urban forest. Continual monitoring, analysis, and reporting will help to keep urban forest partners involved and focused on accomplishing the actions. Plans are typically revised every 10 to 15 years; hence, the Plan will need formal revision to respond and adapt to changes as they de- velop. Formal revision of the Plan should coincide with the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Park and Recreation System Master Plan, Energy Action Plan, Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual, climate/sustainability and stormwater plans, and other relevant planning efforts. Recommen- dations and goals of each should be compared. Revisions to the Plan may occur with major events, such as newly discovered pests or diseases, changes in program budget and resources, or significant changes to industry stan- dards or legal codes. Years 1-5 Year 5 Years 6-10 Year 10 Annual Action Urban Forest Audit Annual Urban Forest Audi Plans and and Plan Action Plans and and Plan Reports Amendments Reports Update Monthly Updated Monthly Updated Activities and Benchmarks and Activities and Benchmarks and Annual Report Plan Actions Annual Report Plan Actions Figure 33. Example of the plan implementation, evaluation, and revision process. Applying the Urban Forest Audit to Revise the Plan The Urban Forest Audit can serve as the tool for the City to effectively Evaluate, Monitor, Report, and Revise the Plan as part of the implementation and monitoring protocols. As found in the 2023 Urban Forest Audit completed to develop the Plan, there are areas of urban forest management where the City is performing at a high level and other areas where improvements are needed. The goals and actions in the Plan address both these strengths and challenges. 1) In Development 63 25% 49% 2) Adopted Common Practice 62 48% 48% 0) Not Practiced 4 0% 3% Table 16. Summary count of the evaluations completed in the 2023 Urban ForestAudit. Out of the nearly 130 elements (or subcategories) within the Audit, the majority (63 elements or 49%) ranked " 1) In Development" followed by 62 (48%) elements ranked as "2) Adopted Common Practice". Most of the elements given the "In Development" ranking was a result of the outcomes from the Urban Forestry Management Plan or the strategic actions within the Plan to be implemented. As the Plan is being implemented, the status or score of the categories within the audit should change. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 87 Section Conclusion 411. 41. !Not'A AK CONCLUSION Trees are an integral part of the community and the ecological systems in which they exist. They provide signif- icant economic, social, and ecological benefits, such as carbon sequestration, reduction of urban heat islands, energy savings, reduction of stormwater runoff, improvement of water quality, enhancement of human health and wellness, and increase the value of properties. Planting and maintaining trees helps Fayetteville become more sustainable and reduces the negative impacts on the ecosystem from urban development. Trees are as necessary as water, infrastructure, and energy to sustain healthy communities. The health of the urban forest is directly linked to the health of the region. The Urban Forestry Management Plan is a roadmap for a strategic approach to manage Fayetteville's urban forest. The Plan contains goals and supporting actions that are critical to the long-term vitality of the forest. However, in order for the Plan to actually have an impact on the forest resource, it requires stewardship and financial resources to begin implementation. Further, it needs to be institutionalized as a document requiring implementation with a sense of urgency to get things started. Completion of the Urban Forestry Management Plan clearly demonstrates that City leadership understands that a healthy urban forest is critical to guaranteeing the long-term health and vitality of the community. In order to accomplish the goals, the City should consider the following commitments: • Recognize that the trees of the urban forest are more than aesthetic enhancements. • Recognize trees as the backbone of the urban ecosystem and an essential part of the com- munity's green infrastructure. • Promote the health and growth of the urban forest by following scientifically established best management practices for tree selection, planting, watering, and pruning. • Promote a robust urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change. • Engage in a continuous process of long-range planning for the growth and maintenance of the urban forest. • Promote public appreciation of the urban forest through educational outreach programs. • Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through community education. • Proceed in a manner that is inclusive and transparent. Successful implementation of actions in this Plan will bring Fayetteville to a higher level of service that is more eq- uitably distributed across the City resulting in a sustainable and thriving urban forest that benefits all residents and future generations— ultimately achieving the Plan vision: Healthy Trees, Healthy City: Fayetteville's urban forest is to cultivate a thriving, diverse, and well -maintained tree canopy that enhances the livability, health, and sustainabil- ity of our community for current and future generations. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 89 �, j'k ,t All T• +ice ,'�► `C..' � � ��' +►.'. � •'�!• � ai. ��. c'• ,�; .. r����' � .�:, fit`., 4! ;��• .' •� • trC 1. i``••�� .,� i.1.�� •�a.M tie r:.3'' �,f: `.. - .. -. _.. ►� �.,. .� fir.,, •`8 w •rj� � ♦k. ..'a wr B..Ah + , ` 'e+•f1:, /V 7� /A.. t `V,x! r,t�7'ftf� wl n� ces and T_ Kk- �r f e ro t` �/: ' � ��' ,� •tip �' ` , J� �� •'�;' ` 1�iilhl �a :,� . _rces p rw�t r •TQ�f� 4lil.. - I �1 1 ram- � / rit • f 'r � f /y f�t t I I �� f t .!. . w��;, -_ ' � .. ,,.yyy� ' -ar • p• � , M � t.. «��,�� ems:' RWS�w ar.• 1 VIA I 1 U ,�1 _ .- j-' :3_•r � - l'r' - ��fh.... '��I �f II�fL1� 111 �ly •- INDEX APPENDIX A CANOPY GOALS 93 APPENDIX B URBAN FORESTRY AUDIT 94 APPENDIX C TREE PLANTING CRITERIA 110 APPENDIX D ORDINANCE EVALUATION 115 APPENDIX E EXISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS CROSS REFERENCING 121 REFERENCES 127 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Summary of the Vision and Guiding Principles 10 TABLE 2 Estimated annual benefits of Fayetteville's public trees 18 TABLE 3 Comparison of City boundary used by GIS 35 TABLE 4 Minimum canopy requirements by zoning 37 TABLE 5 Canopy information within the U of A property 44 TABLE 6 Summary of the department's staff 45 TABLE 7 Potential vulnerability to canopy 56 TABLE 8 Summary of vulnerable canopy 56 TABLE 9 USDA climate change atlas for increase trees species 58 TABLE 10 USDA climate change atlas for no change tree species 59 TABLE 11 USDA climate change atlas for decrease tree species 59 TABLE 12 Fayetteville's canopy goals, milestones, and targets 66 TABLE 13 Categories for US forest audit 82 TABLE 14 Sub -categories for the US forest audit 82 TABLE 15 Fayetteville's primary urban forest benchmarks 84 TABLE 16 Summary count of the evaluations completed 87 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Maps displaying the location of Fayetteville, Arkansas within Washington County FIGURE 2 A view of the Ozark Mountains from Fayetteville. Source: Experience Fayetteville 12 15 FIGURE 3 Illustration of types of trees in Fayetteville 26 FIGURE 4 Overview of Sample Inventory FIGURE 5 Overview of the species results of the 2022 sample inventory of public trees 28 29 FIGURE 6 Map displaying the tree canopy mapped from 2019 imagery 33 FIGURE 7 Citywide tree canopy results (2019). Source: City of Fayetteville FIGURE 8 Examples of the land cover class 34 011 FIGURE 9 Comparison of canopy in 2015, 2017 and 2019 35 FIGURE 10 Examples of the land cover classes analyzed as part of the 2019 tree canopy study 36 FIGURE 11 Map showing the Tree Equity Scores for Census Block Groups 39 FIGURE 12 Tree equity score inputs and Comparison of Tree Equity Scores for select Arkansas 40 FIGURE 13 Tree Equity Score comparisons for select U.S. cities. Source: American Forests' 40 FIGURE 14 An example of higher tree canopy cover east (right) of North Gregg Avenue 40 FIGURE 15 MaD of the canoDv within native and restored prairie land 42 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 91 FIGURE 16 The acres of native and restored prairie land 42 FIGURE 17 Native and restored prairie land 42 FIGURE 18 Map displaying tree canopy on University of Arkansas property within the urban core 45 FIGURE 19 Info -graphic summary of the public's priorities and viewpoints regarding the urban forest 50 FIGURE 20 Info- graphic summary of the feedback received from internal stakeholders 52 FIGURE 21 Streetscape design solutions for preventing or mitigating tree and infrastructure conflicts 54 FIGURE 22Types of easements found in the City of Fayetteville FIGURE 23 Canopy cover within vulnerable easements 55 56 FIGURE 24 Illustration of the temperature difference in urban areas due to the urban heat island effect 57 FIGURE 25 Climate change vulnerability of Fayetteville's public street trees FIGURE 26 Emerald Ash Borer Information oil FIGURE 27 Sudden Oak Death informaiton 61 FIGURE 28 Dutch Elm Disease Information FIGURE 29 Bacteria Leave Scorch Information 61 61 FIGURE 30 Priority_ planting areas to achieve canopy goals and the Plan's outcomes 68 FIGURE 31 Guiding principals and goals .• FIGURE 32 Evaluation, monitoring, and reporting techniques to achieve the urban forestry goals 86 FIGURE 33 Example of the plan implementation, evaluation, and revision process 87 Supplemental Material Contains more in-depth information and data. Supplement 1- Urban Forestry Benchmarks Supplement 2- Canopy Goal Setting and Priority Areas Supplement 3- Tree Inventory Summary Supplement 4- Public Survey Results Supplement 5- Staff & Board Member Survey Results Supplement 6- US Forest Service Urban Forest Audit Supplement 7- Recommended Tree List and Sister City Climate City Assessment Supplement 8- Invasive Plant Species Program Review Supplement 9- Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Project 2012 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 92 APPENDIX A. CANOPY GOALS Canopy Goal Assumptions: Data from Fayetteville's tree canopy cover assessments (2019) and the American Forests Tree Equity Score (TES) tool were analyzed to identify a feasible canopy goal and to develop strategies to achieve it. The draft canopy goal was refined by examining the available land area, resources, other ongoing city priorities, future land use, land ownership types, opportunities to mitigate urban heat, and preservation of native prairie land. Other considerations were our climate, elevations, historic canopy coverage for the regions, topography, survey results, climate change atlas, invasive species, and development patterns. The goals were set to be achievable and flexible so that staff could take different strategic approaches to planting trees. Using this integrated approach, the City of Fayetteville's ambitious and achievable goal is 44.4% tree canopy in 30 years— up from 39.4% based on 2019 imagery. To achieve this, the City and partners must preserve the existing canopy to the greatest possible extent, mitigate the lost canopy, and increase canopy coverage by planting trees. • Existing tree canopy cover is based on imagery from 2019. • Promote growing trees to maturity rather than focusing on a number. • A no -net -loss strategy is sought, balancing tree loss with tree gains through out the city. • Development projects must continue to mitigate tree removal, dedicate tree preservation easements, and add street trees. • Most new large neighborhoods are in previous pasture land. • Supporting citizens and growing trees in existing neighborhoods with POA/HOA support. • Trees that grow into large canopy trees are planted wherever feasible. • The City will need to plant public street planting sites and consider converting impervious surfaces to planting sites and planting in parks and natural areas. • Assumes a potential for young tree mortality post -planting is 10% with POA/HOA projects and City projects (the standard for Fayetteville is 10%). • Assume a potential for trees given away with a survival rate of 65% (10% is our mortality rate, and studies show around 75% make it into the ground from tree giveaways combined. The survival rate is an optimistic 65%). • $408 per tree is the average cost for contracted tree planting. • Emphasis should be placed on planting native and highly adaptable trees that support strategies for climate resiliency and tree species diversity. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 93 APPENDIX B: URBAN FORESTRY AUDIT US FOREST SERVICE URBAN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY AND MANAGEMENT AUDIT To assess the current state of Fayetteville's urban forest, the programs that manage it, and the community that shapes and benefits from it, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted using the framework of the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Audit (Abbot, et al., 2015). The framework was adapted from the Model of Urban Forest Sustainability (Clark, et al.,1997) and subsequent iterations. The primary objectives of the evaluation of Fayetteville's urban forest are defined by the authors and adapted by the Fayetteville Urban Forestry Management Plan consulting team: • Engage the full spectrum of the organizations' management team • Provide program direction for ongoing professional training • Conduct a gap analysis of management practices and the health of urban forests • Provide strategic direction to improve the health of the urban forest • Optimize management for environmental equity A sustainable system can be defined as one that survives or persists. In the context of urban forests, the objective can be stated as attempting to achieve the maximum long-term benefits over the greatest amount of time. Clark's framework provides specific criteria to evaluate sustainability along with measurable indicators. Social and economic factors as well as natural science are considered, as sustainability is often viewed as the "overlap between what is ecologically possible and what is societally desired by the current generation". Recognizing that both conditions will change over time, sustainability is addressed as a process rather than a goal (Clark, et al., 1997). Clark's framework categorizes urban forest sustainability indicators in terms of the trees (or resource), the management, and the people who benefit from the urban forest. Within each category, a series of urban forestry industry standards and best management practices were used to evaluate Fayetteville's current performance level. Indicators were rated as low, medium, or high based on available data and information provided by stakeholders. Assessment results were used to identify areas where Fayetteville's urban forest can be improved and to develop recommendations. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 94 RESULT Based on the analysis of findings from the needs assessment, Fayetteville scored a 73% in terms of urban forest sustainability and management as defined by the U.S. Forest Service, partners, and planning consultants. Based on 16 similar audits completed by the urban forestry consultants, the average score is 641/6. The City of Fayetteville scored relatively high when compared to other urban forestry audits completed by the consultants for other communities of similar size. Overall, the City scored highest in Professional Capacity and Training, Community, Green Asset Management, and Risk Management— all of which are at or above 75%. The Urban Forestry Management Plan provides guidance to maintain these strengths and to address shortcomings as opportunities. 71% 89% _ 67% - 63% _ 65% 54% 78% - 64% 73% 89% 80% Figure 33. Summary of the 2023 Urban Forest Audit completed for Fayetteville's Plan. The main purpose of the urban forest audit is to apply the research and findings gathered throughout the planning effort to inform the plan's goals, strategies, and priority actions. This audit or "gap analysis" enables the City's Urban Forestry Program to control different aspects of its program with data. This gap analysis identified the shortcomings that the program should overcome and by quantifying them, the program can make improvements. It also enables effective monitoring of Plan goals in that the audit categories and elements can be revisited at key intervals in the implementation process to measure progress and adapt strategies accordingly. For the comprehensive evaluation of all subcategories within the Urban Forest Audit, see Appendix B. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 95 All available documents and plans were reviewed and tallied in the audit worksheet as part of the information discovery phase. Based on the evaluation of the documents and outcomes of all planning processes (i.e., research, City staff interviews, urban forest benchmarks, data analyses, and community engagement) each subcategory within the 11 categories was "ranked" using the following system: 0) Not Practiced - Component doesn't exist or is not practiced; 0 points 1) In Development - Component is in development as part of or aside from this Plan;1 point 2) Adopted Practice - Component is routinely practiced; 2 points 3) Exceeds Adopted Practice - The component is exceeded; 3 points The points were then totaled for an overall rating to provide a summary of the City's level of achieving each category of urban forest management and sustainability. Urban Forest Audit Results for Fayetteville 1 Management Policy, Ordinances 50% 67% 20 71% 2 Professional Capacity and Training 100% NA 16 89% 3 Funding and Accounting 75% NA 8 67% 4 Decision, Management Authority 50% 100% 5 63% 5 Tree -related Inventories NA 560/0 17 65% 6 Tree -related Plans NA 50% 13 54% 7 Risk Management 83% 50% 14 78% 8 Disaster Planning NA 67% 9 64% 9 Standards and BMPs*** 75% 69% 44 73% 10 Community 100% NA 25 89% 11 Green Asset Management NA NA 16 80% *Standard of Care (SOO) elements represent the minimum group of urban forestry management "best practices" that a municipality should consider for implementation. SOO refers to the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care (i.e., legal obligation of the controlling authority, owner, or manager) to minimize risk. Neither state, regional, nor national minimum management components have been established for SOO but these are interim recommendations for consideration. (NA = not applicable) **Base Practices (BP) elements represent additional urban forest management activities or components that may effectively expand a program beyond the SOO group (see footnote above). These elements are typically precursors to other "non -core" elements in the category. (NA = not applicable) ***Best Management Practices (BMPs) Table 18. Outcomes of the urban forest audit completed in 2023 for Fayetteville's Plan. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 96 Category Findings The City scored relatively average in this category due to the existing tree ordinances, Management development standards, and the Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual. The Tree - Policy and related Plans and Regulations section of this Plan summarizes existing tree ordinances Ordinances and Appendix C provides a summary of an evaluation of these ordinances based Rating of on industry standards and best practices. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes 71% urban forestry and tree canopy as a vital component in addressing climate change. As part of the Plan, a canopy analysis was completed, and canopy goals were drafted to support a "no net loss" approach with canopy expansion. Professional Staff have industry certifications, qualifications, and training. The Urban Forestry Capacity and Program has staff for park and trail tree maintenance and to administer tree Training preservation and protection for new development. In addition, the program works with Rating of other departments, partners, and contractors to plant trees. In recent years, staffing 89% levels increased but capacity should be evaluated periodically to ensure it aligns with the goals of this Plan and the service demands. The City's adopted budgets have specific line items for the Urban Forestry Program Funding and and staff. The City's Tree Escrow account is one funding source for tree planting Accounting activities. The figures reported for Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA accreditation Rating of incorporate budgets from other departments but do not include the urban forestry 67% budgets for Public Works' programs responsible for planting trees. Until very recently tree escrow was the primary funding source, now, there is a designated budget for tree planting. The score will improve with the next audit score. An Urban Forestry Advisory Board exists to advise on urban forestry matters. Decision and Currently, urban forest management is distributed across three groups in three Management different departments. The delineation of responsibilities at times is unclear and there Authority is no single department or staff person designated as a point of contact for urban Rating of forestry. It is likely that communications and workflows could be improved with an 63% adjusted program structure. Unique to other cities, Fayetteville's Urban Forester in Development Services has direct authority and oversight on tree preservation and protection for new development. Fayetteville completed a sample inventory of public trees and planting spaces along Tree -related with a private tree sample inventory. In addition, the City conducted GIS analyses of Inventories urban tree canopy cover over four time periods and examined the correlation of tree Rating of canopy to sociodemographic data. Also, the Urban Forester actively tracks canopy 65% gains and losses occurring on development projects— one of the most robust tracking systems the urban forestry consultants have seen. Within the City, the University of Arkansas has an inventory of its trees through its Arboretum Mapping Project. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 97 Tree -related Tracking and reporting of urban forest management activities, this Plan, and urban Plans forestry referenced in the Comprehensive Plan and canopy goals in the Energy Action Rating of Plan resulted in higher than average scores for certain elements within this category. 54% The City completed a Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity Story Map and supporting reports. Risk The Urban Forester in Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs is trained in tree Management risk assessments and the City has an adopted standard of care. The City completed a Rating of sample public tree inventory in 2022 to inform management strategies. The City also 78% has an Emergency Operations Plan, actively manages invasive plant species and pests and diseases, and has lists and resources for recommended and prohibited trees. Disaster Planning The City's maintenance staff and contractors address downed trees and limbs and Rating of collaborate when extensive response is needed. 64% Standards, Fayetteville has an average rating for this category though its strengths include and Best tree ordinances, the Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual, Comprehensive Practices Plan, Standard Details such as the Tree Preservation detail, clear guidance on the Rating of City's website relating to regulations and best practices, tree species lists, and tree 73% protection requirements for construction and development. Fayetteville has been a Tree City USA city consecutively since 1995, demonstrating the value placed on urban forests. This Plan included a public survey and has Community engaged and informed the public through an interactive project website— Speak Up Rating of Fayetteville. The City conducts Arbor Day events, has an Urban Forestry Advisory 89% Board, engages the public through social media, website, and other platforms, addresses service requests, conducts the annual Celebration of Trees event, has an on line resource for Amazing Trees in Fayetteville, provides education resources and trainings, and works closely with other community partners. The sample public tree inventory determined there are 54 unique tree genera and 111 unique tree species resulting in no tree species exceeding the recommended diversity Green Asset thresholds. The size classes of public trees are in line with an ideal distribution and Management the majority (75%) of public trees are in good condition. Also, only 6% of trees are Rating of recommended for removal and the primary maintenance need is clearance pruning 80% (8%). Most importantly, the City's Park Maintenance's right-of-way crews proactively prune approximately 4,000 public trees per year resulting in an estimated 5.7- year rotation and the Urban Forestry Program conducts public park and trail tree maintenance. The information provided in the table above describes the current conditions of Fayetteville's urban forest, the programs that manage it, and the community framework. As recommended in the Plan's monitoring methods, the City should use this framework to evaluate implementation progress, report successes, and inform changes to Plan actions. Many of the urban forest audit elements were given a rating of "In Development" as they previously did not exist but are addressed in this Urban Forestry Management Plan. This means that the City is already well underway in advancing its program and its Urban Forest Audit score. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 98 APPENDIX B. 2023 URBAN FORESTAUDIT RESULTS Urban Forest Audit Scoring Key Not Practiced (0) In Development (1) Management Policy Adopted Practice (2) Climate Change Also referred to as Sustainability. With reference to urban trees. 1.01 (Sustainability) Addresses the long-term health and productivity of the natural resource. 1.02 No Net Loss No net loss is mitigating the lost canopy within 20 years. 1.03 Risk Management Should reference: ANSI A300 Part 9, ISA BMP, and prioritization funding mechanisms. 1.04 Tree Canopy Goals Overall community/campus goal, or by designated "zone". 1.05 Tree Protection Construction and/or landscape maintenance. 1.06 Utility Utility pruning, planting, and installation policy (e.g. boring vs. trenching). Recognizes and addresses the human health benefits of the Human Health - Physical & shade natural resource (e.g., exercise, air quality, stress management, 1.07 Psychological ) Could also include Urban Heat Island (UHI) policies. 1.08 Wildlife Mammals, birds, or reptiles. Diversity/Habitat/Protection Recognizes the annual or biennial calculation of metrics (e.g. 1.09 Performance Monitoring some component of ecosystem services) for the purpose of tracking management performance. 1.10 Ordinance (Private) Tree protection and management for trees on private property. 1.11 Ordinance (Public) Tree protection and management for public trees. US Green Building Council's LEED® rating systems (or similar internationally) 1.12 Development Standards LEED v4 BD+C (Sustainable Sites) LEED 4 ND (Neighborhood Pattern & Design, Green Infrastructure) ASLA's SITES® Rating System High -Conservation Value Programs or policies for identification, acquisition, and/or 1.13 Forests protection of groups of trees or forests that provide unique public benefits. 1.14 Urban Interface (WUI) Programs or policies that improve management of the urban interface for fire and/or invasive species. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 •• Capacity and Training 2.01 Certified Arborist - Staff International Society ofArboriculture 202 Certified Arborist - International Society of Arboriculture Contracted 2.03 Certified Arborist - Other International Society of Arboriculture Resource Other Professional - This could be a professional in an allied field like Landscape 2.04 Advising/directing OF Architecture. management 2.05 Municipal Forestry Graduate of Society of Municipal Arborist's MFI program or Institute similar 2.06 USFS Urban Forestry Attendance at USFS UFI or similar Institute or similar Campus/city arborist - ISA 2.07 CA instructor for CEUs Arborist routinely provides ISA CEU presentations/workshops. 2.08 Tree Board University or On-line training modules from Oregon U&CF for Tree similar Board/Advisory Council or similar Organizational Process, procedures, and protocol for cross -professional 2.09 communications within the organization (all departments Communications "touching" trees). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 100 Funding and Accounting 3.01 Budgeted Annually Budget authorized/required for tree board, tree maintenance, and/or tree planting. Contingency Budget A protocol is in place to prioritize urban forestry management 3.02 activities during budget shortfalls; e.g. during times of limited Process funding for:') risk management, 2)young tree care, 3) mulching. 3.03 Funding Calculated from Budget in terms of per capita, per tree, or for performance (e.g. Community Attribute per tree weighted by size class or age. 3.04 Funding Based on Budget connected with/based on ecosystem service (ES) Performance Monitoring monitoring and performance. 3.05 Urban Forestry Line Item Is the budget specific to urban forest management? Maintain green infrastructure data in the "unaudited 3.06 Green Asset Accounting supplementary disclosure of an entity's comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) . GASB 34 implementation for municipalities. Authority Professional urban forest manager with authority over the 4.01 Urban Forest Manager program and day-to-day activity. Including designated budget line item. 4.02 Staff Authority Designated staff with authority over the program and day-to-day activity. Including designated line item. Established protocol and mechanism(s) for communication among all members of the urban forest management 4.03 Communication Protocol "community" in your municipality or organization (e.g. manager, department under control, advisory board, finance, field operations, public, NGOs, business community, developers). 4.04 Tree Board, Commission, Establishes a board for public participation (advisory or with or Advisory Council authority). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 101 Tree -related Inventories 5.01 Canopy Inventory (UTC) Periodic (<_S year) canopy inventory and assessment. Public & private. Recent (<_S year) ecosystem services (ES) inventory & assessment? 5.02 Ecosystem Services Public:100% or street trees; Public & Private: Sample; or Campus. Or, are ES calculated annually or biennially based on partial re - inventory and projected growth as a monitoring tool. 5.03 Public Trees Evaluate below 5.04 Street Trees Encompassed with the current inventory. 5.05 Parks/Riparian Areas Encompassed with the current inventory. 5.06 Other Public Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space. Partial re -inventory to support continuous forest inventory, Continuous inventory on a growth projections, 5.07 cycle (<_S years; i.e. panel) and the calculation of ecosystem services for the purpose of long- term monitoring of urban forest management performance (e.g. carbon or leaf surface). 5.08 Private Trees Evaluate below 5.09 Campus (Educational) Not applicable. 5.10 Corporate Not applicable. 5.11 Other Private Property Not applicable. Continuous inventory on a Partial re -inventory to support continuous forest inventory, 5.12 cycle (<_S years; i.e. panel), growth projections, and the calculation of ecosystem services for inventory software the purpose of long-term monitoring of urban forest management performance (e.g. carbon or leaf surface). 5.13 Green Stormwater BMP stormwater mitigation practices and locations (e.g. Infrastructure (GSI) Washington DC) Inventory data includes Lat/Long (i.e. GIS). Should address the spatial relationship between the natural resource and people (i.e. 5.14 Spatial residents, visitors, activities) that would help manage the resource for benefits associated with proximity (air quality, recreation, stress mitigation, improved educational opportunity). Maintenance and Planting Planting details (nursery, species, size, cost, contractor, etc.) 5.15 maintained with inventory or as separate database or Records Maintained recordkeeping system. Also pruning and removal histories. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 102 Tree -related Plans 6.01 Annual Maintenance An annual calendar that defines typical activity by season. To Calendar support scheduling. 6.02 Public Trees Evaluate below 6.03 Street Tree Management Public works Urban Forestry manages street trees. 6.04 Parks/Riparian Area Several restoration projects are underway. Management 6.05 Other Public Trees 6.06 Private Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space. Evaluate below 6.07 Campus (Educational) Not applicable. 6.08 Corporate Not applicable. 6.09 Other Private Property Not applicable. 6.10 Green Infrastructure There is a plan for green infrastructure. Large-scale projects. 6.11 Other Written Plans Not applicable 6.12 Tree Planting Plans are done yearly. 6.13 OF as Part of a Is any OF management plan referenced in the comprehensive Comprehensive Plan plan (i.e. county or municipality) or master plan (i.e. Campus)? Criteria and indicators based on A Model of Urban Forest Urban Forest Planning and Sustainability (C I a r k, J.R., Matheny, N.P., Cross, G., and Wake, V. 6.14 Management Criteria and 1997 Journal of Arboriculture.) or on work of W.A. Kenney, P.J.E. Performance Indicators van Wassenaer, and A.L. Satel in Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. (2011) Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 103 Risk Management 7.01 TRAQ Attained At least one staff or consultant is TRAQ. 702 Annual Level 1 (ANSI A300 All trees in high occupancy areas visited annually. Part 9 & ISA BMP) 7.03 Mitigation Prioritization A protocol for prioritizing mitigation following Level 1 and Level 2 assessments. Reflects the controlling agency's threshold for risk. 7.04 Occupancy Areas Mapped Has TRAQ staff/consultant discussed/mapped occupancy levels with controlling authority? A process has been put in place to maintain records on requests, 705 Recordkeeping, Reporting, inspections, evaluations, and mitigation of risk; and on the and Communications communications among the managers related to those risk assessments. 7.06 Standard of Care Adopted Controlling authority has adopted a Standard of Care (SOC) or risk management policy. Is there a written specification that meets requirements of ANSI 7.07 Tree Risk Specification A300 (Part 9)? And, has it been discussed with the controlling authority with relevance to the controlling authority's threshold for acceptable risk? 708 Urban Tree Risk The community has prepared and follows a comprehensive Management program for urban tree risk management. 7.09 Invasive Management Plan to address and manage invasive: plants, insects, and disease. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 104 Disaster Planning 8.01 E:X•N 8.03 8.05 8.07 Response/Recovery Staff knowledge of the municipality's protocol for requesting Mechanism disaster resources through the county or state with access to mutual aid and EMAC. Urban Forestry as part of The OF plan (8.3) is incorporated into the county/municipal the County Disaster Plan disaster plan; specifically in reference to debris management and risk mitigation. Urban Forestry Disaster A separate/specific plan within the urban forestry management Plan program (i.e. who to call, priorities). Pre -disaster Contracts Contracts are in place for critical needs. Mitigation Plan A mitigation plan has been developed for pre -disaster, recovery, and post -disaster. EMAC Mission Ready Municipality has published disaster resources with state EM and Packages (MRP) Participates in inter -state Mutual Aid to support Urban Forest Strike Teams (UFST). Urban Forest Strike Team Participation in the UFST project. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 105 Standards and Best Management Practices Reference and adherence to ANSI Standards for arboricultural 9.01 ANSI Standards practices (A300), safety (Z133), or Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) (any or all). 9.02 Specific management for the development of an age -diverse Ages/Diameter Distribution tree population 9.03 Arborist Standards Standards of practice for arborists (i.e. Certification). 9.04 Best Management Establishes or references tree maintenance BMPs (i.e. written Practices (BMPs) comprehensive standards & standards). 9.05 Fertilization and Mulching Fertilization or mulching standards required for conserved & planted trees. 9.06 Lightning Protection BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard. Systems 9.07 Planting Planting and transplanting standards required/specified. 9.08 Pruning Pruning standards required for conserved & planted trees. 9.09 Removal Infrastructure damage, stump grinding, etc. 9.10 Support Systems (Guying BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard. and Bracing) 9.11 Tree Risk Tree risk assessment procedures; ISA BMP or equivalent. Construction Management Written standards for: tree protection, trenching/boring in CRZs, 9.12 Standards pre -construction mulching, root or limb pruning, watering (any or all). 9.13 Design Standards Standards for design that specifically require trees; standards for tree placement (i.e. location), soil treatment, and/or drainage. 9.14 Genus/Species Diversity Suggests or requires diversity of plant material. 9.15 Green Stormwater BMPs for site level GI practices like rain gardens and swales. Infrastructure (GSI) Small-scale projects. 9.16 Inventory Data Collection Community has adopted or developed applicable standards for local urban tree inventory data collection to support QA/QC. 9.17 Minimum Planting Volume Minimum required root zone volume. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 106 Standards and Best Management Practices (continued) 9.18 Minimum Tree Size Minimum caliper for tree replacements, and/or minimum size of existing trees to receive tree density or canopy credit. 9.19 Root Protection Zone (CRZ) Defines adequate root protection zone; Critical Root Zone (CRZ). 9.20 Safety Safety logs, trainings, reference to ANSI Z133 Safety Standard 9.21 Topping Prohibits topping or other internodal cuts (public & private). Identifies and publishes a list of the most desirable, 9.22 Tree Species List recommended, and/or preferred species (may include native and non-native species); alternatively, a list of species prohibited. 9.23 Tree Quality Standards Written standards for tree selection at nursery in addition to Z60.1. 924 Utility Right -of -Way ( ROW) Requirements for planting, pruning, and/or removal of trees Management within a utility ROW. 9.25 Urban Agriculture Enabled urban food forestry practices. 9.26 Wood Utilization Larger diameter material is processed for wood products. 927 Third -party forest products Examples: American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Forest certification compliance Stewardship CouncilTM (FSC®). Local or regional use of chips or other woody debris for co- 9.28 Energy generation generation facilities (an efficient process that uses one fuel to generate two types of energy— electrical and thermal). 929 Composting of Leaf and/or Leaves and small woody debris are captured and used on -site or Other Woody Debris processed by someone by composting for reuse. 9.30 Watering Standards Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 107 Community Social Media Website or Does your community/campus use social media platforms or 10.01 Similar similar to document and publicize your urban forestry program, activity, or events? 10.02 Education 10.03 Private Property Tree Program Public -facing Tree 10.04 Inventory and Management Software 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 Public Perception Recognition Programs Arbor Day Celebration Arboretum designation Significant trees Memorial/Honorarium Social Media Active Communications Tree Care The urban forest is used as an educational laboratory for class activity; Kids in the Woods, PLT, high school, or college level. Does your community sponsor this program locally? Public access to the community tree resource via an on-line mapping program (i.e. any Web Map Service; WMS). Is public management consistent with private property requirements for tree protections and care? Does the Campus/public tree management reflect neighborhood norms? Programs that raise awareness of trees or that use trees to connect the community to significant events or activities. Whether or not associated with Tree City USA. Internal or third party arboretum designation. For example: size, history. Tree planting or tree care programs than honor/memorialize individuals, organizations, or events. Does your community/campus make use of Twitter, Facebook, Blogs for internal or external outreach? Press releases, regular news articles (print), "State of the Urban Forest" reports, periodic analysis of threats and opportunities. Are volunteers trained and used for basic tree care (e.g. mulching, pruning, planting). Tree Campus USA®, Tree Community/campus meets current qualifications for any of these City USA®, Tree Line USA® programs. 10.15 Volunteer Opportunities Ad hoc or scheduled. Any/all age groups. Tree Campus USA student activities. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 0.3 Green Asset Management 11.01 Deadwood Look for evidence of periodic or ad -hoc deadwood removal (i.e. lack of dead limbs >_ 2" in the trees or on the ground). No genera exceed 20% of population; make specific observations 11.02 Genus Diversity for Acer, Quercus, Fraxinus, Uimusand other local species of concern. 11.03 Mature Tree Care Mature trees are retained in the landscape, and are of acceptable risk; i.e. veteran tree management. Evidence of adequate (i.e. spatial extent, depth, and material) 11.04 Mulching roots zone mulching for all age classes. Planting Site Volume Are species & sites matched for optimization of above ground 11.05 Optimization canopy; right tree in the right spot concept. 11.06 Rooting Volume Are species & sites matched for optimization for below ground Optimization rooting volume; right tree in the right spot concept. No species/cultivars exceed 10% of population; make specific 11.07 Species Diversity observations for Acer, Quercus, Fraxinus, Uimusand other local genera of concern. Also evaluate the role of regionally local native species. Observe evidence of soil compaction by users or staff during 11.08 Soil Compaction maintenance. Include "desire" lines and construction activity at time of evaluation. 11.09 Tree Health Rate the overall tree health in all size (age) classes; look for crown dieback, decay, foliage density & color. Look for evidence of periodic (e.g. every 3 years to year 9) 11.10 Young Tree Pruning structural pruning (e.g. subordination cuts, dominant central leader, co -dominant stems lower that 20'). Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 ITO APPENDIX C: TREE PLANTING AREAS AND CRITERIA Priority Planting Areas to Achieve Canopy Goals and Tree Equity Once the City finalizes local and citywide tree canopy goals, it is recommended to establish priority areas based on a variety of themes and community needs. Themes may include ownership type (public and private), areas of low existing tree canopy, Tree Equity Scores (Tree EquityScore.org), and greatest amount of available planting space while other themes may address air quality, stormwater reduction, water quality, and preserving native land cover (e.g., native prairie land). Others may evaluate opportunities to address disadvantaged areas, densely populated regions, loss due to development, and human health factors such as asthma cases, median age, and mental health. In any planting prioritization scenario, the scale may include U.S. Census Bureau Census Block Groups, Future Land Use Classes, neighborhoods, ownership (public, private, campus and institutional), and citywide. Using the results from the 2019 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and an analysis of canopy change over four time periods and analyses in a Geographic Information System (GIS), a series of recommended prioritization techniques is provided. The description of the prioritization techniques and scenarios is provided below followed by a series of corresponding priority maps. Low Tree Canopy: It is important to understand the existing distribution of existing tree canopy across the City. This scenario shows Census Block Groups (CBGs) that are low in canopy cover (less than 35% canopy cover). Low Income and Tree Canopy: This scenario shows the CBGs with a high proportion of low-income populations and low amounts of tree canopy cover (less than 35%). Vulnerable and Exclusion Areas: Certain areas of the City may not be preferable to plant trees such as in native prairie land. Other areas are outside of the City's jurisdiction such as the University of Arkansas. And other areas such as easements have tree canopy that is vulnerable to change such as the removal of trees for a utility easement. Development and Future Land Use: With robust tree regulations in place, tree plantings in future land use areas can be considered to support a citywide canopy goal. Tree Equity: The American Forests' Tree Equity Score tool evaluates the correlation between tree canopy cover, surface temperatures, and socioeconomic data. Priority areas may include CBGs that have less than the citywide score of 87 out of100. Percent People of Color: Redressing tree canopy cover inequities requires multiple facets of urban forest management though identifying canopy cover and the proportion of people of color within CBGs can assist in determining priority areas for plantings. Average Surface Temperature: Trees and green spaces have been proven to lower surface temperatures and mitigate urban heat island effects. Data from USGS Landsat 8 imagery, thermal bands. Health Risk Index: Research shows trees can improve human health through air quality improvements and encouraging physical activity. Priority areas are based on self - reported poor mental health, poor physical health, asthma, and coronary heart disease from the Centers for Disease Control. View the maps on the following pages for examples of the listed planting priority techniques. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 110 ❑ City boundary ■ Civic Institutional ■ City Neighborhood ■ Residential Neighborhood ■ Rural Residential ■ Non -municipal Government ■ Urban Center -.� f ■ Civic & Private Open Space ■ Natural ■ Industrial • 197 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 ill Priority Planting Maps by Theme Figure 50. Priority planting maps by planting theme. J 0 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 112 -01 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 113 MI ❑ City boundary Low Health Risk ■ Moderate Health Risk ■ ■ High Health Risk r— L I (� 15 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 114 APPENDIX D: ORDINANCE EVALUATION The following considerations are provided for Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection and Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances. The evaluation is based on a checklist shown in the table on the following page. Considerations for changes may also pertain to City design standards, protocols, and manuals such as the Fayetteville Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual (referred to as the Tree Manual in this section). Based on this approach, the following summary provides the City with considerations for tree regulation changes in the future. Prior to any significant change(s) to tree ordinances, it is recommended that the City engage with internal and external stakeholders and the general public to gather input and feedback. Include references to the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessments and the amount of tree canopy cover (39.4% based on 2019 imagery) and associated ecosystem benefits. Begin by updating section 167.01 Purpose and section 177.01 Purpose with these references and expand on the purpose to include the benefits of trees in mitigating climate change and other benefits and services not currently listed such as the human health and social benefits. Consider creating a section within Chapter 167 ("Definitions") that specifically defines and clarifies urban forestry -related terms. An example of a clarification could include descriptions and criteria for "significant trees", "priority trees" (listed in section 167.04.E.3), and trees within the "Tree Registry". As an alternative, the definitions could be listed in the Tree Manual and referenced in Chapter 167. Identify changes to resources needed to provide adequate staffing for administration, monitoring, and enforcement of tree -related ordinances. Update Code language accordingly. Consider a more nuanced approach to tree mitigation requirements for private development. For example, large mature and/or specimen trees that are approved for removal should have a greater requirement in terms of mitigation, replacement plantings, and/or fees. Explore mitigation and penalties for the unauthorized removal of private protected trees Chapter 167) and public trees (Chapter 177). Periodically review and update canopy goal requirements as needed. Gather feedback to determine if any changes are necessary for public and private tree variances to the regulations. Develop incentives and regulations for projects to meet the canopy cover requirements (%'s) rather than defaulting to mitigation. During the periodic update to the Tree Manual, review the recommended tree species for planting and revise as needed based on the latest research and goals for tree species diversity. Periodically revisit the invasive plant species list in section 177.09 of Fayetteville's Code of Ordinances and update as needed based on the latest research, presence of species of concern, and the emergence of favorable habitats for new invasives to the region due to changing climates. Clarify roles and responsibilities for public street trees planted as part of private development projects (Chapter 177). Consider updating regulations for public street trees that are not planted as part of private development projects. Clarify regulations for trees in proximity or in conflict with overhead utilities. Review the evaluation table on the following page to finalize a scope of potential changes to tree -related ordinances. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 115 Table 22. Tree ordinance evaluation checklist. Source: PlanIT Geo Priority Level Key:1 = High Priority, 3 = Low Priority "-" = adequate regulations in place Requires certified arborist for paid X 167.07 private tree work Requires certified arborist for public X 167.07 tree work Requires licensing of private tree X 167.07 care firms Defines official authority for public X Throughout tree management Ch.177 I Public Tree Management and Protection Establishes/authorizes Urban X Throughout Forester to regulate public trees Ch.177 Establishes/Authorizes City position (e.g., Mayor, City X Administrator, DPW Director) to regulate public trees Requires annual public tree work plans Identifies formula for determining monetary tree value Establishes responsibility for public tree maintenance (e.g., City, X (Limited) adjacent property owner) Requires regular public tree maintenance Requires particular types of maintenance (e.g., pruning) Requires adherence to ANSI A300 standards and best management practices Establishes permit system for work on public trees Establishes provisions for penalties for non-compliance X (Limited) Defines the authority 177.02.13 and role of the Urban Forestry Advisory Board Chapter 177 does not 177.OS define responsibility 177.10 beyond those street trees planted as part of private development Provided only for street 177.10 trees planted as part of private development (3 yea rs) X 167.06.A X 167.06.A Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 2 1 1 1 3 2 116 Public Tree Management and Protection (continued) Restricts public tree removal X 167.06.0 Permit or approval required for tree removal, pruning or excavating near public trees Prohibits damage to public trees "Damage" should be (e.g., attaching ropes, signs, wires, 177.01 defined and prohibited "remove chemicals, storing materials, X 167.06.D rather than and replace damaged excavation etc.) landscape" Restricts burning of solid wood waste Establishes a wood utilization program Address pests/diseases of Establishes an insect/disease concern. Consider abilityto control strategy remove diseased trees on private property if a hazard Defines tree maintenance Only applies to street requirements on public property X (Limited) 177.10 trees as part of private development Prohibits tree topping X 167.06.E Regulates abatement of hazardous X 167.08 or public nuisance trees Regulates removal of dead or X 167.08 diseased trees Only applies to street trees as part of private development. Consider Tree Fund X (Limited) 177.10.A.5.b adjusting $250 fee -in -lieu and $425 3-year maintenance fees to align with industry and comparable cities' rates Public Tree Planting Regulates tree species which may Update periodically or may not be planted on private X 167.04.1.6 based on research and property (approved tree list) trends Requires replacement of removed X (Limited) 177.01 Only applies to private publicly owned trees development street trees Regulates tree species which may 16 Revisit species list or may not be planted on public X periodically and update property (approved tree list) ,677.0 .0 as needed 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 117 Private Tree Protection and Preservation Requires tree planting around X 177,167.04 reconstructed parking lots Ch.167 Table 1 Requires tree plantings around X 167.04 Required for lots with 5 or new parking lots Ch.167 Table 1 more spaces Plantings are regulated in Requires tree plantings around new X 167.04.1.4 terms of canopy retention developments Ch.167 Table 1 and high or low priority canopy Consider fees / fines for Restricts tree removal on private X (Limited) 167.04.L.3 violation(s). Only property restricted in tree preservation easements Permit or approval required for tree X (Limited) 167.04 Only restricted in tree removal on private property preservation easements Requires preservation of trees Mitigation is an option during development on private X 167.04 and should be a last property resort to preservation Prohibits damage to preserved/protected trees X 167.05 Prohibits damage or removal of Mitigation is the only trees on another person's property X (Limited) 167.05 penalty though. Consider changes Inventory of trees on site required X 167.04 Requires a preservation plan Identification of forests/woodlands X required 167.04 Revisit periodically to Specific species and/or size of trees determine if sizes reflect regulated (e.g., heritage/significant X (Limited) 167.04.E species significance and trees) value. Needs more protection in Code Location of Critical Root Specification provided in Zone/Dripline required X 167.05 Tree Preservation and Landscape Manual Table 1 Consider updating Minimum canopy coverage X 167.04.0 canopy requirements requirement set using the canopy assessment data and canopy goals as needed 3 2 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 118 Private Tree Protection and Preservation (continued) Identification of riparian buffers, X 167.04.E.2 natural areas, preservation zones Tree protection/preservation plan rX 167.04 required i red Identification of prohibited activities X 167.05 Also in Tree Preservation in dripline/critical root zone and Landscape Manual 167.04.H.2 Tree protection fencing required X 167.04.H.3 Chain link or orange 167.05. B fence required Location/type of other tree protection measures (e.g., root pruning, aeration, vertical 167.04.H.2 mulching, trunk/soil protection, X 167.04.H.3 irrigation,) on development plans 167.05.13 (e.g., site plans, construction plans, etc.) On- and off -site mitigation offered, fee -in - lieu toward Escrow Provide incentives for tree X (Limited) 167.04.1 account. Reevaluate for preservation 167.04.J additional incentives to preserve canopy rather than mitigate. No credits considered Landscape plan with proposed landscaping and mitigation trees to X 167.04 be planted Requires Grading plan to include X 167.04.A.10 protected/preserved trees Consider referencing industry standards for utility pruning and to consult with Urban Utility plan with trees to include X (Limited) 167.06.J Forester for pruning or protected/preserved trees removing trees encroaching utilities (above and below ground, including proposed lights) 1 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 119 Private Tree Protection and Preservation (continued) Consider a 2:1 replacement ratio for si nificant s ecimen Tree planting requirements for g ' p removal of regulated trees X 167.04.0 special / priority trees or mitigation that is based on the diameter inches of tree(s) removed Determine if Escrow Fee in Lieu of planting mitigation Account fee per tree trees X 167.04.J.4 required and 3-year maintenance fee is adequate Tree mitigation survival Binding 3-year requirements X 167.10 maintenance and monitoring plan New tree planting survival Binding 3-year requirements X 167.10 maintenance and monitoring plan No penalties, fees, or Fine for removal of regulated trees fines listed. Only tree mitigation (planting) currently Penalties established for damage and removal of preserved/saved fines listed trees Atree bond requires a land developer to deposit a certain amount of money with the local Bonding utilized to discourage tree authority during removals development. If the identified tree or trees are not present and healthy after the development, the funds are forfeited. Tree Fund X 167.04.J.4 City's Tree Escrow 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 120 APPENDIX E: EXISTING CITY PLANS CROSS REFERENCING The Urban Forest has been valued for decades and accounted for in many planning efforts across city departments. References to the urban forest in other plans have been extracted and are summarized below. PLAN NAME & DATE EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST THE CITY PLAN 2040 VISION, City Plan 2040 Goals 2020 UPDATE Goal 1 - We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our aft n..2"o highest priority. P. 22. a,r,nrr.r _._. 3.1.5 Reinvest in parks, street, and civic buildings within the heart of the City. • The tree -lined streets, parks, and historic civic buildings found in Fayetteville's older neighborhoods greatly contribute to the unique community character and high quality of life that treasure. Preservation tree residents of our -lined streets and parks and adaptive reuse of our historic civic buildings will maintain the community cultural identity. The City should continue to utilize the Enduring Green Network map to identify and preserve high -value open spaces that help to create an interconnected green network throughout the community. P. 24 Goal 5 - We will assemble and enduring green network. P. 40 3.5.1 Vigilantly nurture a continuum of greenspace. 3.5.2 Strategically plan for and acquire land that can be incorporated into the Enduring Green Network. 3.5.3 Promote conservation easements and alternative development patterns that encourage efficient use of land. ENERGY ACTION PLAN, 2018 Cross Sector Building UPDATE Strategy 3. Make existing institutional, commercial, and 6. industrial buildings more efficient. P. 37 Encourage heat island mitigation features to help lower utility costs for residents and businesses. --�- Encourage tree planting, green roofs, and other energy -saving .. f. ._ techniques across the City through education, outreach, and tree give-aways. Strategy 4: Conduct a community -wide tree canopy assessment and set a tree canopy coverage percentage goal. P. 39 Target areas in need of additional tree canopy by creating a tree canopy map layer. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 121 LAN NAME & DATE (EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST ENERGY ACTION PLAN, 2018 I CROSS SECTOR- BUILDINGS UPDATE Strategy 4: Conduct a community -wide tree canopy assessment and set a tree canopy coverage percentage goal. P. 39 Explore a strategy and funding mechanism to increase the permanent preservation of lands identified as the "Enduring Green Network" in the City's Future Land Use Plan and Map. These lands may be City -owned or preserved through land trusts, tree preservation easements, or other mechanisms. Increase awareness of utility -focused "Right Tree, Right Place" program through joint outreach campaigns. Explore options to develop a tree planting program partnering with residents, business owners, and institutions for the planting of trees in right-of-way, on easements, or on private properties. Evaluate the feasibility of modifying existing tree preservation minimums and mitigation rates in the City's Tree Preservation Code to improve the long-term ecological outcomes of urban development. Conduct a community -wide tree canopy assessment every five years. City Government Strategies Strategy 2: Make all new and existing city -owned facilities and assets more energy efficient. P. 58 Action Items: Explore a strategy and funding mechanism to increase the permanent preservation of lands identified as the "Enduring Green Network" in the City's Future Land Use Plan and Map. These lands may be City -owned or preserved through land trusts, tree preservation easements or other legal mechanisms. Install native landscaping to provide relief from the urban heat island effect and reduce cooling costs in summer months. Continue to prioritize tree planting at existing and new facilities to provide shade, infiltrate stormwater, improve air quality, and generally enhance our urban ecosystem functions. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 122 LAN NAME & DATE (EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST 6.0 Nature Based Solutions Ecosystem Services Goal 3: Preserve land within the City's planning area that provide high ecosystem services for resilience to extreme weather events. P 38. W� •, .«, Action: Explore bond potential for land acquisition and conservation. P. 40 Goal 4: Restore and improve ecosystem services provided by existing preserved natural areas. Existing preserved lands identified as having high ecosystem services value for adaptation to extreme weather events should be prioritized for conservation and restoration efforts. P. 41 Action: Secure the necessary funding to meet the annual tree planting targets and implement a tree establishment program Goal 5: Reduce climate change threats to public infrastructure and private property. P. 42 Actions: Implement strategies and actions identified in the 2023 Urban Tree Plan and Assessment. Plant species that provide optimal ecological benefit in City owned parks, trails, and rights -of -way. Update tree lists that prioritize native and climate -resilient tree species. Identify opportunities to "rewild" parks that contribute to ecosystem resilience Ecosystem Resilience Goal 1: Identify lands with high levels of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. P. 43 Actions: Create a city-wide tool to track environmental assets and ecosystem services. Identify opportunities to "rewild" parks that contribute to ecosystem resilience. Goal 2: Preserve lands with high levels of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. P. 43 Actions: Acquire at least 100 acres of land with very high value for climate resilience by 2040. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 123 LAN NAME & DATE (EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST Goal 3: Restore and enhance City -owned or managed lands with high levels of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. R 45 Actions: Plant species that provide optimal ecological benefit in City owned parks, trails, and rights -of -way. Identify opportunities to "rewild" parks that contribute to ecosystem resilience. Plant species that provide optimal ecological benefit in City owned parks, trails, and rights -of -way. Provide native plant species that offer optimal ecological benefit for the annual tree and plant giveaway events hosted by the Urban Forestry Division. Update tree lists that prioritize native and climate -resilient tree species. Goal 4: Support on -going ecological education and outreach efforts by local expert organizations. P. 46 Actions:Plant species that provide optimal ecological benefit in City owned parks, trails, and rights -of -way. Provide native plant species that offer optimal ecological benefit for the annual tree and plant giveaway events hosted by the Urban Forestry Division. Carbon Sequestration Goal 1: Measure and track carbon sequestration in the City's tree canopy and natural environment. P. 47 Actions: Calculate the carbon sequestration, storage, and avoided carbon generated from the citywide urban tree canopy cover. Goal 2: Increase carbon sequestration into the City's soils, plants, and tree's biomass. P. 47 Actions: Implement strategies and actions identified in the 2023 Urban Tree Plan and Assessment. Plant native tree and plant species that provide optimal carbon sequestration benefit in City owned parks, trails, and rights -of - way. Distribute native tree and plant species that provide optimal carbon sequestration benefit for the annual tree and plant giveaway events hosted by the Urban Forestry Division. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 124 PLAN NAME & DATE EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST Goal 3: Preserve and enhance existing carbon sinks such as wetlands, prairies, and forests. P. 48 Actions: Implement strategies and actions identified in the 2023 Urban Tree Plan and Assessment. _ �'`� Plant native tree and plant species that provide optimal carbon sequestration benefit in City owned parks, trails, and rights -of -way. Distribute native tree and plant species that provide optimal carbon sequestration benefit for the annual tree and plant giveaway events hosted by the Urban Forestry Division. Acquire lands with high carbon sequestration value. PLAN NAME & DATE EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST Pedestrian Recommendations — Planning P. 36 • • Include greenspace separation and/or street trees for all city and privately developed sidewalk projects. I Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 125 PLAN NAME & DATE EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST PARK AND RECREATION Guiding Principle 1: Nature Connection SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Goal A2: Raise awareness about parks, recreation offerings, (FEBRUARY 2023) environmental education, and trails. P. 57 400 Strategy g) Provide environmental education through < <.•• signage, program partnerships, outdoor classrooms and IMAGING-1 stewardship and volunteerism. FAYETTMLLE ..-•. AND RECREATION SYSTEM MAST' Goal A3: Increase nature interaction opportunities in parks, focusing on more urbanized areas of Fayetteville. P. 58 mom Restore flood plains and wetland areas, adding bird viewing screens and other amenities to promote nature based activities in locations and with methods that do not negatively impact wildlife or sensitive ecologies. 1 Guiding Principle 5: Resilient Natural Systems P. 80 ` Goal E1. Conserve land and strategically direct acquisitions for conservation to meet environmental and community objectives. a) Develop a Conservation Plan to advance the "Enduring Green Network" and other natural resource goals. Include a natural lands and open space acquisitions action plan with consideration to linked growth concepts. b) Re -purpose city properties and acquire properties in the city center that will provide access to nature contact and deliver environmental services. c) Partner with Northwest Arkansas Land Trust, Watershed Alliances, Corp of Engineers, Department of the Interior and others to conserve land. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 126 PLAN NAME & DATE EXCERPTS PERTAINING TO URBAN FOREST PARK AND RECREATION Goal E2. Promote green infrastructure and regional systems SYSTEM MASTER PLAN in support of (FEBRUARY 2023) environmental conservation and preservation. P. 81 Strategies: a) Seek opportunities for stormwater properties to serve multiple purposes such as urban forest or recreation purposes. ►� ' '""" b) Implement best management practices to reduce flooding IM4GINE-D and erosion and preserve the quality of streams. FAYETTEVILLE • AND RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN x,u"o Goal E3. Enhance the ecological performance of existing parks and natural land properties. P.82 a) Improve management of natural resources within city properties and make improvements that enhance performance for ecological/climate action purposes. b) Create a dedicated natural resources team within parks maintenance to focus on natural areas. c) Coordinate with the Urban Forestry Plan to increase/ improve tree canopy throughout the parks system where appropriate. d) Integrate volunteers and environmental educators (such as the Watershed Conservation Resource Center) into restoration and environmental enhancement projects. e) Educate about the value of unconventional management practices such as prescribed burns, livestock grazing, weed management and use of native grasses. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 127 References Abbot, J., Hartel, D., Kidd, S., Macie, E., Mitchell, C., "Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Review" spreadsheet developed by Urban Forestry South (USDA Forest Service, Region 8, SRS- 4952, Athens, GA. Original checklist develop in cooperation with Agnes Scott College Office of Sustainability, the ASC Arboretum Advisory Council, and the City of Austin, TX, 2015. Alliance for Community Trees. 2011. Benefits of trees and urban forests: A research list. www. actrees.org. Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., et al., Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association, National Library of Medicine, June 2010. Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., "A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability: Application to Cities in the United States." Journal of Arboriculture 24(2): pp. 17-30, March 1997. Drescher, M. "Urban heating and canopy cover need to be considered as matters of environmental justice." National Library of Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), December 2019; 116(52): 26153-26154. Endreny, T.A. Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world. Nat Commun 9, 1160 (2018). https://doi.org/l0.1038/s41467-018-03622-0 Environmental Protection Agency, What Climate Change Means for Arkansas, EPA 430-F-16-006, August 2016. Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 34, 487-515. Fowler, A. (Ed) 2015. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1678 pp. Hauer, R., Petersen, W., "Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities." 2016. Iverson, L.R., Peters, M.P., Prasad, A.M., and Matthews, S.N. (2019). Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on Tree Species of the Eastern US: Results of DISTRIB-II Modeling. Forests. 10(4): 302. https://doi.org/l 0.3390/f10040302. Keet, C. A., Matsui, E. C., McCormack, M. C., Peng, R. D., Urban residence, neighborhood poverty, race/ethnicity, and asthma morbidity among children on Medicaid, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Volume 140, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 822-827, ISSN 0091-6749. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 484 pp. Kim Y. J., Kim, E. J. Neighborhood Greenery as a Predictor of Outdoor Crimes between Low and High -Income Neighborhoods. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 25;17(5):1470. Konijnendijk, C., "Promoting health and wellbeing through urban forests — Introducing the 3-30-300 rule, Linkedln, February 2021. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 128 Leahy, I. (2017). Why We No Longer Recommend a 40 Percent Urban Tree Canopy Goal. American Forests, americanforests.org. Accessed January 2023. McPherson, G.E., 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17 (2016) 104-115. Mihandoust, S., Joseph, A., Kennedy, S., MacNaughton, P., Woo, M. Exploring the Relationship between Window View Quantity, Quality, and Ratings of Care in the Hospital. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 12;18(20). Miller, R. W. (1988). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Miller, R. W., Hauer, R. J., & Werner, L. P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces, Third Edition. National Forest Foundation. (2014). Ozark Mountains, Stewardship and Restoration of the Ozark National Forest, Arkansas. Arkansas: National Forest Foundation. Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC). Regional and Community Planning. Accessed February 2023, nwarpc.org. Pontius, R. and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 32, 15: 4407-4429. Richards, N. A. 1983. "Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population." Urban Ecology 7(2):159-171. Richards, N.A. 1993. Reasonable guidelines for street tree diversity. Journal of Arboriculture 19:344-349. Roman, Lara, Battles, John J., McBride, Joe R. (2014) Determinants of establishing survival for residential trees in Sacramento County, CA. Landscape and Urban Planning. 22-31. Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J., Margules, C. R., Conservation Biology, Volume 5, No. 1, pp. 18-32. "Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review." March 1991. Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., "Children With Attention Deficits Concentrate Better After Walk in the Park;' Journal of Attention Disorders 12.5 (2009): 402-409. Ulmer, J.M.; Wolf, K.L.; Backman, D.R.; Tretheway, R.L.; Blain, C.J.; O'Neil -Dunne, J.P.; Frank, L.D. Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health Place 2016, 42, 54-62. Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., van den Bosch, M., Bardekjian, A. C., "Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2020. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area Data Pamphlet, Washington County, Arkansas. Accessed February 2023, woodsandpoole.com. Fayetteville, Arkansas • Urban Forestry Management Plan • 2024 129 Received From: John Scott 10/23/2' 6 I LfA N-4 SUPPLEMENTS 1. Urban Forestry Benchmarks Budget Comparison 2. Canopy Goal Setting and Priority Areas Planting Priority Maps Prairie Maps 3. Tree Canopy Inventory Species Distribution Ecosystem Benefits 4. Public Survey Summary 5. Staff and Board Member Survey Summary 6. US Forest Service Urban Forest Audit 7. Recommended Tree list and Sister City Climate City Assessment Future Climate Comparison Climate Change Species Recommendation Climate Adaptation Report 8. Invasive Plant Species Program Review 9. 2012 Fayetteville Urban Tree Canopy Report `F, 1 it. 1 URBAN FOREST BENCHMARKS Last Updated: 8/30/2023 A comparison summary of analogous Arkansas Tree City USA cities for the. - City of Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan CITY OF 05I _ FAYETTEVILLE PlanffGeo" A R K A N S A S ,, developers of TreePlotter MW PIanITGeo aeeiove.s a r.eeoione. CONTENTS Background and Overview....................................................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................................................................................1 Benchmarking Data Sources....................................................................................................................................1 Phase I Benchmarking Research........................................................................................................................2 Summary of Communities for Benchmarking Research...........................................................................2 Comparison Cities & Comparison Groups.......................................................................................................2 Phase I Benchmarking Comparison........................................................................................................................3 UrbanForestry Budgets (2021)...............................................................................................................................3 UrbanForestry Activities..........................................................................................................................................10 Table Summary of Urban Forestry Budgets and Activities(2021)...................................................15 Budgetper Capita Summary (2021)..................................................................................................................16 Phase II Benchmarking Research....................................................................................................................17 UrbanForestry Budgets............................................................................................................................................17 Comparison of Public Tree Counts, Distribution, and Value..............................................................19 Phase III Benchmarking Research.......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. sw PIanITGeo aeeiove�s a r�eeoione� TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1. Communities benchmarked for the Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan.................2 Table 2. Complete table summary of all benchmarking metrics in Phase 1(2021).............................................15 Table 3. Summary of urban forestry budgets compared to city populations (per capita) in 2021............16 Figures Figure 1. Comparison of urban forestry budgets in 2021........................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Comparison of urban forestry budgets per capita in 2021..............................................................................4 Figure 3. Comparison of tree planting and initial care budgets in 2021......................................................................5 Figure 4. Comparison of tree maintenance budgets in 2021.............................................................................................6 Figure 5. Comparison of tree removal budgets in 2021..........................................................................................................7 Figure 6. Comparison of management budgets in 2021.......................................................................................................8 Figure 7. Comparison of other expenditures in 2021................................................................................................................9 Figure 8. Comparison of volunteer hours in 2021.....................................................................................................................10 Figure 9. Comparison of the number of trees planted in 2021.........................................................................................11 Figure 10. Comparison of the number of trees pruned in 2021.......................................................................................12 Figure 11. Comparison of the number of trees removed in 2021.....................................................................................13 Figure 12. Combined comparison summary of tree management activities in 2021........................................14 Figure 13. Comparison of urban forestry budgets (Hauer, 2014).....................................................................................17 Figure 14. Urban forestry budget compared to the total municipal budget (Hauer, 2014) ..........................17 Figure 15. Total municipal budgets (Hauer, 2014).....................................................................................................................18 Figure 16. Average budget per public tree (Hauer, 2014).....................................................................................................18 Figure 17. Comparison of urban forestry budget per capita (Hauer, 2014)..............................................................18 Figure 18. Comparison of the number of public trees (Hauer, 2014)............................................................................19 Figure 19. Comparison of public trees per capita (Hauer, 2014)......................................................................................19 Figure 20. Comparison of the number of public trees per full-time tree care employee (Hauer,2014)19 Figure 21. Comparison of the acres of public parks and open space (Hauer, 2014)..........................................20 Figure 22. Comparison of the value of public trees (Hauer, 2014).................................................................................20 wo Plan Geo Background The purpose of Urban Forest Benchmarking is to understand the level of effort and capacity necessary to satisfy the City's adopted goals, to identify industry trends and best practices, and to ensure urban forest sustainability. Benchmarks help to gauge the City's investment in its urban forest compared to other communities facing similar issues in urban forest management. The results of the benchmarking exercise enable the urban forestry planning consultants to develop realistic strategies and achievable targets that align with comparable communities and industry standards. It will also serve as one platform and tool for monitoring implementation of Fayetteville, AR's Urban Forest Management Plan (in development as of January2023). BENCHMARKING DATA SOURCES Several data sources were reviewed and compiled to evaluate how Fayetteville's urban forest and associated programs compare to industry standards and communities of a similar size or geographic location and how its own operations have changed over time. Phase I of the benchmarking process uses the Arbor Day Foundation's Tree City USA 2021 dataset and compares statistics provided by the City of Fayetteville and as reported to Arbor Day for Tree City USA accreditation. The dataset includes program metrics for over 3,700 communities and the data is used to identify cities of similar size, location, and program structure TREE CITY USS ARBOR DAY FOUNDXrtON that also participate in the Tree City USA program. Using this dataset helps better understand how Fayetteville's urban forestry budget and activities compare to relevant cities. Relevant cities are determined by 1) proximity (within 50 and 100 miles of city center), 2) population size (percent difference and cities with more than 90,000 but less than 200,000 people), and cities outside of these parameters but are areas of interest. The Tree City USA dataset is largely focused on urban forestry budgets, per capita funding information, and volunteer hours. The number of trees planted, removed, and pruned are also summarized. The budget from Tree City USA application includes all departments, equipment, vehicles, and volunteer hours. It does not represent the budgeted amount for Urban Forestry Tree plantings. Phase II of benchmarking involves comparing Fayetteville's urban forestry M.M'CipaiT's.Care operations to findings from an in-depth study conducted by researchers and Management in the United States Richard Hauer and Ward Peterson (2014). In this study, researchers A.,.rr..rAs rtrt,,,,rtrt FomT Lertslr+af Tree Acr1e11Y+ interviewed urban forestry programs in various regions across the U.S. and among varying population classes. A total of 670 communities participated in the census. Specific study focus areas include community and staff profiles, funding, tree management policy and planning, volunteers and partnerships, contracting tree care activities, community tree populations, tree operations and management, and assistance programs. Data from this study was compared to data obtained from the City of Fayetteville for the purposes of determining program health as compared to accurate data across a range of scales and locations. Phase III of benchmarking is comprised of presenting the findings to the City and allowing time for any further data collection or clarifications in order to ensure the highest quality analysis. This phase also includes internal quality controls to ensure data comparisons are as accurate as possible. Information gathered during this process will inform the development of realistic and attainable goals and strategies in the City's Urban Forest Management Plan. Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Pagel of20 Plan Geo Summary of Communities for Benchmarking Research Understanding the urban forest policies, management approaches, budgets, and programs of comparable communities and nationwide averages provides comparative data to benchmark the City's performance, present and future. While existing tree data describes the current conditions, benchmarks offer guidance to bring Fayetteville's urban forestry policies and practices into alignment with similar -sized cities in Arkansas and nationwide, enhancing urban forest management. A summary of the cities used for benchmarking Fayetteville can be found in (Table 1) below. COMPARISON CITIES & COMPARISON GROUPS Table 1. Communities benchmarked for the Favetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan STUDYAREA Fayetteville Washington 93,580 0 0.0 AR Cities >25k Pop Springdale, AR Washington/Benton 87,609 -5,971 8.9 AR Cities >25k Pop Rogers, AR Benton 71,112 -22,468 22.7 AR Cities >25k Pop Bentonville, AR Benton 56,734 -36,846 27.0 AR Cities >25k Pop Bella Vista, AR Benton 30,808 -62,772 34.8 AR Cities >25k Pop Fort Smith, AR Sebastian 89,576 -4,004 58.1 AR Cities >25k Pop Conway, AR Faulkner 65,121 -28,459 159.7 AR Cities >25k Pop Hot Springs, AR Garland 38,114 -55,466 185.9 AR Cities >25k Pop N. Little Rock, AR Pulaski 64,162 -29,418 187.0 City Interest Lawrence, KS Douglas 98,193 4,613 267.4 City Interest Columbia, MO Boone 126,853 33,273 314.7 Pop. Group Nation Springfield, MO Greene 169,724 76,144 150.3 Pop. Group Nation Topeka, KS Shawnee 125,963 32,383 293.8 Pop. Group Nation Norman, OK Cleveland 128,097 34,517 243.0 Pop. Group Nation Champaign, IL Champaign 90,739 -2,841 541.1 Pop. Group Nation Asheville, NC Buncombe 93,350 -230 822.2 Pop. Group Nation Edmond, OK Oklahoma 93,697 117 211.6 Pop. Group Nation Reading, PA Berks 95,112 1,532 1204.6 Pop. Group Nation Fishers, IN Hamilton 99,116 5,536 628.7 AVERAGE•• Comparison Criteria Pop.* Difference State Average 22,685 -70,895 Nationwide Average 42,602 -50,878 * Population as of 2021 TC USA reporting ** Driving distance from the study area in miles After the City reviewed the draft list of communities, the list was refined as shown above and the following summaries were updated to serve as the second round of benchmarking. Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 2 of20 i• PIanITCeo" Phase I Benchmarking Comparison URBAN FORESTRY BUDGETS (2021) Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets (2021) $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $581,850 $1,000,000$609,943 $500,000 ' $0 $2,388,206 $1,137,388 $2,190,578 a\a' eta ,\\a' G`r' \a \� �' e' Q-°o� °c °ems` Qq° ��a� ��� ��\° '�° G �Q�°�' ' °o o`er `�°\ Q�\� bra P� �a Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) $609,943 *Fayetteville, AR* $1,159,730 $581,850 $21,313 Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 1. Comparison of urban forestry budgets in 2027 195,387 $372,930 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 3 of20 Fi I rPIanITGeo" ae ei­s &T-1-1 Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets per Capita (2021) $18.00 $17.10 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $g 28 $10.00 $8.00 $6.52 $6.00 $5.07 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 P�` a� 00� • P� P� P� P� a`Gr o&:1 '�o e ,ot 00 a Pia **P $6.52 $12.76 I 1 I PQ PQ PQ PQ 1P O O O�- 04- QPP Qo �a�`�\ Qo �a Qa o�� o� Go �o Comparison of Urban Forestry Budgets per Capita to Regional Averages (2021) $9.28 $5.07 $5.53 $12.26 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Nationwide Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 2. Comparison of urban forestry budgets per capita in 2027 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Bench marking Su m ma ry Jan2023 Page 4 of20 PIanITCeo' ae e1-11ort,ea —1 Comparison of Tree Planting and Initial Care Budgets (2021) $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $99,952 $200,000 $100,000 $24,396 $666,696 $670,413 $0 _ _101.11.I I O O Q a -A, tea, 0' �P Comparison of Tree Planting and Initial Care Budgetsto Regional Averages (2021) $24,396 0 *Fayetteville, AR* $153,857 $99,952 $68,715 - $2,015 - Average of Best Average of >90k & State Average Nationwide Average Matches <200k Populations Figure 3. Comparison of tree planting and initial care budgets in 2027 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Su mmary Jan2023 Page 5of20 MW PIanITCeo" ae ei—ort,ea 1.9 Comparison of Tree Maintenance Budgets (2021) $1,000,000 $923,181 $900,000 $800,000 665,665 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $432,192 $392,173 $400,000 $122,133 $300,000 155,980 $200,000 $100,000 $0 — Q �`� O� QP e P �� tee' t�' �o' �a' • �'�' a�' cam' c, �a a .�� tea' o,' °a' o� �t� e ��° ��°R ot� �9 roJ �o oaf ' °o �o� r���a Goy ���\� Gra P� �a '° Comparison of Tree Maintenance Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) $352,957 $155,980 $122,133 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Average of >90k & Matches <200k Populations Figure 4. Comparison of tree maintenance budgets in 2027 $5,495 State Average $108,783 Nationwide Average Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking SummaryJan2023 Page 6 of20 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 7 of 20 Figure 5. Comparison of tree removal budgets in 2021 $125,299$86,988 $198,979 $462,698 $238,994 $167,741 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 Comparison of Tree Removal Budgets (2021) $125,299 $86,988 $162,678 $5,406 $65,387 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Tree Removal Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 8 of 20 Figure 6. Comparison of management budgets in 2021 $338,115 $172,003 $339,617 $335,631 $836,484 $685,430 $386,903 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 Comparison of Management Budgets (2021) $338,115 $172,003 $261,233 $8,227 $81,257 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Management Budgets to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 9 of 20 Figure 7. Comparison of other expenditures in 2021 $0 $53,769 $274,030 $578,400 $109,750 $59,306 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Comparison of Other Expenditures (2021) $0 $53,769 $170,993 $277 $25,866 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Other Expenditures to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 10 of 20 URBAN FORESTRY ACTIVITIES Figure 8. Comparison of volunteer hours in 2021 1,300 372 925 2,648 609 793 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Comparison of Volunteer Hours (2021) 1,300 372 1,169 99 354 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Volunteer Hours to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 11 of 20 Figure 9. Comparison of the number of trees planted in 2021 735 314 583 1,149 1,764 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Comparison of Trees Planted (2021) 735 314 657 34 260 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Trees Planted to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 12 of 20 Figure 10. Comparison of the number of trees pruned in 2021 4,383 1,230 1,806 6,774 2,680 1,546 4,365 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Comparison of Trees Pruned (2021) 4,383 1,230 2,555 128 1,069 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Trees Pruned to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 13 of 20 Figure 11. Comparison of the number of trees removed in 2021 287 131 600 406 310 288 225 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Comparison of Trees Removed (2021) 287 131 352 13 135 *Fayetteville, AR*Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of Trees Removed to Regional Averages (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 14 of 20 Figure 12. Combined comparison summary of tree management activities in 2021 735 4,383 287 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Comparison of All Tree Maintenance Activities (2021) Number of Trees Planted Number of Trees Pruned Number of Trees Removed 735 314 657 34 260 4,383 1,230 2,555 128 1,069 287 131 352 13 135 *Fayetteville, AR* Average of Best Matches Average of >90k & <200k Populations State Average Nationwide Average Comparison of All Maintenance Activities to Regional Averages (2021) Number of Trees Planted Number of Trees Pruned Number of Trees Removed Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 15 of 20 TABLE SUMMARY OF URBAN FORESTRY BUDGETS AND ACTIVITIES (2021) Community Tree Planting and Initial Care Tree Maintenance Tree Removal Management Utility Line Clearance Other Expend- itures Overall Budget *Fayetteville, AR*$24,396 $122,133 $125,299 $338,115 $0 $0 $609,943 **Average of Best Matches**$99,952 $155,980 $86,988 $172,003 $13,158 $53,769 $581,850 ***Average of >90k & <200k Populations*** $153,857 $352,957 $162,678 $261,233 $58,013 $170,993 $1,159,730 Springdale, AR $600 $300 $1,450 $1,400 $0 $0 $3,750 Rogers, AR $700 $1,400 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $3,600 Bentonville, AR $229 $0 $0 $20 $0 $0 $249 Bella Vista, AR $800 $200 $225 $75 $0 $0 $1,300 Fort Smith, AR $3,900 $1,000 $100 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Conway, AR $680 $384 $0 $121 $0 $31 $1,216 Hot Springs, AR $734 $6,000 $350 $0 $0 $0 $7,084 N.Little Rock, AR $8,790 $500 $580 $680 $0 $100 $10,650 Lawrence, KS $112,105 $432,192 $198,979 $120,082 $0 $274,030 $1,137,388 Columbia, MO $52,595 $52,595 $105,191 $339,617 $0 $0 $549,998 Springfield, MO $666,696 $923,181 $462,698 $335,631 $0 $0 $2,388,206 Topeka, KS $15,302 $665,665 $84,165 $65,531 $0 $0 $830,663 Norman, OK $123,521 $392,173 $10,000 $836,484 $250,000 $578,400 $2,190,578 Champaign, IL $84,566 $117,944 $126,849 $685,430 $0 $0 $1,014,789 Asheville, NC $33,155 $42,587 $238,994 $55,908 $0 $109,750 $480,394 Edmond, OK $670,413 $80,522 $57,549 $386,903 $0 $0 $1,195,387 Reading, PA $9,911 $4,835 $167,741 $75,567 $0 $0 $258,054 Fishers, IN $90,000 $120,000 $72,600 $25,000 $0 $59,306 $366,906 Table 2. Complete table summary of all benchmarking metrics in Phase I (2021) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 16 of 20 BUDGET PER CAPITA SUMMARY (2021) Community Overall Budget Per Capita Budget *Fayetteville, AR*$609,943 $6.52 **Average of Best Matches**$581,850 $5.07 ***Average of >90k & <200k Populations***$1,159,730 $9.28 Springdale, AR $3,750 $0.04 Rogers, AR $3,600 $0.05 Bentonville, AR $249 $0.00 Bella Vista, AR $1,300 $0.04 Fort Smith, AR $5,000 $0.06 Conway, AR $1,216 $0.02 Hot Springs, AR $7,084 $0.19 North Little Rock, AR $10,650 $0.17 Lawrence, KS $1,137,388 $11.58 Columbia, MO $549,998 $4.34 Springfield, MO $2,388,206 $14.07 Topeka, KS $830,663 $6.59 Norman, OK $2,190,578 $17.10 Champaign, IL $1,014,789 $11.18 Asheville, NC $480,394 $5.15 Edmond, OK $1,195,387 $12.76 Reading, PA $258,054 $2.71 Fishers, IN $366,906 $3.70 Table 3. Summary of urban forestry budgets compared to city populations (per capita) in 2021 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 17 of 20 PHASE II BENCHMARKING RESEARCH Note: The following comparisons use Fayetteville’s 2021 metrics whereas the metrics for the comparison populations are based on 2014 data. The urban forestry planning consultants will need 2014 metrics from the City or data from the US Forest Service for 2021 in order to finalize the Phase II benchmarking. The following study is a preliminary exercise intended for internal use and for initial comparisons from which strategies may be developed. URBAN FORESTRY BUDGETS Figure 13. Comparison of urban forestry budgets (Hauer, 2014) Figure 14. Urban forestry budget compared to the total municipal budget (Hauer, 2014) $609,943 $801,595 $829,105 $646,501 Average Annual Forestry Budget Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group 0.32% 0.52%0.53% Tree Program Budget as a Percentage of Total Budget Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 18 of 20 Figure 15 . Total municipal budgets (Hauer, 2014) Figure 16. Average budget per public tree (Hauer, 2014) Figure 17. Comparison of urban forestry budget per capita (Hauer, 2014) $190,846,000 $200,316,126 $215,976,004 $138,851,007 Total Municipal Budget (Excluding Schools) Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group $14.52 $37.50 $60.52 $36.17 Average Budget per Public Tree Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group $6.40 $8.76 $9.40 Forestry Budget per Capita Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 19 of 20 COMPARISON OF PUBLIC TREE COUNTS, DISTRIBUTION, AND VALUE Figure 18. Comparison of the number of public trees (Hauer, 2014) Figure 19. Comparison of public trees per capita (Hauer, 2014) Figure 20. Comparison of the number of public trees per full-time tree care employee (Hauer, 2014) 42,000 55,332 70,122 30,036 Number of Public Trees Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group 0.44 0.55 1.11 0.43 Public Trees Per Capita Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group 7,000 9,552 7,229 11,747 Number of Public Trees per Full-time Tree Care Employee Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Benchmarking Summary Jan2023 Page 20 of 20 * Value of Fayetteville’s public trees is based on the $1.3 million in ecosystem benefits and services ($110.63 per tree on average) plus the structural value of public trees estimated at $3,000 per tree on average based on regional research. Figure 21. Comparison of the acres of public parks and open space (Hauer, 2014) Figure 22. Comparison of the value of public trees (Hauer, 2014) 4,142 1,010 1,504 1,168 Acres of City-managed Parks & Open Space Fayetteville, AR Average Across U.S. Average Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group $130,646,460 $68,665,110 $122,451,086 $50,505,486 Fayetteville, AR Average Public Tree Value Across U.S. Average Public Tree Value Across Southern Region Average Across 50k-99k Population Group Value of Public Trees* Fayetteville, AR URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN Canopy Goal Setting & Priority Areas August 2023 Canopy Goals for Consideration Milestones Year Range City Acres Starting Canopy Ac Total New Canopy Ac Starting Canopy % New Canopy % Total Trees Added Total Added Benefits Total Carbon Seq. (lbs) Year 1 2023 35,712 14,081 14,105 39.4%39.5%1,000 $18,559 149,592 Years 2-5 2024-2027 35,712 14,105 14,244 39.5%40%6,000 $111,354 897,552 Years 6-8 2028-2030 35,712 14,244 14,396 40%40%6,500 $120,634 972,348 Years 9 -10 2031-2032 35,712 14,396 14,512 40%40.6%5,000 $92,795 747,960 Years 11-15 2033-2037 35,712 14,512 14,815 41%41%13,000 $241,267 1,944,696 Years 16-18 2038-2040 35,712 14,815 15,025 41%42%9,000 $167,031 1,346,328 Years 19-20 2041-2042 35,712 15,025 15,165 42%42.5%6,000 $111,354 897,552 Years 21-25 2043-2047 35,712 15,165 15,619 42%44%19,500 $361,901 2,917,044 Years 26-28 2048-2050 35,712 15,619 15,969 44%45%15,000 $278,385 2,243,880 Years 29-30 2051-2052 35,712 15,969 16,202 45%45%10,000 $185,590 1,495,920 TOTAL 30 Years 2,120 45.4%5.9%91,000 $1,688,869 13,612,872 3 Minus 10% cumulative canopy loss = 44.4% in 30 years (2023 – 2052). Considers 10% will be small canopy trees, 30% medium canopy, and 60% large canopy trees. A 10-year goal requires a total of 18,500 trees with an average of 1,850 trees per year If pursuing a 30-year goal, 91,000 total trees needed with an average of 3,000 trees per year needed. Scenario B) Detailed Planting Targets to Establish a 10-year Canopy Goal 4 Milestone Year Total City Acres Canopy Ac (2019) Canopy % (2019) Planting Scenarios (# of Trees) New Canopy Acres Added Total Canopy Acres New % Canopy Total Added Ecosystem Benefits All Plantings: Future Carbon Sequestered by Large Trees (249.32 lbs/tree) All Plantings: Total Future Carbon Sequestered Year 1 2023 35,712 14,081 39.4%1,000 23.3 14,105 39.5%$18,559 149,592 149,592 2024 35,712 14,081 39%1,000 23.3 14,128 40%$18,559 149,592 149,592 2025 35,712 14,081 39%1,500 35.0 14,163 40%$27,839 224,388 224,388 2026 35,712 14,081 39%1,500 35.0 14,198 40%$27,839 224,388 224,388 Year 5 2027 35,712 14,081 39%2,000 46.6 14,244 40%$37,118 299,184 299,184 2028 35,712 14,081 39%2,000 46.6 14,291 40%$37,118 299,184 299,184 2029 35,712 14,081 39%2,000 46.6 14,338 40%$37,118 299,184 299,184 Year 8 2030 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,396 40%$46,398 373,980 373,980 2031 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,454 40%$46,398 373,980 373,980 Year 10 2032 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,512 40.6%$46,398 373,980 373,980 2033 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,571 41%$46,398 373,980 373,980 2034 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,629 41%$46,398 373,980 373,980 2035 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,687 41%$46,398 373,980 373,980 2036 35,712 14,081 39%2,500 58.3 14,745 41%$46,398 373,980 373,980 Year 15 2037 35,712 14,081 39%3,000 69.9 14,815 41%$55,677 448,776 448,776 2038 35,712 14,081 39%3,000 69.9 14,885 42%$55,677 448,776 448,776 2039 35,712 14,081 39%3,000 69.9 14,955 42%$55,677 448,776 448,776 Year 18 2040 35,712 14,081 39%3,000 69.9 15,025 42%$55,677 448,776 448,776 2041 35,712 14,081 39%3,000 69.9 15,095 42%$55,677 448,776 448,776 Year 20 2042 35,712 14,081 39.4%3,000 69.9 15,165 42.5%$55,677 448,776 448,776 2043 35,712 14,081 39%3,000 69.9 15,235 43%$55,677 448,776 448,776 2044 35,712 14,081 39%3,500 81.6 15,316 43%$64,957 523,572 523,572 2045 35,712 14,081 39%4,000 93.2 15,409 43%$74,236 598,368 598,368 2046 35,712 14,081 39%4,000 93.2 15,503 43%$74,236 598,368 598,368 Year 25 2047 35,712 14,081 39%5,000 116.5 15,619 44%$92,795 747,960 747,960 2048 35,712 14,081 39%5,000 116.5 15,736 44%$92,795 747,960 747,960 2049 35,712 14,081 39%5,000 116.5 15,852 44%$92,795 747,960 747,960 Year 28 2050 35,712 14,081 39%5,000 116.5 15,969 45%$92,795 747,960 747,960 2051 35,712 14,081 39%5,000 116.5 16,085 45%$92,795 747,960 747,960 Year 30 2052 35,712 14,081 39.4%5,000 116.5 16,202 45.4%$92,795 747,960 747,960 Milestones Year Range City Acres Starting Canopy Ac Total New Canopy Ac Starting Canopy % New Canopy % Total Trees Added Average Trees per Year Total Added Benefits Total Carbon Sequestered (lbs) Year 1 thru Year 5 2023-2027 35,712 14,081 14,244 39.4%39.9%7,000 1,400 $129,913 1,047,144 Year 6 thru Year 10 2028-2032 35,712 14,244 14,512 39.9%40.6%11,500 2,300 $213,429 1,720,308 TOTALS 10 Years 431 1.2%18,500 1,850 $343,342 2,767,452 Scenario B) Milestones for 40.6% Canopy in 10 years 5 Scenario B) Estimated Costs for 40.6% Canopy in 10 Years 6 Year Range Starting Canopy % New Canopy % % Change Total Trees Added Total Added Benefits Total Carbon Sequestered (lbs) Average Trees Per Year Average Subcontract Planting Cost Per Tree Estimated Annual Cost Estimated 10- Year Cost 2023 –2032 39.4%40.6%1.2%18,500 $343,342 2,767,452 1,850 $408 $754,486 $7,544,855 Priority Planting Areas Legend City Boundary ◼Block Groups with ≤25% tree canopy cover ◼Block Groups with ≤35% tree canopy cover 8 Low Tree Canopy Map Priority Planting Areas Legend City Boundary Block Group Boundary ◼Block Groups with Low Income Populations and Low Tree Canopy 9 Low Income & Tree Canopy Map Tree Equity Scores City Boundary 0-63 TES 64-79 TES 80-89 TES 90-99 TES 100 TES 11 Tree Equity Score Map Canopy at Risk Citywide 26 Prairie University Vulnerable Easements Canopy Cover Vulnerable and Exclusion Area Map Percent People of Color (All People Not White Non -Hispanic, US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014-2018 Source) 18 Percent People of Color City Boundary 0 –10% 10 –20% 20 –30% 30 –40% >40% Urban Heat (Surface Temperature Data from USGS Landsat 8 imagery, thermal bands)16 Average Surface Temperature City Boundary 75 –80 80 –81 81 –82 82 –83 83 -85 Health Risk (Self-reported Poor Mental Health, Poor Physical Health, Asthma, & Coronary Heart Disease – CDC Source) 17 Health Risk Index City Boundary Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Summary of Priority Planting Area Scenarios 19 Analysis of the Populations in Poverty Compared to the Mean Canopy Cover (35.6%) 11 CBGs, 5% 14 CBGs, 7% 9 CBGs, -5% 6 CBGs, -3% 7 CBGs, -12% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 0-20%20-40%40-60%60-80%80-100% Di f f e r e n c e f r o m M e a n % T r e e C a n o p y ( 3 5 . 6 % ) % of People in Poverty Comparing Tree Canopy Cover (35.6%) and Poverty Populations 13 Analysis of the Populations of Color Compared to the Mean Canopy Cover (35.6%) 24 CBGs, 6% 20 CBGs, -5% 3 CBGs, -14% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 0 - 20%20 - 40%40 - 60%60 - 80%80 - 100% Di f f e r e n c e f r o m M e a n % T r e e C a n o p y ( 3 5 . 6 % ) People of Color % Comparing Mean Tree Canopy Coverage (35.6%) and Populations of Color Analysis of Surface Temperatures and the Mean Canopy Cover (35.6%) 1 CBG, 0% 2 CBGs, 5% 8 CBGs, 18% 0 CBGs, 0% 14 CBGs, -11% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0-20%20-40%40-60%60-80%80-100% Di f f e r e n c e f r o m M e a n % T r e e C a n o p y ( 3 5 . 6 % ) Mean Surface Temperature Percentile Comparing Mean Tree Canopy Coverage (35.6%) and Mean Surface Temperature Percentiles 15 Tree Equity Scores City Boundary Block Groups with < 75 TES 42,000 Trees Needed for All Census Block Groups to Have a Tree Equity Score of at Least 75. Citywide Canopy Would = 43% 12 Priority Planting Areas Legend City Boundary ◼Block Groups with ≤25% tree canopy cover ◼Block Groups with ≤35% tree canopy cover #Number of trees needed to reach City UTC of 39% 700 900 200 700 3,700 650 1,300 500 1,700 5,500 250 600 650 17,350 Trees Needed to Bring All Low Block Groups to 39% Tree Canopy 500 Acres of Canopy Added & Citywide UTC = 41% if Implemented 10 20 Exclusion or Vulnerable Areas Prairies Delineated Based on List Provided by City Staff 21 Protected Prairie-related Areas Acres ◼Woolsey Farmstead and Wet Prairie Sanctuary 50 ◼Westside Prairie 40 ◼Wilson Springs Preserve 121 ◼Underwood Park 5 (estimated) ◼Callies Prairie 33 ◼Gulley 3 TOTAL 252 acres Westside Prairie Woolsey Wet Prairie Underwood Park Wilson Springs Preserve Gulley Park Callies Prairie Native Prairie & Prairies Delineated Based on List Provided by City Staff 22 GIS layer provided by: Marson Nance, CLM Director of Land Stewardship & Research Northwest Arkansas Land Trust Total Prairie Acres 9,769 Total Canopy Acres in Prairie 1,957 Canopy % in Prairie 20% University of Arkansas Canopy 23 University Acres Canopy Area (Ac)Canopy % 377.0 22.0 6% Citywide Acres 35,712 Citywide Canopy Acres 14,081.24 Citywide Canopy %39.43% Citywide Canopy Acres Excluding University 14,059.27 Citywide Canopy % Excluding University 39.37% Easements Example 24 Canopy Likely Preserved Canopy At Risk (“Vulnerable Easements” Areas to Proactively Preserve Conservation(?), Tree Preservation Access, Null(?), Avigation, Drainage, Utilities, Grading, Landscape, Private, Sidewalk, Telephone, Trail, Vacated Access, Landscape, Sidewalk, Trail, Vacated Canopy in At Risk Easements 25 Acres of Vulnerable Easements Canopy Acres of Vulnerable Easements % Canopy of Vulnerable Easements 3,980.6 1,015.0 25% Canopy at Risk in Easements Canopy At Risk in the Following Easement Types Access, Null, Avigation, Drainage, Utilities, Grading, Landscape, Private, Sidewalk, Telephone, Trail, Vacated 27 Applying Canopy Goals & Priority Planting Areas with Consideration of Exclusion Areas Priority Planting in Civic Institutional Land Use Areas to Achieve Canopy Goals 28 Average Surface Temperature City Boundary Civic Institutional Land Use 75 –80 80 –81 81 –82 82 –83 83 -85 1) Identify land use and priority planting areas 2) Verify and confirm the canopy goal and number of trees to plant for the land use 3) Identify and remove non-plantable areas (university, easements, prairie) Legend City Boundary Civic Institutional Land Use University grounds, vulnerable easements, and prairie Not plantable 4) Identify Possible Planting Area in priority area for the land use and determine planting locations 5) Continue to identify possible planting areas in priority areas for the land use to strategize how and where to plant 74 trees per year for 30 years to reach the 32% canopy goal for the Civic Institutional land use as shown in the table above in step #2 TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY An internal summary of the public and private sample tree inventory to inform the City of Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan April 2023 Source: City of Fayetteville, AR CONTENTS Tree Inventory Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1 About .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Tree Inventory Database .................................................................................................................................. 1 Tree Inventory Counts ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Data Fields Collected........................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Tree Sample Inventory Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 Public Data Highlights (Sample Inventory) ........................................................................................................ 3 Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory)............................................................................ 4 Public Tree Structure (Sample Inventory) ......................................................................................................... 5 Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory) .................................................................. 7 Public Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory) .......................................................................................................... 8 Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Public Tree Sample Inventory............................................................ 10 Private Tree Sample Inventory Summary .......................................................................................................... 11 Private Data Highlights (Sample Inventory) .................................................................................................... 11 Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory) ........................................................................ 12 Private Tree Structure (Sample Inventory) ..................................................................................................... 13 Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory) .............................................................. 15 Private Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory)....................................................................................................... 16 Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Private Tree Sample Inventory .......................................................... 18 Public Park and Trail Sample Tree Inventory ..................................................................................................... 19 Summary of Sample Tree Inventories in Public Parks ..................................................................................... 19 Possible Public Planting Sites ............................................................................................................................ 20 Summary of Possible Planting Sites on Public Property .................................................................................. 20 Estimated Characteristics of All Public Trees ..................................................................................................... 21 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 21 Public Tree Status .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Public Trees) ....................................................... 21 Public Tree Structure (Estimated for All Public Trees) ..................................................................................... 23 Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Public Trees).............................................. 25 Public Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Public Trees) ...................................................................................... 27 Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Public Trees ....................................................................... 28 Estimated Characteristics of All Private Trees ................................................................................................... 29 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Private Tree Status ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Private Trees) .................................................... 29 Private Tree Structure (Estimated for All Private Trees) .................................................................................. 31 Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Private Trees) .......................................... 33 Private Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Private Trees) ................................................................................... 35 Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Private Trees ..................................................................... 36 TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1. Counts for the public and private sample tree inventory .......................................................................................... 1 Table 2. Data fields collected as part of the 2022 sample tree inventory ............................................................................... 2 Table 3. Summary of the sample public tree inventory.......................................................................................................... 3 Table 4. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample public trees ................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Summary of the sample private tree inventory ...................................................................................................... 11 Table 6. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample private trees ................................................................................. 18 Table 7. Tree data summaries for parks inventoried in 2022 ............................................................................................... 19 Table 8. Summary of possible public planting sites inventoried in 2022 ............................................................................... 20 Table 9. Estimated ecosystem benefits and services of all public trees ................................................................................ 28 Table 10. Estimated ecosystem services and benefits of all private trees ............................................................................. 36 Figures Figure 1. Distribution of (sample) public trees by land use .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Distribution of (sample) public trees by growing spaces.......................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Distribution of (sample) public trees by planting site width..................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Distribution of (sample) public trees by genus (top 10) ........................................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Distribution of (sample) public trees by tree species (top 10) .................................................................................. 6 Figure 6. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) public tree sizes classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) ................ 6 Figure 7. Distribution of (sample) public trees by condition ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8. Observations of the (sample) public trees............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 9. Recommended tree work for (sample) public trees ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 10. Summary of utility conflicts of (sample) public trees ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 11. Existing clearance conflicts of the public tree sample inventory ............................................................................ 9 Figure 12. Distribution of (sample) private trees by land use ............................................................................................... 12 Figure 13. Distribution of growing space for the (sample) private trees ............................................................................... 12 Figure 14. Distribution of (sample) private trees planting site widths .................................................................................. 13 Figure 15. Distribution of (sample) private tree genera (top 10) .......................................................................................... 13 Figure 16. Distribution of (sample) private tree species (top 10) ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 17. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) private tree size classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) ............ 14 Figure 18. Distribution of (sample) private trees by condition ............................................................................................. 15 Figure 19. Summary of observations from the private sample tree inventory ...................................................................... 15 Figure 20. Recommended tree work for the (sample) private tree inventory ....................................................................... 16 Figure 21. Summary of the wire conflicts for the (sample) private tree inventory ................................................................ 16 Figure 22. Existing clearance conflicts of the (sample) private tree inventory ...................................................................... 17 Figure 23. Estimated status of all public trees ..................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 24. Estimated adjacent land use of all public trees ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 25. Estimated growing space of all public trees ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 26. Estimated planting site widths of all public trees ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 27. Estimated tree genera diversity for all public trees (top 10) ................................................................................ 23 Figure 28. Estimated tree species diversity for all public trees (top 10) ................................................................................ 24 Figure 29. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all public trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards,) ...... 25 Figure 30. Estimated condition of all public trees ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 31. Estimated observations and defects of all public trees ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 32. Estimated tree work needed for all public trees .................................................................................................. 26 Figure 33. Estimated wire conflicts for all public trees ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 34. Estimated clearance conflicts of all public trees .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 35. Estimated status of all private trees.................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 36. Estimated land use of all private trees ................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 37. Estimated growing space of all private trees ....................................................................................................... 30 Figure 38. Estimated planting site widths of all private trees ............................................................................................... 30 Figure 39. Estimated tree genera diversity of all private trees (top 10) ................................................................................ 31 Figure 40. Estimated tree species diversity of all private trees (top 10) ............................................................................... 32 Figure 41. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all private trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards,) .... 33 Figure 42. Estimated condition of all private trees .............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 43. Estimated observations and defects of all private trees ...................................................................................... 34 Figure 44. Estimated tree work needed for all private trees ................................................................................................ 34 Figure 45. Estimated wire conflicts of all private trees ........................................................................................................ 35 Figure 46. Estimated clearance conflicts of all private trees ................................................................................................ 35 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 1 TREE INVENTORY OVERVIEW About In October 2022, a sample inventory of public and private trees in Fayetteville, Arkansas was conducted by PlanIT Geo’s Certified Arborists accredited by the International Society of Arboriculture. The scope of the public and private tree sample inventory was prepared as part of the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (“UFMP” or “Plan”) project that is currently underway as of November 2022. The tree inventory is intended to gather data that informs the current extent, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs of the urban forest that can be addressed in the UFMP. Due to limited funding, a comprehensive inventory was not conducted though sampling methods were used in order to extrapolate the data to represent the total public and private tree populations, respectively. To do this, a sample inventory of public trees along approximately 5 percent of linear road miles (25 miles) was conducted. For public trees in parks, approximately 10 percent of City park acres were inventoried. The locations for the public tree inventory were determined by the City’s Urban Forester and PlanIT Geo’s Field Services team. For the private tree sample, an inventory of trees on private property was conducted when adjacent to public trees being inventoried. Data collection for private trees was not conducted on or within private property — the inventory was conducted within public rights-of-way (i.e., sidewalks) to provide a snapshot of the extent, structure, and characteristics of private trees. In addition to trees, possible available public planting sites were also inventoried based on criteria provided by the City’s Urban Forester. In November 2022, the Consulting Team developing the UFMP reviewed and analyzed the tree inventory datasets and provided summary worksheets and this draft summary report. The following details the draft outcomes of the analysis. Additional analyses such as ecosystem benefits and extrapolating the data to represent the Citywide urban forest remains to be done as part of the UFMP project. Note, the public and private tree sample inventory analysis was conducted in the months of November and December 2022. Due to ongoing tree maintenance and the dynamic characteristics of trees, changes such as condition, tree size, and maintenance needs may have changes since the analysis. Tree Inventory Database www.pg-cloud.com/FayettevilleAR Tree Inventory Counts Tree Population / Feature Public Datasets Private Datasets Total Data Points 3,076 850 Total Tree Points (alive and dead) 2,712 848 Possible Planting Sites (includes removed and stump) 364 2 (stumps) Total Living Trees 2,568 830 Total Dead Trees 144 18 Table 1. Counts for the public and private sample tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 2 Data Fields Collected TreePlotter Tab Data Field Public Tree Dataset Private Tree Dataset Tree Tab Primary ID X X Status X X Common Name X X Scientific Name X X Number of Stems X X Condition X X DBH X X DBH Range X X Observations X X Private Parcel Tree? X X Genus/Species Code X X Crown Light Exposure X X Location Tab Address X X Growing Space Type X X Land Use X X Planting Site Width X X Management Tab Tree Work X X Wires X X Clearance Conflicts X X User X X Date Added X X Last Modified X X Last Modified User X X Table 2. Data fields collected as part of the 2022 sample tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 3 Public Sample PUBLIC TREE SAMPLE INVENTORY SUMMARY Includes public street, median, park, and trail trees Public Data Highlights (Sample Inventory) Field Value Data Points 2,740 public data points Alive & Dead Trees 2,568 (95%) Alive 144 (5%) Dead Adjacent Land Use 68% Park/Vacant/Other 15% Single Family Primary Growing Space Type Other (Maintained): 39% Planting Strip: 27% Primary Planting Site Width Class II (medium) 6-10 feet: 42% (1,151 trees) Class III (large) 11+ feet: 36% (964 trees) Number of Unique Tree Genera 54 Most Common Tree Genera Quercus: 31% (838 trees) Ulmus: 15% (411 trees) Acer: 8% (213 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Genera Top 10 comprise 74% of public trees Number of Unique Tree Species 111 Most Common Tree Species Princeton elm: 7% (189 trees) Post oak: 6% (175 trees) Willow oak: 6% (165 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Species Top 10 comprise 44% of public trees Tree Size Classes 55% 0-6in DBH (1,499 trees) 19% 6-12in DBH (516 trees) 14% 12-18in DBH (367 trees) 6% 18-24in DBH (158 trees) 4% 24-30in DBH (122 trees) 2% >30in DBH (50 trees) Average Diameter / Largest Tree 8.1 inch average / 62 inch baldcypress Tree Condition 0.04% Excellent (1 tree) 75% Good (2,043 trees) 15% Fair (394 trees) 5% Poor (130 trees) 5% Dead (144 trees) Observations 30% Crown Dieback (813 trees) 6% Cavity Decay (174 trees) Recommended Tree Work Clearance Prune: 8% (217 trees) Remove Tree: 6% (162 trees) Utility Prune: 3% (72 trees) Wire Conflicts Wires present & conflicting: 72 trees (3%) Clearance Conflicts Pedestrian: 2% (53 trees) Building: 1% (37 trees) Ecosystem Benefits $7,767 Overall Annual Value Table 3. Summary of the sample public tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 4 Public Sample Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory) Adjacent Land Use of Public Trees Growing Space Type of Public Trees Industrial/ Large Commercial, 0.2% Small Commercial, 9% Multi Family, 9% Single Family, 15% Park/ Vacant/ Other, 68% Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Land Use Front Yard, 1% Other (Unmaintained), 1% Cutout, 6% Median, 26% Planting Strip, 27% Other (Maintained), 39% Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Growing Spaces Figure 1. Distribution of (sample) public trees by land use Figure 2. Distribution of (sample) public trees by growing spaces Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 5 Public Sample Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Public Trees Public Tree Structure (Sample Inventory) Public Tree Genera Composition Class I (small) -1-5ft, 22% Class III (large) - 11ft+, 36% Class II (medium) - 6-10ft, 42% Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Planting Site Width Quercus, 31% Ulmus, 15% Acer, 8% Nyssa, 4% Taxodium, 3% Celtis, 3% Carpinus, 3% Cercis, 3% Fraxinus, 2% Amelanchier, 2% Other Tree Genera, 26% Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Genus (Top 10) Figure 3. Distribution of (sample) public trees by planting site width Figure 4. Distribution of (sample) public trees by genus (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 6 Public Sample Public Tree Species Composition Public Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Princeton Elm, 7% Post oak, 6% Willow oak, 6% Pin oak, 5% Blackgum, 4% New Harmony Elm , 3% Red maple, 3% Northern red oak, 3% Baldcypress, 3% Hackberry, 3% Other Tree Species, 56% Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Tree Species (Top 10) 55% 19%14% 6%4%2% 40% 25% 15%10%6%4% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Comparison of Fayetteville's (Sample) Public Tree Size Classes to the Ideal Distribution (Richards 1993) City %Ideal % Figure 5. Distribution of (sample) public trees by tree species (top 10) Figure 6. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) public tree sizes classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Small Medium Large Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 7 Public Sample Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory) Public Tree Condition Public Tree Observations Excellent, 0.04% Good, 75% Fair, 15% Poor, 5% Dead, 5% Distribution of (Sample) Public Trees by Condition 813, 30% 174, 6% 126, 5% 95, 4% 33, 1% 16, 1% 12, 0% 7, 0% 5, 0% 1, 0% 1, 0% Crown Dieback Cavity Decay Mechanical Damage Poor Structure Vines Poor Root System Canker Poor Location Grate/Guard Hardscape Damage Pests (Sample) Public Tree Observations Figure 7. Distribution of (sample) public trees by condition Figure 8. Observations of the (sample) public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 8 Public Sample Recommended Maintenance of Public Trees (“Tree Work”) Public Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory) Public Tree Wire Conflicts 217, 8% 162, 6% 72, 3% 26, 1% 18, 1% 11, 0.4% 8, 0.3% 7, 0.3% 6, 0.2% 3, 0.1% 2, 0.1% 2, 0.1% Prune-Clearance Remove (Tree) Utility (Prune) Crown Cleaning Thin (Canopy) Remove Hardware Sidewalk Damage Amend Mulch Remove-Girdling Root Prune-Structural Monitor Raise Recommended Tree Work for (Sample) Public Trees No Lines, 93% Present / No Conflict, 4% Present and Conflicting, 3% Summary of Utility Conflicts of (Sample) Public Trees Figure 9. Recommended tree work for (sample) public trees Figure 10. Summary of utility conflicts of (sample) public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 9 Public Sample Public Tree Clearance Conflicts 53, 2% 37, 1% 29, 1% 18, 1% 11, 0.4% 4, 0.1% 3, 0.1% 1, 0.04% 1, 0.04% 1, 0% Pedestrian Building Light Sign or Signal Vehicle Underground Utilities Light, Sign or Signal Building, Pedestrian Light, Pedestrian Other Existing Clearance Conflicts of the Public Tree Sample Inventory Figure 11. Existing clearance conflicts of the public tree sample inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 10 Public Sample Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Public Tree Sample Inventory Table 4. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample public trees Carbon Storage “lbs” = pounds; “gal” = gallons; “ft3“= cubic feet Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 11 Private Sample PRIVATE TREE SAMPLE INVENTORY SUMMARY Private Data Highlights (Sample Inventory) Field Value Data Points 850 Alive & Dead Trees 848 Adjacent Land Use 39% Single Family 27% Multi Family Primary Growing Space Type Other (Maintained): 70% Front Yard: 19% Primary Planting Site Width Class III (large) 11+ feet: 62% Class II (medium) 6-10 feet: 20% Number of Unique Tree Genera 34 Most Common Tree Genera Quercus: 19% (159 trees) Acer: 12% (103 trees) Pinus: 9% (75 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Genera Top 10 comprise 78% of private trees Number of Unique Tree Species 64 Most Common Tree Species Pin oak: 9% (76 trees) Loblolly pine: 8% (65 trees) Red maple: 8% (64 trees) Proportion of Top 10 Tree Species Top 10 comprise 57% of private trees Tree Size Classes 39% 0-6in DBH (334 trees) 20% 6-12in DBH (171 trees) 23% 12-18in DBH (198 trees) 10% 18-24in DBH (83 trees) 5% 24-30in DBH (44 trees) 2% >30in DBH (18 trees) Average Diameter / Largest Tree 10.2 inch average / 34 inch tulip tree Tree Condition 0.1% Excellent (1 tree) 70% Good (594 trees) 24% Fair (202 trees) 4% Poor (33 trees) 2% Dead (20 trees) Observations 41% Crown Dieback (346 trees) 9% Cavity Decay (75 trees) Recommended Tree Work Clearance Prune: 9% (74 trees) Remove Hardware: 6% (53 trees) Remove (Tree): 3% (23 trees) Wire Conflicts Wires present & conflicting: 17 trees (2%) Clearance Conflicts Building: 4% (33 trees) Pedestrian: 3% (23 trees) Ecosystem Benefits $3,295 Overall Annual Value Table 5. Summary of the sample private tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 12 Private Sample Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Sample Inventory) Adjacent Land Use of Private Trees Growing Space Type of Private Trees Single Family, 39% Multi Family, 27% Small Commercial, 19% Park/ Vacant/ Other, 16% Distribution of (Sample) Private Trees by Land Use Other (Maintained), 70% Front Yard, 19% Cutout, 5% Planting Strip, 3% Other (Unmaintained), 2% Median, 1% Distribution of (Sample) Private Trees Growing Space Figure 12. Distribution of (sample) private trees by land use Figure 13. Distribution of growing space for the (sample) private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 13 Private Sample Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Private Trees Private Tree Structure (Sample Inventory) Private Tree Genera Composition Class III (large) - 11ft+, 62% Class II (medium) -6- 10ft, 20% Class I (small) -1-5ft, 18% Distribution of (Sample) Private Trees Planting Site Width Quercus, 19% Acer, 12% Pinus, 9% Ulmus, 8% Thuja, 7%Platanus, 6% Celtis, 5% Cercis, 5% Juniperus, 4% Prunus, 4% Other Tree Genera, 22% Distribution of (Sample) Private Tree Genera (Top 10) Figure 14. Distribution of (sample) private trees planting site widths Figure 15. Distribution of (sample) private tree genera (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 14 Private Sample Private Tree Species Composition Private Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Pin oak, 9% Loblolly pine, 8% Red maple, 8% Arborvitae, 7% London planetree, 5% Hackberry, 5% Eastern redbud, 5% Eastern red cedar, 4%Princeton Elm, 4% Black cherry, 4% Other Tree Species, 43% Distribution of (Sample) Private Tree Species by Common Name (Top 10) 39% 20%23% 10% 5%2% 40% 25% 15% 10%6%4% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Comparison of Fayetteville's (Sample) Private Tree Size Classes to the Ideal Distribution (Richards 1993) City %Ideal % Figure 16. Distribution of (sample) private tree species (top 10) Figure 17. Comparison of Fayetteville's (sample) private tree size classes to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Small Medium Large Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 15 Private Sample Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Sample Inventory) Private Tree Condition Private Tree Observations Excellent, 0.1% Good, 70% Fair, 24% Poor, 4% Dead, 2% Distribution of Private Trees by Condition (Sample Inventory) 346, 41% 75, 9% 9, 1% 8, 1% 8, 1% 3, 0.4% 2, 0.2% Crown Dieback Cavity Decay Poor Structure Poor Location Poor Root System Vines Girdling Roots Summary of Observations from the Private Tree Sample Inventory Figure 18. Distribution of (sample) private trees by condition Figure 19. Summary of observations from the private sample tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 16 Private Sample Recommended Maintenance of Private Trees (“Tree Work”) Private Tree Conflicts (Sample Inventory) Private Tree Wire Conflicts 74, 9% 53, 6% 23, 3% 17, 2% 3, 0.4% 2, 0.2% Prune-Clearance Remove Hardware Remove (Tree) Utility (Prune) Crown Cleaning Remove-Girdling Root Recommended Tree Work for the Private Tree (Sample) Inventory No Lines, 88% Present / No Conflict, 10% Present and Conflicting, 2% Summary of Wire Conflicts for the (Sample) Private Trees Inventoried Figure 20. Recommended tree work for the (sample) private tree inventory Figure 21. Summary of the wire conflicts for the (sample) private tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 17 Private Sample Private Tree Clearance Conflicts 33, 4% 23, 3% 10, 1% 4, 0.5% 1, 0.1% 1, 0.1% Building Pedestrian Underground Utilities Light Light, Sign or Signal Vehicle Existing Clearance Conflicts of the Private Tree Sample Inventory Figure 22. Existing clearance conflicts of the (sample) private tree inventory Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 18 Private Sample Ecosystem Benefits and Services of the Private Tree Sample Inventory Table 6. Ecosystem benefits and services of the sample private trees “lbs” = pounds; “gal” = gallons; “ft3“ = cubic feet Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 19 Park Sample PUBLIC PARK AND TRAIL SAMPLE TREE INVENTORY Summary of Sample Tree Inventories in Public Parks Data Field Wilson Park Farmers Market Frisco Park Greathouse Park Mt. Sequoyah Gardens Mt. Sequoyah Trail # of Data Points 485 41 61 95 48 179 Most Common Tree Genera Quercus (41%) Prunus (37%) Amel- anchier (31%) Ulmus (25%) Cercis (19%) Quercus (53%) Most Common Tree Species Post oak (19%) Yoshino flowering cherry (37%) Service- berry (31%) Green ash (22%) Eastern redbud (19%) Post oak (38%) Primary Condition Good (84%) Good (100%) Good (80%) Good (46%) Good (67%) Good (88%) Primary Size Class 6-12in (21%) 6-12in (54%) 0-3in (41%) 6-12in (45%) 6-12in (46%) 12-18in (50%) Tree Work Clearance Prune (8%) Clearance Prune (17%) Remove Tree (3%) Remove Tree (6%) Crown Cleaning (13%) Remove Tree (3%) Primary Observation Crown Dieback (35%) Poor Root System (32%) Crown Dieback (23%) Poor Location (13%) Crown Dieback (60%) Poor Structure (12%) Primary Clearance Conflict Lights 4% Buildings (17%) None None Buildings (4%) None Table 7. Tree data summaries for parks inventoried in 2022 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 20 Possible Public Planting Sites POSSIBLE PUBLIC PLANTING SITES Summary of Possible Planting Sites on Public Property Field Value Counts Proposed Planting Sites: 336 Stumps: 28 Dead Trees: 144 Proposed Planting Site Widths Class I (small) 1-5 feet: 80 (16%) Class II (medium) 6-10 feet: 316 (62%) Class III (large) 11+ feet: 112 (22%) Growing Space of Proposed Sites Cutout: 275 (54%) Median: 192 (38%) Other (Maintained): 38 (7%) Adjacent Land Use of Proposed Sites Park/Vacant/Other: 260 (51%) Single Family: 140 (28%) Small Commercial: 50 (10%) Wire Conflicts No Lines: 470 (93%) Wires Present, No Conflict: 34 (7%) Wires Present, Conflicting: 4 (0.8%) Diameter of Stumps 3-6in: 20 (71%) 12-18in: 4 (14%) 0-3in: 2 (7%) Table 8. Summary of possible public planting sites inventoried in 2022 Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 21 All Public Trees ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL PUBLIC TREES Methodology Based on a total of 470 (500) linear road miles in the City and the inventory of public trees along 5% of roadways, the urban forestry consultants utilized research data from the 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities (Hauer, et al.) to estimate the total public tree population. For communities of similar size, population, population density, and linear road miles, the average public tree population is 25,000 trees. Based on these estimates, the sample public tree data (2,712 alive or dead trees) was extrapolated to represent 25,000 public trees. The following summaries provide estimates of public tree extent, growing space, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs: Public Tree Status Public Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Public Trees) Adjacent Land Use of Public Trees Alive, 95% Dead, 5% Estimated Status of All Public Trees Figure 23. Estimated status of all public trees Industrial/ Large Commercial, 0% Small Commercial, 9% Multi Family, 9% Single Family, 15% Park/ Vacant/ Other, 68% Estimated Adjacent Land Use of All Public Trees Figure 24. Estimated adjacent land use of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 22 All Public Trees Growing Space Type of Public Trees Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Public Trees Front Yard, 1% Other (Unmaintained), 1% Cutout, 6% Median, 26% Planting Strip, 27% Other (Maintained), 39% Estimated Growing Space of All Public Trees Figure 25. Estimated growing space of all public trees Class I (small) -1-5ft, 22% Class III (large) - 11ft+, 36% Class II (medium) -6- 10ft, 42% Estimated Planting Site Widths of All Public Trees Figure 26. Estimated planting site widths of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 23 All Public Trees Public Tree Structure (Estimated for All Public Trees) Public Tree Genera Composition Quercus, 31% Ulmus, 15% Acer, 8% Nyssa, 4%Taxodium, 3% Celtis, 3% Carpinus, 3% Cercis, 3% Fraxinus, 2% Amelanchier, 2% Other Tree Genera, 26% Estimated Tree Genera Diversity (Top 10) of All Public Trees Figure 27. Estimated tree genera diversity for all public trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 24 All Public Trees Public Tree Species Composition Princeton Elm, 7% Post oak, 6% Willow oak, 6% Pin oak, 5% Blackgum, 4% New Harmony Elm , 3% Red maple, 3% Northern red oak, 3% Baldcypress, 3% Hackberry, 3% Other Tree Species, 56% Estimated Tree Species Diversity (Top 10) of All Public Trees Figure 28. Estimated tree species diversity for all public trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 25 All Public Trees Public Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Public Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Public Trees) Public Tree Condition 55% 19%14% 6%4%2% 40% 25% 15%10%6%4% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Estimated Distribution of Diameter Classes for All Public Trees Compared to the Ideal Distribution (Richards, 1993) City DBH Ideal DBH Small Medium Large Figure 29. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all public trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) 9, Excellent, 0.04%18,833, Good, 75% 3,632, Fair, 15% 1,198, Poor, 5% 1,327, Dead, 5% Estimated Condition of All Public Trees Figure 30. Estimated condition of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 26 All Public Trees Public Tree Observations Recommended Maintenance of Public Trees (“Tree Work”) 7,494 1,604 1,162 876 304 147 111 65 46 9 9 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Crown Dieback Cavity Decay Mechanical Damage Poor Structure Vines Poor Root System Canker Poor Location Grate/Guard Hardscape Damage Pests Estimated Observations and Defects of All Public Trees Figure 31. Estimated observations and defects of all public trees 2,000 1,493 664 240 166 101 74 65 55 28 18 18 0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9% Prune-Clearance Remove (Tree) Utility (Prune) Crown Cleaning Thin (Canopy) Remove Hardware Sidewalk Damage Amend Mulch Remove-Girdling Root Prune-Structural Monitor Raise Estimated Tree Work Needed for All Public Trees Figure 32. Estimated tree work needed for all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 27 All Public Trees Public Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Public Trees) Public Tree Wire Conflicts Public Tree Clearance Conflicts No Lines, 93% Present / No Conflict, 4% Present and Conflicting, 3% Estimated Wire Conflicts of All Public Trees Figure 33. Estimated wire conflicts for all public trees 489 341 267 166 101 37 28 9 9 9 0%1%1%2%2%3% Pedestrian Building Light Sign or Signal Vehicle Underground Utilities Light, Sign or Signal Building, Pedestrian Light, Pedestrian Other Estimated Clearance Conflicts of All Public Trees Figure 34. Estimated clearance conflicts of all public trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 28 All Public Trees Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Public Trees Table 9. Estimated ecosystem benefits and services of all public trees Metric Amount Alternative Unit Equivalent Overall Monetary Benefit $71,600 Air Quality Monetary Benefit $23,949 Pollutants Removed 10,776 lbs 5 tons Carbon Monetary Benefit $33,614 Carbon Stored 1,445,102 lbs 723 tons Evaporation 2,672,939 ft3 19,994,971 gal 30 Olympic pools Interception 2,676,967 ft3 20,025,105 gal 30 Olympic pools Potential Evaporation 23,050,898 ft3 172,432,701 gal 261 Olympic pools Evapotranspiration 17,444,624 ft3 130,494,858 gal 198 Olympic pools Runoff Avoided 210,214 ft3 1,572,508 gal 2 Olympic pools Stormwater Monetary Benefit $14,054 Transpiration 5,656,762 ft3 42,315,524 gal 64 Olympic pools CO Pollution Removed 112 lbs CO Removed Monetary Benefit $72 NO2 Pollution Removed 506 lbs NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $103 O3 Pollution Removed 9,643 lbs 5 tons O3 Removed Monetary Benefit $11,367 PM2.5 Pollution Removed 258 lbs PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit $12,344 SO2 Pollution Removed 189 lbs SO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $0.09 CO2 Sequestered 1,445,101 lbs 723 tons CO2 Sequestered Monetary Benefit $33,613 CO2 Storage 49,303,705 lbs 24,652 tons CO2 Storage Monetary Benefit $1,146,668 Carbon Dry Weight 26,892,933 lbs 13,446 tons Carbon Storage 13,446,459 lbs 6,723 tons “lbs” = pounds; “gal” = gallons; “ft3“ = cubic feet Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 29 All Private Trees ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL PRIVATE TREES Methodology A total of 850 private trees were inventoried as a sample. These trees were located in private parcels adjacent to public streets that were visited during the public tree inventory. According to Fayetteville’s Mobility Plan, there are a total of 470 linear road miles and the inventory crews inventoried along a total of 25 linear road miles or approximately 5% of roadways. The private parcels included in the sample inventory had a total acreage of 342 acres. Using the City’s Zoning classifications and GIS data, a total of 32,150 acres exist across the City. Therefore, the inventory crews visited 1% of all private parcels. Based on these figures, it is estimated that there are a total of 79,884 private trees, or approximately 80,000 private trees in maintained areas of properties. The following summaries provide estimates of private tree extent, growing space, structure, characteristics, and maintenance needs: Private Tree Status Private Tree Location and Growing Space (Estimated for All Private Trees) Land Use of Private Trees Alive, 98%Dead, 2%Stump, 0% Estimated Status of All Private Trees Figure 35. Estimated status of all private trees Single Family, 39% Multi Family, 27% Small Commercial, 19% Park/ Vacant/ Other, 16% Estimated Land Use of All Private Trees Figure 36. Estimated land use of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 30 All Private Trees Growing Space Type of Private Trees Existing Tree Planting Site Width of Private Trees Other (Maintained), 70% Front Yard, 19%Cutout, 5% Planting Strip, 3% Other (Unmaintained), 2%Median, 1% Estimated Growing Space of All Private Trees Figure 37. Estimated growing space of all private trees Class III (large) -11ft+, 62% Class II (medium) -6- 10ft, 20% Class I (small) -1-5ft, 18% Estimated Planting Site Widths of All Private Trees Figure 38. Estimated planting site widths of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 31 All Private Trees Private Tree Structure (Estimated for All Private Trees) Private Tree Genera Composition Quercus, 19% Acer, 12% Pinus, 9% Ulmus, 8% Thuja, 7% Platanus, 6% Celtis, 5% Cercis, 5% Juniperus, 4% Prunus, 4% Other Tree Genera, 22% Estimated Tree Genera Diversity (Top 10) of All Private Trees Figure 39. Estimated tree genera diversity of all private trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 32 All Private Trees Private Tree Species Composition Pin oak, 9% Loblolly pine, 8% Red maple, 8% Arborvitae, 7% London planetree, 5% Hackberry , 5% Eastern redbud, 5% Eastern red cedar, 4% Princeton Elm, 4% Black cherry, 4% Other Tree Species, 43% Estimated Tree Species Diversity (Top 10) of All Private Trees Figure 40. Estimated tree species diversity of all private trees (top 10) Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 33 All Private Trees Private Tree Size Classes and Relative Age Distribution Private Tree Condition and Maintenance Needs (Estimated for All Private Trees) Private Tree Condition 39% 20%23% 10% 5%2% 40% 25% 15% 10%6%4% 0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Estimated Distribution of Diameter Classes for All Private Trees Compared to the Ideal Distribution (Richards, 1993) City DBH Ideal DBH Small Medium Large Figure 41. Estimated distribution of diameter classes for all private trees compared to the ideal distribution (Richards, 1993) Excellent, 0.12% Good, 70% Fair, 24% Poor, 4% Dead, 2% Estimated Condition of All Private Trees Figure 42. Estimated condition of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 34 All Private Trees Private Tree Observations Recommended Maintenance of Private Trees (“Tree Work”) 32,565 7,059 847 753 753 282 188 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% Crown Dieback Cavity Decay Poor Structure Poor Location Poor Root System Vines Girdling Roots Estimated Observations and Defects of All Private Trees Figure 43. Estimated observations and defects of all private trees 6,965 4,988 2,165 1,600 282 188 0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10% Prune-Clearance Remove Hardware Remove (Tree) Utility (Prune) Crown Cleaning Remove-Girdling Root Estimated Tree Work Needed for All Private Trees Figure 44. Estimated tree work needed for all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 35 All Private Trees Private Tree Conflicts (Estimated for All Private Trees) Private Tree Wire Conflicts Private Tree Clearance Conflicts No Lines, 88% Present / No Conflict, 10% Present and Conflicting, 2% Estimated Wire Conflicts of All Private Trees Figure 45. Estimated wire conflicts of all private trees 3,106 2,165 941 376 94 94 0%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%4%5% Building Pedestrian Underground Utilities Light Light, Sign or Signal Vehicle Estimated Clearance Conflicts of All Private Trees Figure 46. Estimated clearance conflicts of all private trees Fayetteville, AR Urban Forest Management Plan: Tree Inventory Summary Apr2023 Page | 36 All Private Trees Estimated Ecosystem Benefits and Services of All Private Trees Table 10. Estimated ecosystem services and benefits of all private trees Metric Amount Alternative Unit Equivalent Overall Monetary Benefit $731,024 Air Quality Monetary Benefit $244,520 Pollutants Removed 110,024 lbs 55 tons Carbon Monetary Benefit $343,191 Carbon Stored 14,754,324 lbs 7,377 tons Evaporation 27,290,389 ft3 204,146,299 gal 309 Olympic pools Interception 27,331,518 ft3 204,453,968 gal 310 Olympic pools Potential Evaporation 235,346,953 ft3 1,760,517,592 gal 2,667 Olympic pools Evapotranspiration 178,107,558 ft3 1,332,337,147 gal 2,019 Olympic pools Runoff Avoided 2,146,258 ft3 16,055,125 gal 24 Olympic pools Stormwater Monetary Benefit $143,485 Transpiration 57,754,878 ft3 432,036,521 gal 655 Olympic pools CO Pollution Removed 1,144 lbs 0.6 tons CO Removed Monetary Benefit $732 NO2 Pollution Removed 5,165 lbs 3 tons NO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $1,048 O3 Pollution Removed 98,456 lbs 49 tons O3 Removed Monetary Benefit $116,053 PM2.5 Pollution Removed 2,631 lbs 1 ton PM2.5 Removed Monetary Benefit $126,030 SO2 Pollution Removed 1,930 lbs 1 ton SO2 Removed Monetary Benefit $1 CO2 Sequestered 14,754,307 lbs 7,377 tons CO2 Sequestered Monetary Benefit $343,189 CO2 Storage 503,385,026 lbs 251,693 tons CO2 Storage Monetary Benefit $11,707,346 Carbon Dry Weight 274,573,683 lbs 137,287 tons Carbon Storage 137,286,767 lbs 68,643 tons “lbs” = pounds; “gal” = gallons; “ft3“ = cubic feet ~PUBLIC SURVEY SUMMARY 1/24/23 FAYETTEVILLE, URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Source: Town of Weston, MA SURVEY OVERVIEW 2 Count of Surveys Received 169 Complete Contributors (2 participants selectively answered survey) Survey Timeframe December 15, 2022 –January 16, 2023 Platform "Speak Up Fayetteville" https://speakup.fayetteville-ar.gov/ 3 QUESTION #1 104 84 67 38 13 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Trees providing shade and reducing surface temperatures where I park, walk, and play Increased number of trees where there is historically minimal tree coverage Healthy trees that are resilient to pests, diseases, prolonged drought, urban heat and changing climates, limited space, and storm events A city program that proactively maintains our public trees for safety and to maximize the benefits they provide More volunteer and training opportunities to plant and care for trees in my neighborhood I envision something different than what is listed above (please describe): Q1: What do you consider most important for the trees in Fayetteville? (Select your top two options)? 4 QUESTION #1 COMMENTS Categories Comment Count Trees and Food 2 Tree Protection 1 Tree Removal Conflict 1 Native Species 3 Planting 1 Invasives 1 Inclusion and Diversity Concern 1 125 112 69 55 26 23 18 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Set and achieve tree coverage goals that are based on reducing heat, improving ecosystems, expanding canopy in underserved communities, and increasing the benefits trees provide Incorporate more tree plantings and tree preservation into development projects Plant trees so that they can coexist with sidewalks and underground utilities such as sewer and water lines Plant trees that can withstand prolonged droughts and high temperatures Allocate additional resources (e.g., staff and funding) toward public tree management Proactively prune trees for structure, health, and safety and manage tree pests and diseases Create more volunteer and training opportunities for members of the community to learn about trees and to plant and care for public trees Other (please specify) Q2:Where should the City use resources to improve public tree health? (Select your top three options)2 5 QUESTION #2 Based on 436 selections made 6 QUESTION #2 COMMENTS Categories Comment Count Trees and Food 1 Tree Protection 3 Invasives 2 Native Species 2 Diversity and Development 1 119 92 86 69 51 17 14 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Strengthening City code requirements for planting more trees and more tree preservation from developers Focus more on purchasing land for conservation Planting more trees on public property Partnering with private property owners to plant trees on private property Increasing programs and strategies relating to conservation Programs for public outreach Less investment in planting, more in tree maintenance Other (please describe) Q3:Where should the City focus its investments with the current funding and with any additional funding that arises from the Urban Forest Management Plan? (Select up to three options) 7 QUESTION #3 Based on 455 selections made 8 QUESTION #3 COMMENTS Categories Comment Count Ordinance Amendment 3 Tree Protection 1 Mature Tree Protection 1 Trash Removal 1 Diversity and Inclusion Concerns 1 9 QUESTION #4 117 115 102 68 52 5 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Parks, greenways, and other public spaces Street trees (planted in the space between the sidewalk and street and in the median) Commercial/industrial areas School/campus areas Private residential property Other (please describe) Not applicable, I’d prefer to not increase the number of trees and canopy cover Q4: To achieve your vision for the urban forest, which might include increasing the number of trees and tree canopy cover, where should the City prioritize tree plantings? (Select your top three options) Based on 460 selections made 10 QUESTION #4 COMMENTS Categories Comment Count Tree Protection 1 Invasive 2 Specie Selection 1 Diversity and Inclusion Concern 1 95 42 21 9 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Climate-based: areas where trees could provide shade and provide other ecosystem services. Location-based: areas with the most opportunity to plant trees, or where a tree was recently removed Equity-based: areas with lower income Other (please describe) Not applicable, I do not support planting more trees Q5: If you support planting more trees throughout the City, where should the City and its partners focus these efforts? 11 QUESTION #5 Based on 169 Survey Responses 12 QUESTION #5 COMMENTS Categories Comment Count All 5 Vegetation Inventory 1 Invasive Removal 1 Location-Highway 1 Diversity and Inclusion Concern 1 123 22 19 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Yes Not Applicable (N/A) Unsure No Q6: Increasing a healthy tree canopy cover requires investments in planting trees along with postplanting care such as young tree pruning and watering. Would you be willing to water trees during drought conditions that are in the public rights -of- way adja 13 QUESTION #6 Based on 170 selections made 122 46 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 No Yes Q7: Are there any questions, concerns, comments or considerations that you would like Urban Forestry to know about? 14 QUESTION #7 Based on 168 responses 15 QUESTION #7 COMMENTS (CATEGORIZED) Categories Comment Count Native Species 3 Equity 1 Increase Canopy 2 Trees and Food 1 Watering 3 Trees and Development 9 Tree Maintenance 2 Tree Donation Funds 1 Cost Share Program-Tree Removal Specific 1 Thanks 2 Tree Removal 1 Job Growth 1 Prioritization of UF activities 1 Free Tree Planting Giveaways 1 Education Material-Tree Selection 1 Tree Planting Locations 1 Increase Canopy 1 Invasives 2 Ecological Concerns 1 Volunteer Opportunity 1 Tree Removal Ordinance 1 54 35 30 28 17 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 More than 20 years 11-20 years 2-5 years 6-10 years Fewer than 2 years Not applicable Q9: How many years have you lived in Fayetteville? 16 QUESTION #9 Based on 170 responses 50 41 35 31 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 1 Ward 2 Not applicable (I do not live in Fayetteville) Q10: In which Ward do you live in Fayetteville? 17 QUESTION #10 Based on 169 responses 18 QUESTION #11 134 17 13 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 One family house detached from any other houses Apartment or condominium Townhome Other (please describe) Q11: Which best describes the building in which you live? Based on 168 responses 19 QUESTION #12 103 86 69 38 29 14 10 9 6 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 A home, apartment, or other that has an adequate number of trees on the property I have easy access to green spaces that I frequently visit The trees present or near my place of residence are in good condition A home, apartment, or other that does not have enough trees on the property The trees present or near my place of residence are in poor condition I do not have easy access to green spaces A home, apartment, or other with no trees present on the property I have easy access to green spaces that I do not visit A home, apartment, or other with too many trees on the property Other (please describe) Q12: If you live in Fayetteville, please describe the current conditions where youreside. (Select all that apply) Based on 370 selections made 20 QUESTION #12 COMMENTS Categories Comment Count Tree Impacts 1 Trees and Development 1 Other 3 Invasives 1 21 QUESTION #13 48 41 23 21 20 13 2 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 18-24 years 55-64 years 65-74 years Under 18 years 75 years or older Q13: What is your age? Based on 170 responses 152 11 4 3 2 2 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 White Prefer not to answer American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic or Latino Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African-American Other (please describe) Q14: To what race and/or ethnicity group do you identify? (Select all that apply) 22 QUESTION #14 Based on 176 selections made 23 QUESTION #14 COMMENTS Comment Middle Eastern European TASK C. CITY OPERATIONS AND WORKFLOWS ~ STAFF &BOARD MEMBER SURVEY SUMMARY ~ 9/30/22 FAYETTEVILLE, URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook SURVEY OVERVIEW 2 Count of Surveys Received 28 of 59 invited (47%) Survey Timeframe August 30, 2022 –September 23, 2022 Platform Google Forms: https://forms.gle/BA67usA5y3RuiAABA 6 QUESTION #2 0%, 0 1%, 2 3%, 4 4%, 5 4%, 5 4%, 5 6%, 8 6%, 8 7%, 9 8%, 11 9%, 12 9%, 13 10%, 14 12%, 17 18%, 24 Request to meet to further discuss Data management, IT Legal, procedural Infrastructure maintenance and repair Risk management policy, hazard mitigation work, public safety Other: Capital Improvement Projects, including park creation Minor park improvements (not CIPs), park maintenance Development permitting, Land use, regulatory considerations Human health, environmental justice Vegetation management, landscape maintenance Ordinances, Code enforcement City Planning Recreation, community engagement Advocate for public tree and park improvements 2. How does your work or role impact or influence the urban forest, individual trees, natural areas, and/or the landscape in Fayetteville? Based on 137 selections made 7 QUESTION #2 Based on 28 Survey Responses 0% 7% 14% 18% 18% 18% 29% 29% 32% 39% 43% 46% 50% 61% 86% Request to meet to further discuss Data management, IT Legal, procedural Infrastructure maintenance and repair Risk management policy, hazard mitigation work, public safety Other: Capital Improvement Projects, including park creation Minor park improvements (not CIPs), park maintenance Development permitting, Land use, regulatory considerations Human health, environmental justice Vegetation management, landscape maintenance Ordinances, Code enforcement City Planning Recreation, community engagement Advocate for public tree and park improvements 2. How does your work or role impact or influence the urban forest, individual trees, natural areas, and/or the landscape in Fayetteville? 8 Name Comment(s) Member of PRAB Citizen at large on EAC committee use the platform of an outdoor retailer to advocate for public lands and environmental stewardship EAC has advisory role to City Council Voice for urban forestry goals and missed opportunities in city planning decisions. QUESTION #2 COMMENTS 9 QUESTION #3 1%, 1 2%, 2 3%, 4 5%, 7 7%, 9 8%, 10 8%, 10 8%, 10 8%, 11 10%, 13 10%, 13 11%, 14 11%, 14 11%, 15 Request to meet to further discuss Other: Delineation of departmental responsibility, liability Inter-departmental pressure points, mediation protocols for inter- departmental priorities Regulatory requirements Sustainability Protocols, Best Management Practices (BMPs) Collaboration, partnerships Budget Environmental/ecological Preparedness planning (wildfire, drought, invasive insects & pests, storms, disease) Infrastructure conflicts Ordinances, standards Staffing 3. What are the current issues, concerns, challenges, information/resource gaps, or inefficiencies experienced or seen, if any, as it relates to your work/role described in #2? Based on 133 selections made 10 QUESTION #3 Based on 28 Survey Responses 4% 7% 14% 25% 32% 36% 36% 36% 39% 46% 46% 50% 50% 54% Request to meet to further discuss Other: Delineation of departmental responsibility, liability Inter-departmental pressure points, mediation protocols for inter- departmental priorities Regulatory requirements Sustainability Protocols, Best Management Practices (BMPs) Collaboration, partnerships Budget Environmental/ecological Preparedness planning (wildfire, drought, invasive insects & pests, storms, disease) Infrastructure conflicts Ordinances, standards Staffing 3. What are the current issues, concerns, challenges, information/resource gaps, or inefficiencies experienced or seen, if any, as it relates to your work/role described in #2? 11 QUESTION #3 COMMENTS Name Comment(s) Poor inventory management Replacement of street trees in existing neighborhoods 12 QUESTION #4 0%, 0 1%, 1 1%, 1 2%, 3 3%, 4 3%, 4 3%, 4 4%, 5 7%, 10 9%, 12 9%, 12 10%, 13 10%, 13 10%, 14 14%, 19 15%, 21 Uniform work order management Workflow checklists Request to meet to further discuss Forestry equipment and technology Training Urban Forestry staff needs to be combined or realigned Other: Task prioritization Data Resources Improved program structure or new programs Forestry staffing Benchmarking and goal setting Community volunteers, events, and engagement Information Tree maintenance plan 4. What results and outcomes of the UFMP would you like to see to assist and support your work or role as it relates to the trees and related services in Fayetteville? Based on 136 selections made 13 QUESTION #4 Based on 28 Survey Responses 0% 4% 4% 11% 14% 14% 14% 18% 36% 43% 43% 46% 46% 50% 68% 75% Uniform work order management Workflow checklists Request to meet to further discuss Forestry equipment and technology Training Urban Forestry staff needs to be combined or realigned Other: Task prioritization Data Resources Improved program structure or new programs Forestry staffing Benchmarking and goal setting Community volunteers, events, and engagement Information Tree maintenance plan 4. What results and outcomes of the UFMP would you like to see to assist and support your work or role as it relates to the trees and related services in Fayetteville? 14 QUESTION #4 COMMENTS Name Comment(s) Expand to be "urban ecology" Supporting current Forestry activities and preservation/landscaping standards Clear understanding of where efforts should be focused and what benefits will be received by increased efforts is warranted. Prioritize planting trees that will have the greatest positive impact on other species. For example, prioritize native oaks over Liriodendron (tulip tree) 15 QUESTION #5 0%, 0 1%, 1 3%, 3 5%, 5 7%, 7 16%, 16 17%, 17 25%, 26 26%, 27 Request to meet to further discuss Trees are NOT a priority for the City Instead of planting more trees we should focus on maintaining the trees we currently have Other: Overall, the Urban Forestry Program needs improvements The processes and regulations around tree protection and development should be improved We should be better implementing best management practices and standards for our trees I would like to see more trees in the City with a plan and resources for maintaining them Trees and the Urban Forestry Program are a priority for me 5. Please select from the following to summarize your viewpoints and priorities relating to trees and the urban forest in the City. Based on 102 selections made 16 QUESTION #5 Based on 28 Survey Responses 0% 4% 11% 18% 25% 57% 61% 93% 96% Request to meet to further discuss Trees are NOT a priority for the City Instead of planting more trees we should focus on maintaining the trees we currently have Other: Overall, the Urban Forestry Program needs improvements The processes and regulations around tree protection and development should be improved We should be better implementing best management practices and standards for our trees I would like to see more trees in the City with a plan and resources for maintaining them Trees and the Urban Forestry Program are a priority for me 5. Please select from the following to summarize your viewpoints and priorities relating to trees and the urban forest in the City. 17 QUESTION #5 COMMENTS Name Comment(s) I picked 3 and 4 because I like the idea of more trees but we lack a proper maintenance plan Expand to include broader ecological issues Street sections need to be reviewed. We are placing trees in spaces that are too confined for long term health of tree and infrastructure. We should not just be counting trees on properties that are about to be developed. We should identify large trees with significant environmental value. Yes, the Urban Forestry program needs improvements -it needs more resources, more vocal recognition of its value, and deeper integration with utilities and infrastructure and management that reflects that value 18 QUESTION #6 3%, 4 9%, 12 11%, 16 14%, 20 15%, 21 16%, 22 16%, 23 16%, 23 Other: A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover F) Increase educational and outreach efforts B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks 6. Overall, what do you feel are the most important goals for the City in regards to urban forestry? Based on 141 selections made 19 QUESTION #6 Based on 28 Survey Responses 14% 43% 57% 71% 75% 79% 82% 82% Other: A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover F) Increase educational and outreach efforts B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks 6. Overall, what do you feel are the most important goals for the City in regards to urban forestry? 20 QUESTION #6 COMMENTS Name Comment(s) Make sure that underserved areas, and those with few trees receive priority for planting urban forests. I agree with A) as a percent of the City under canopy, but not necessarily the existing canopy. Determine what is a reasonable canopy goal for the city based on land use, growth, and evnironmental/health benefits. Integration of urban ecology, of which forestry is a subset, into the value decisions of the mayor and city council, into budgeting and staffing, and into workflows of utilities and engineering 21 QUESTION #7 4%, 3 8%, 6 11%, 8 11%, 8 14%, 11 16%, 12 16%, 12 21%, 16 F) Increase educational and outreach efforts Other/Comments: A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover 7. From the list above, what are the three (3) most important goals (list letter)? Based on 76 selections made 22 QUESTION #7 Based on 28 Survey Responses 11% 21% 29% 29% 39% 43% 43% 57% F) Increase educational and outreach efforts Other/Comments: A) Maintain current levels of tree canopy cover E) Increase efforts to reduce urban heat island effects in the City D) Better maintain the urban forest through policies and practices that reduce its vulnerability to known diseases or pest infestations, and future threats, including the anticipated effects of climate change B) Increase funding to increase tree canopy cover by purchasing trees to be planted G) Support local businesses, institutions, organizations, and individuals in their efforts to grow and maintain the urban forest through cooperative planting programs such as the City providing yard trees for planting locations that shade sidewalks C) Procure funding for the City to purchase land for tree preservation in order to maintain and increase tree canopy cover 7. From the list above, what are the three (3) most important goals (list letter)? 23 QUESTION #7 COMMENTS Name Comment(s) Large gap between C (procure funding…) and G (support local businesses…) Make sure that underserved areas, and those with few trees receive priority for planting urban forests. and B (increase funding…) and F (increase educational…) I agree with A) (maintain current levels of UTC…) as a percent of the City under canopy, but not necessarily the existing canopy. Other: Integration and expansion of Urban Forestry through the city's organization US FOREST SERVICE URBAN FOREST AUDIT ~ ADAPTED FOR FAYETTEVILLE, AR ~ August 2023 FAYETTEVILLE URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN Source: Shutterstock U.S. Forest Service’s Urban Forest Sustainability & Management Audit System Information Gathering & Discovery ❖Measure City’s readiness for improved urban forest management, use of the Discovery Matrix ❖Document Index of discovered resources ❖11 Categories, 129 planning elements 1)Management Policy & Ordinances 2)Capacity and Training 3)Funding and Accounting 4)Decision & Authority 5)Tree Inventories 6)Urban Forest Plans 7)Risk Management 8)Disaster Planning 9)Standards and Best Practices 10)Community 11)Green Asset Evaluation Category & Element Count Management Policy and Ordinances 30 Professional Capacity and Training 3 Funding and Accounting 4 Decision and Management Authority 3 Inventories 14 Urban Forest Management Plans 13 Risk Management 4 Disaster Planning 4 Standards & Best Management Practices (BMPs)39 Community 28 Green Asset Evaluation 10 Category: Management Policy & Ordinances ##Subcategory Document/Resource 1.02 Climate Change (Sustainability) Tree Policy Manual Sustainable City Plan 1.03 No Net Loss Tree Policy Manual 1.04 Risk Management Tree Policy Manual 1.05 Tree Canopy Goals Sustainable City Plan General Plan Audit Process (example only) URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: OVERVIEW 2 URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: DOCUMENT INDEX 3 A total of 66 documents were gathered for the research and information discovery phase of the UFMP project. Based on the research, there were a total of 326 instances where elements in the Audit were referenced in the 66 documents. An example of the document index is provided above. For a complete listing, see the “Fayetteville Urban Forest Audit” spreadsheet. Example of the resources reviewed and documented in the Document Index Documents Evaluated and Recorded in the Index #Resource Information Gathered / Application 1 City Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public survey conducted, tree canopy section 8.3 (p89), climate change and canopy, urban forest benefits, ordinance, UFAB (formerly Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee est. in 1993) 2 Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual Contains recommended tree list 3 Code of Ordinances -Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection 4 Code of Ordinances -Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations Contains list of invasive plant species 5 Tree Preservation Standard Detail 6 Tree List from Arkansas Native Plant Society 7 Significant Trees List & Classifications 8 Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Equity 9 Adopted Annual Budget & Work Program Contains statement on 40% canopy goal (based on Energy Action Plan), lists trees planted, lists trees mitigated and preservation acres 10 2022 Q1 Executive Management Report Nothing to report 11 Adopted Five Year Capital Improvements Plan 2021-2025 12 "Fayetteville First" Strategic Plan 13 Energy Action Plan Chapter 1 Greenhouse Gas Reduction & Climate Change; Chapter 3 Buildings, Strategy #5 -UHI mitigation (p40); Chapter 3 Buildings Strategy 2, Make Existing Single-family & Multi-family Dwellings More Efficient; Ch 3 Buildings Strategy 4, Conduct a Community-Wide Tree Canopy Assessment and Set a Tree Canopy Coverage Percentage Goal (p39); Ch 3 Cross-Sector Strategy 1, Integrate Resilience and Adaptation Considerations into Planning and Policy Decisions --investigate feasibility of a stormwater utility to improve green infrastructure 14 Master Street Plan (excerpt from City Plan 2040) 15 City Plan 2040 Public Survey Q11) "please help the City understand which of the following amenities, characteristics, or public improvements should be prioritized in association with infill" --responses greatly supported making the neighborhood they want to live in, projects are friendly to pedestrians, and public amenities (traffic calming, pathways, open spaces) URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: DISCOVERY MATRIX 4 Once the documents were indexed, each of the 66 resources were reviewed and cross-examined with the Audit’s Discovery Matrix categories (11) and elements (130). An example of the process is shown on the left. For the “Management Policy and Ordinances” category, documents are listed in the green cells that mention or relate to the category’s elements including “Climate Change”, “No Net Loss”, “Risk Management”, and “Tree Canopy Goals”. Any reference to the element within a document was given a “1” to enable a count of the total references to urban forestry per document, per element. Example of the Documents and References to Audit Elements Discovery Matrix example for Fayetteville documents relating to Management Policy Audit Category Documents with Reference Management Policy and Ordinances 104 Professional Capacity and Training 4 Funding and Accounting 10 Decision and Management Authority 40 Inventories 18 Urban Forest Management Plans 7 Risk Management 12 Disaster Planning 2 Standards & Best Management Practices (BMPs)109 Community 20 Green Asset Evaluation N/A TOTAL COUNT 326 RESEARCH DEEP DIVE: Existing plans, ordinances, practices CITY CONSULTATIONS: Workflows, operations, services, best practices, standards, challenges, opportunities EXISTING CONDITIONS: Inventory analysis, ecosystem benefits, trends, maintenance needs, planting, preservation BENCHMARKING: Establish baseline metrics for comparison and monitoring ($ per tree, staff per tree, etc.) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Existing and potential partners, recommendations, public meeting URBAN FOREST AUDIT: Systematic evaluation from which goals and actions are developed and can be monitored URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: PROCESS 5 Category: Management Policy & Ordinances Element Subcategory Description or Criteria for Evaluation Assigned Status* 1.01 Climate Change (Sustainability) With reference to urban trees, addresses the long-term health and productivity of the natural resource. Score: 2 “Adopted Common Practice” 1.02 No Net Loss Can refer to trees, basal area, or canopy.Score: 2 “Adopted Common Practice” 1.03 Risk Management Should reference: ANSI A300 Part 9, ISA BMP, and prioritization funding mechanisms. Score: 2 “Adopted Common Practice” 1.04 Tree Canopy Goals Overall community/campus goal, or by designated “zone”. Score: 1 “In Development *For each subcategory that is evaluated, 0 points are attributed if the component doesn’t exist or is not practiced; 1 point is given if the component is in development; 2 points are given if the component is routinely practiced; and 3 points are given if the practice is exceeded. The points can then be totaled for an overall score. URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: PROCESS 6 *Standard of Care (SOC) elements represent the minimum group of urban forestry management “best practices” that a municipality should consider for implementation. **Base Practices (BP) elements represent additional urban forest management activities or components that may effectively expand a program beyond the SOC group (see footnote above). These elements are typically precursors to other “non -core” elements in the category. #Category SOC (% Achieved)*Base (% Achieved)**Overall Rating Overall (% Achieved) 1 Management Policy and Ordinances 75%50%15 54% 2 Professional Capacity and Training 100%NA 13 81% 3 Funding and Accounting 100%NA 6 50% 4 Decision and Management Authority 100%50%7 88% 5 Inventories NA 25%12 46% 6 Urban Forest Management Plans NA 50%11 46% 7 Risk Management 100%100%16 89% 8 Disaster Planning NA 100%13 93% 9 Standards and BMPs 100%69%44 73% 10 Community 100%NA 24 86% 11 Green Asset Evaluation NA NA 17 85% Total 96%63%178 70% URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: OUTCOMES 7 Color Rank Description Ranking Rationale / Considerations Blue Category and element description Light Red 0) Not Practiced No mention of the audit element in any documents, nothing uncovered during staff consultations, not in development as part of the UFMP project. Describes the considerations that influenced the ranking Yellow 1) In Development The audit element is either mentioned in various documents but needs improvements or it is being addressed as part of the UFMP project. Describes the considerations that influenced the ranking Green 2) Adopted Common Practice The audit element is mentioned in various documents, and it aligns with industry standards and best practices. Describes the considerations that influenced the ranking URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: SCORE KEY 8 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 1.00 Policy Written policy statements approved by a governing body. 1.01 Urban Heat (Sustainability) Also referred to as Sustainability. With reference to urban trees. Addresses the long-term health and productivity of the natural resource. Most documents that mention sustainability relate to development not trees though Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection ordinance exists 1.02 No Net Loss Can refer to trees, basal area, or canopy.Not specifically mentioned but ordinances have mitigation requirements 1.03 Risk Management Should reference: ANSI A300 Part 9, ISA BMP, and prioritization funding mechanisms. No document specifically calls out standards, protocols, or staff trained for tree risk management 1.04 Tree Canopy Goals Overall community/campus goal, or by designated “zone”.Energy Action Plan has a stated goal of 40% 1.05 Tree Protection Construction and/or landscape maintenance.Ordinances, critical root zone mentioned in various permit documents, construction standards 1.06 Utility Utility pruning, planting, and installation policy (e.g.boring vs. trenching).No policy in place for utility pruning was found but permits require identifying location of underground utilities 1.07 Human Health –Physical & Psychological Recognizes and addresses the human health benefits of the natural resource (e.g.exercise, air quality, stress management, shade). Could also include Urban Heat Island (UHI) policies. Benefits of trees are stated in various documents but less emphasis on heat reduction and human health 1.08 Wildlife Diversity / Habitat / Protection Mammals, birds, or reptiles.Comprehensive Plan and other plans have strategies and policies for preserving and conserving natural resources for wildlife 1.09 Performance Monitoring Recognizes the annual or biennial calculation of metrics (e.g.some component of ecosystem services) for the purpose of tracking management performance. Performance metrics in budget documents. Specific KPIs to be developed as part of the UFMP 1.10 Ordinance (Private) Tree protection and management for trees on private property.Ordinances are in place but will be reviewed with recommendations as part of the UFMP. City has the Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual 1.11 Ordinance (Public)Tree protection and management for public trees.Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection is for private development. Similarly for Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations 1.12 Development Standards US Green Building Council’s LEED® rating systems (or similar internationally) LEED v4 BD+C (Sustainable Sites) LEED 4 ND (Neighborhood Pattern & Design, Green Infrastructure) ASLA’s SITES® Rating System Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection is for private development. Similarly for Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations 1.13 High-Conservation Value Forests Programs or policies for identification, acquisition, and/or protection of groups of trees or forests that provide unique public benefits.The Comprehensive Plan focuses heavily on conservation and easements 1.14 Urban Interface (WUI)Programs or policies that improve management of the urban interface for fire and/or invasive species. Wildfire management is not covered in the documents but invasive species management is URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: MANAGEMENT POLICY 9 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 2.00 Professional Management Provision for professional consultation. 2.01 Certified Arborist -Staff International Society of Arboriculture Urban Foresters in Parks, Public Works, and Development 2.02 Certified Arborist - Contracted International Society of Arboriculture Chapter 167 identifies and recognizes ISA Certified Arborists 2.03 Certified Arborist -Other Resource International Society of Arboriculture Supporting staff with ISA credentials 2.04 Other Professional - Advising/directing UF management This could be a professional in an allied field like Landscape Architecture.City to provide input 2.05 Municipal Forestry Institute Graduate of Society of Municipal Arborist’s MFI program or similar City to provide input 2.06 USFS Urban Forestry Institute or similar Attendance at USFS UFI or similar City to provide input 2.07 Campus/city arborist –ISA CA instructor for CEUs Arborist routinely provides ISA CEU presentations/workshops.City to provide input, trainings and resources are available on the website (“Citizen Tree Care Resources”) 2.08 Tree Board University or similar On-line training modules from Oregon U&CF for Tree Board/Advisory Council or similar Unsure of the training and background of members on the Urban Forestry Advisory Board, Environmental Action Committee, or the Keep Fayetteville Beautiful Committee 2.09 Organizational Communications Process, procedures, and protocol for cross-professional communications within the organization (all departments “touching” trees). City to provide input but improvements will be recommended in the UFMP URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: CAPACITY & TRAINING 10 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 3.00 Urban Forestry Budget 3.01 Budgeted Annually Budget authorized/required for tree board, tree maintenance, and/or tree planting.Urban Foresters and programs clearly listed in budget line items 3.02 Contingency Budget Process A protocol is in place to prioritize urban forestry management activities during budget shortfalls; e.g.during times of limited funding for: 1) risk management, 2) young tree care, 3) mulching. City to provide input 3.03 Funding Calculated from Community Attribute Budget in terms of per capita, per tree, or for performance (e.g.per tree weighted by size class or age. City to provide input. The inventory with ecosystem benefit calculations is a starting point 3.04 Funding Based on Performance Monitoring Budget connected with/based on ecosystem service (ES) monitoring and performance. City to provide input. The inventory with ecosystem benefit calculations is a starting point 3.05 Urban Forestry Line Item Is the budget specific to urban forest management?Line items for the Urban Forestry staff, clear line items for Forestry & Habitat plus events, and Tree City USA reporting documents 3.06 Green Asset Accounting Maintain green infrastructure data in the “unaudited supplementary disclosure of an entity’s comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR)”. GASB 34 implementation for municipalities. City to provide input URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: FUNDING & ACCOUNTING 11 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 4.00 Authority 4.01 Urban Forest Manager Professional urban forest manager with authority over the program and day-to-day activity. Including designated budget line item. “Urban Forester” mentioned frequently in documents stating authority, role, and communications protocols 4.02 Staff Authority Designated staff with authority over the program and day-to-day activity. Including designated line item.Clearly defines the role of the Urban Forester 4.03 Communication Protocol Established protocol and mechanism(s) for communication among all members of the urban forest management “community” in your municipality or organization (e.g.manager, department under control, advisory board, finance, field operations, public, NGOs, business community, developers). City to provide input 4.04 Tree Board, Commission, or Advisory Council Establishes a board for public participation (advisory or with authority).Urban Forestry Advisory Board URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: AUTHORITY 12 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 5.00 Inventories and Assessments 5.01 Canopy Inventory (UTC)Periodic (≤5 year) canopy inventory and assessment. Public & private.2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019 canopy assessments 5.02 Ecosystem Services Recent (≤5 year) ecosystem services (ES) inventory & assessment? Public: 100% or street trees; Public & Private: Sample; or Campus. Or,are ES calculated annually or biennially based on partial re-inventory and projected growth as a monitoring tool. The sample inventory and canopy data were collected / provided to conduct the analysis as part of the UFMP 5.03 Public Trees Evaluate below  5.04 Street Trees Is there a recent (5 year) inventory?Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.05 Parks/Riparian Areas Is there a recent (5 year) inventory?No inventory located except for the public/private sample inventory in 2022 5.06 Other Public Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space.No inventory located except for the public/private sample inventory in 2022 5.07 Continuous inventory on a cycle (≤5 years) Partial re-inventory to support continuous forest inventory, growth projections, and the calculation of ecosystem services.Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.08 Private Trees Evaluate below  5.09 Campus (Educational)Is there a recent (5 year) inventory?University of Arkansas has a tree inventory and online map 5.10 Corporate Is there a recent (5 year) inventory?Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.11 Other Private Property Is there a recent (5 year) inventory?Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.12 Continuous inventory on a cycle (≤5 years) Partial re-inventory to support continuous forest inventory, growth projections, and the calculation of ecosystem services).Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.13 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)BMP stormwater mitigation practices and locations (e.g.Washington DC) Water Master Plan but not specific to green infrastructure or stormwater. Energy Action Plan has a strategy to investigate feasibility of a stormwater utility to improve green infrastructure 5.14 Spatial Inventory data includes Lat/Long (i.e.GIS). Should address the spatial relationship between the natural resource and people (i.e.residents, visitors, activities) that would help manage the resource for benefits associated with proximity (air quality, recreation, stress mitigation, etc. Canopy Assessments and tree inventory provide spatial data. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 5.15 Maintenance and Planting Records Maintained Planting details (nursery, species, size, cost, contractor, etc.) maintained with inventory or as separate database or recordkeeping system. Also pruning and removal histories. City to provide input URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: INVENTORIES 13 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 6.00 Management Planning 6.01 Annual Maintenance Calendar An annual calendar that defines typical activity by season. To support scheduling.City to provide input 6.02 Public Trees Evaluate below  6.03 Street Tree Management Is there a recent (5 year) plan for street trees?Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.04 Parks/Riparian Area Management Is there a recent (5 year) plan ?Parks Master Plan in development as of January 2023 6.05 Other Public Trees Public facility landscaped areas, Industrial parks, green space.Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.06 Private Trees Evaluate below  6.07 Campus (Educational)Is there a recent (5 year) plan for Campus trees?TBD whether University of Arkansas is a Tree Campus USA campus 6.08 Corporate Is there a recent (5 year) plan?Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.09 Other Private Property Is there a recent (5 year) plan?Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.10 Green Infrastructure Is there a plan for green infrastructure (i.e.nodes & linkages)? Large-scale projects.Energy Action Plan mentions stormwater utility for green infrastructure 6.11 Other Written Plans Other natural resource plans (e.g.tree canopy). May be a component of another plan. Comp Plan, Energy Action Plan, Parks Master Plan (in progress), neighborhood plans 6.12 Tree Planting Is there a recent (3 year) tree planting plan? ). May be a component of another plan.Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 6.13 UF as Part of a Comprehensive Plan Is any UF management plan referenced in the comprehensive plan (i.e. county or municipality) or master plan (i.e.Campus)? Section 8.3 of the Comprehensive Plan is “Tree Canopy” and describes the role urban forests play in climate change, stormwater, etc. 6.14 Urban Forest Planning and Management Criteria and Performance Indicators Criteria and indicators based on A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability (Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P., Cross, G., and Wake, V. 1997 Journal of Arboriculture.) or on work of W.A. Kenney, P.J.E. van Wassenaer, and A.L. Satel in Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. (2011) Guidance to be provided in the UFMP. Conducting this Audit is one approach to Criteria & Indicators URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: PLANS 14 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 7.00 Risk Management Activities 7.01 TRAQ Attained At least one staff or consultant is TRAQ.City to provide input 7.02 Annual Level 1 (ANSI A300 Part 9 & ISA BMP)All trees in high occupancy areas visited annually.City to provide input 7.03 Mitigation Prioritization A protocol for prioritizing mitigation following Level 1 and Level 2 assessments. Reflects the controlling agency’s threshold for risk.City to provide input 7.04 Occupancy Areas Mapped Has TRAQ staff/consultant discussed/mapped occupancy levels with controlling authority?City to provide input 7.05 Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Communications A process has been put in place to maintain records on requests, inspections, evaluations, and mitigation of risk; and on the communications among the managers related to those risk assessments. City to provide input 7.06 Standard of Care Adopted Controlling authority has adopted a Standard of Care (SOC) or risk management policy.City to provide input 7.07 Tree Risk Specification Is there a written specification that meets requirements of ANSI A300 (Part 9)? And,has it been discussed with the controlling authority with relevance to the controlling authority’s threshold for acceptable risk? City to provide input 7.08 Urban Tree Risk Management The community has prepared and follows a comprehensive program for urban tree risk management.City to provide input 7.09 Invasive Management Plan to address and manage invasive: plants, insects, and disease. 10 documents mention invasive management, prohibited trees, recommended trees, Arkansas Native Plant Society tree list, among others URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: RISK MANAGEMENT 15 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 8.00 Disaster Planning Activities 8.01 Response/Recovery Mechanism Staff knowledge of the municipality’s protocol for requesting disaster resources through the county or state with access to mutual aid and EMAC. City to provide input, Fayetteville Emergency Operations Plan is in place 8.02 Urban Forestry as part of the County Disaster Plan The UF plan (8.3) is incorporated into the county/municipal disaster plan; specifically in reference to debris management and risk mitigation.Nothing found at the county level, City to provide input 8.03 Urban Forestry Disaster Plan A separate/specific plan within the urban forestry management program (i.e.who to call, priorities).No plan identified, City to provide input 8.04 Pre-disaster Contracts Contracts are in place for critical needs.City likely has a structure in place, City to provide input 8.05 Mitigation Plan A mitigation plan has been developed for pre-disaster, recovery, and post- disaster.City to provide input 8.06 EMAC Mission Ready Packages (MRP) Municipality has published disaster resources with state EM and participates in inter-state Mutual Aid to support Urban Forest Strike Teams (UFST). City to provide input 8.07 Urban Forest Strike Team Participation in the UFST project.City to provide input URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: DISASTER PLANNING 16 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 9.00 Standards & BMPs 9.01 ANSI Standards Reference and adherence to ANSI Standards for arboricultural practices (A300), safety (Z133), or Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) (any or all). Tree ordinances reference standards, website lists standards, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail 9.02 Ages/Diameter Distribution Specific management for the development of an age- diverse tree population No specific mention about age diversity but species diversity is recognized 9.03 Arborist Standards Standards of practice for arborists (i.e.Certification).Tree ordinances reference standards, website lists standards, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail 9.04 Best Management Practices (BMPs) Establishes or references tree maintenance BMPs (i.e. written comprehensive standards & standards). Tree ordinances reference best practices, website lists standards, Comprehensive Plan lists BMPs, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail 9.05 Fertilization and Mulching Fertilization or mulching standards required for conserved & planted trees.Ordinances list requirements, City website has resources, Structural Soil Detail includes guidance 9.06 Lightning Protection BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard.Nothing listed, minor recommendation to consider in the UFMP 9.07 Planting Planting and transplanting standards required/specified.Listed in ordinances, Tree Preservation Standard Detail, website, Tree Planting on Slope Detail 9.08 Pruning Pruning standards required for conserved & planted trees.Listed in ordinances, Tree Preservation Manual, Tree Preservation Standard Detail, City website 9.09 Removal Infrastructure damage, stump grinding, etc.Guidance listed in Chapter 167 and City website 9.10 Support Systems (Guying and Bracing)BMP written to the ANSI A300 Standard.Nothing listed, minor recommendation to consider in the UFMP 9.11 Tree Risk Tree risk assessment procedures; ISA BMP or equivalent.Risk mentioned in Ch. 167 but should be evaluated as part of the UFMP 9.12 Construction Management Standards Written standards for: tree protection, trenching/boring in CRZs, pre-construction mulching, root or limb pruning, watering (any or all). Critical root zone, tree protection zones, critical root zone addressed in ordinances, Tree Preservation Manual, City website, and Tree Preservation Standard Detail 9.13 Design Standards Standards for design that specifically require trees; standards for placement, soil treatment, and/or drainage. 18 documents have standards listed for development that impacts trees and landscaping (Comp Plan, Tree Manual, Ordinances, Active Transportation Plan, neighborhood plans, others) 9.14 Genus/Species Diversity Suggests or requires diversity of plant material.City website has a list and references the Arkansas Native Plant Society Tree List URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: STANDARDS & BMPS 17 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 9.00 ANSI Standards & BMPs CONTINUED 9.15 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) BMPs for site level GI practices like rain gardens and swales. Small-scale projects. Energy Action Plan recommends stormwater utility for green infrastructure, other plans reference stormwater management and GI 9.16 Inventory Data Collection Adopted or developed standards for tree inventory data collection Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 9.17 Minimum Planting Volume Minimum required root zone volume.Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual provides standards and BMPs 9.18 Minimum Tree Size Minimum caliper for tree replacements, and/or minimum size of existing trees to receive tree density or canopy credit.Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual notes the 2” minimum caliper 9.19 Root Protection Zone (CRZ)Defines adequate root protection zone; Critical Root Zone (CRZ).Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual plus 5 other documents note this 9.20 Safety Safety logs, trainings, reference to ANSI Z133 Safety Standard No specific standards for safety around trees. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 9.21 Topping Prohibits topping or other internodal cuts (public & private).Chapter 167 restricts topping 9.22 Tree Species List Identifies and publishes a list of the most desirable, recommended, or preferred species (native and non-native species); alternatively, a list of species prohibited. Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual, ordinances, significant trees list, City website, and others list the recommended or required trees 9.23 Tree Quality Standards Written standards for tree selection at nursery in addition to Z60.1.Tree Preservation & Landscape Manual notes the ANSI standard for nursery stock 9.24 Utility Right-of-Way ( ROW) Management Requirements for planting, pruning, and/or removal of trees within a utility ROW. Chapter 167 and City website mention utility management but could be expanded as part of the UFMP 9.25 Urban Agriculture Enabled urban food forestry practices.Guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.26 Wood Utilization Larger diameter material is processed for wood products.Guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.27 3rd party forest certification Examples: American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Forest Stewardship Council™Guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.28 Energy generation Local or regional use of chips or other woody debris for co-generation facilities.Guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.29 Composting of Leaf and/or Other Woody Debris Leaves and small woody debris are captured and used on-site or processed by someone by composting for reuse. No mention of debris management, guidance to be considered for the UFMP 9.30 Watering Standards Various documents state the watering requirement post-planting. Additional guidance to be provided in the UFMP URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: STANDARDS & BMPS CONT.18 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 10.00 Community Building 10.01 Social Media Website or Similar Does your community/campus use social media platforms or similar to document and publicize your urban forestry program, activity, or events?City website, social media, Speak Up Fayetteville 10.02 Education The urban forest is used as an educational laboratory for class activity; Kids in the Woods, PLT, high school, or college level.Resources on City website, Tree Manual 10.03 Private Property Tree Program Does your community sponsor this program locally?To be addressed in the UFMP 10.04 Public-facing Inventory Software Public access to the community tree resource via an on-line mapping program (i.e.any Web Map Service; WMS). 2022 sample tree inventory used a public facing software program but trial subscription ended. City does have online portal of canopy assessment maps 10.05 Public Perception Is public management consistent with private property requirements for tree protections and care? Does the Campus/public tree management reflect neighborhood norms? Comprehensive Plan included a survey. Ongoing public feedback recommendations to be provided in the UFMP 10.06 Recognition Programs Programs that raise awareness of trees or that use trees to connect the community to significant events or activities.Arbor Day events, spring and fall planting, Celebration of Tres, Amazing Tree 10.07 Arbor Day Celebration Whether or not associated with Tree City USA.Arbor Day events, spring and fall planting, Celebration of Tres, Amazing Tree 10.08 Arboretum designation Internal or third party arboretum designation.University of Arkansas tree inventory and Arboretum Mapping Project, Botanical Garden of the Ozarks 10.09 Significant trees For example: size, history.No Heritage or Significant Tree Ordinance but City has Significant Trees on website 10.10 Memorial/Honorarium Tree planting or tree care programs than honor/memorialize individuals, organizations, or events.City to provide input. City has tree giveaways, and tree donations 10.11 Social Media Does your community/campus make use of Twitter, Facebook, Blogs for internal or external outreach? Several posts about urban forestry but additional guidance to be provided in UFMP 10.12 Active Communications Press releases, regular news articles (print), “State of the Urban Forest” reports, periodic analysis of threats and opportunities.Additional guidance to be provided in the UFMP 10.13 Tree Care Are volunteers trained and used for basic tree care (e.g.mulching, pruning, planting). Volunteer program and events, invasive species removal, City website with resources for tree care 10.14 Tree City USA®Community/campus meets current qualifications for any of these programs.27 years as TC USA with 9 Growth Awards 10.15 Volunteer Opportunities Ad hoc or scheduled. Any/all age groups. Tree Campus USA student activities.Volunteer programs and events URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: COMMUNITY 19 #Component Evaluated Description or Criteria for Evaluation Ranking Rationale / Considerations 11.00 Observed Outcomes Based on an analysis of tree inventories 11.01 Deadwood Look for evidence of periodic or ad-hoc deadwood removal (i.e.lack of dead limbs ≥ 2” in the trees or on the ground).To be evaluated with the 2022 tree inventory and guidance provided in the UFMP 11.02 Genus Diversity No genera exceed 20%of population; make specific observations for Acer, Quercus, Fraxinus, Ulmus and other local species of concern. Based on the sample inventory in 2022, 31% are oaks, 15% elms, 8% maples. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.03 Mature Tree Care Mature trees are retained in the landscape, and are of acceptable risk; i.e.veteran tree management. Based on the sample inventory in 2022, the highest percent of recommended tree work is pruning for clearance (8%). Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.04 Mulching Evidence of adequate (i.e.spatial extent, depth, and material) roots zone mulching for all age classes.To be evaluated with the 2022 tree inventory and guidance provided in the UFMP 11.05 Planting Site Volume Optimization Are species & sites matched for optimization of above ground canopy; right tree in the right spot concept. Only 6% of the trees inventoried in 2022 have a clearance conflict (2% pedestrian, 1% building, 1% light, 1% sign or signal). Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.06 Rooting Volume Optimization Are species & sites matched for optimization for below ground rooting volume; right tree in the right spot concept. Only 0.3% of trees inventoried in 2022 were noted as causing sidewalk damage. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.07 Species Diversity No species/cultivars exceed 10%of population; make specific observations for Acer, Quercus, Fraxinus, Ulmus and other local genera of concern. Also evaluate the role of regionally local native species. Based on the sample inventory in 2022, no species exceed the 10% threshold. 7% are Princeton elms, 6% post oaks, 6% willow oaks, 5% pin oaks, and 4% blackgums. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.08 Soil Compaction Observe evidence of soil compaction by users or staff during maintenance. Include “desire” lines and construction activity at time of evaluation.To be evaluated with the 2022 tree inventory and guidance provided in the UFMP 11.09 Tree Health Rate the overall tree health in all size (age) classes; look for crown dieback, decay, foliage density & color. Based on the sample inventory in 2022, 75% of public trees are in good condition, 15% in fair condition, 5% poor, and 5% dead. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP 11.10 Young Tree Pruning Look for evidence of periodic (e.g.every 3 years to year 9) structural pruning (e.g. subordination cuts, dominant central leader, co-dominant stems lower that 20’). Based on the sample inventory in 2022, only 3 trees (0.1%) require structural pruning at a young age. Guidance to be provided in the UFMP URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: GREEN ASSET EVALUATION 20 *Standard of Care (SOC) elements represent the minimum group of urban forestry management “best practices” that a municipality should consider for implementation. **Base Practices (BP) elements represent additional urban forest management activities or components that may effectively expand a program beyond the SOC group (see footnote above). These elements are typically precursors to other “non -core” elements in the category. #Category SOC (% Achieved)*Base (% Achieved)**Overall Rating Overall (% Achieved) 1 Management Policy and Ordinances 50%67%20 71% 2 Professional Capacity and Training 100%NA 16 89% 3 Funding and Accounting 75%NA 8 67% 4 Decision and Management Authority 50%100%5 63% 5 Inventories NA 56%17 65% 6 Urban Forest Management Plans NA 50%13 54% 7 Risk Management 83%50%14 78% 8 Disaster Planning NA 67%9 64% 9 Standards and BMPs 75%69%44 73% 10 Community 100%NA 25 89% 11 Green Asset Evaluation NA NA 16 80% Total 76%65%187 73% Final Audit Results Note, the audit may be kept internal and is only meant to serve as a preliminary evaluation to support the development of the Plan’s goals and strategies though it may serve as a UFMP implementation monitoring tool URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: SUMMARY 21 https://urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/files/UFS%20and%20ASC%20UF%20ReviewCalc%20Tool%20 - 18Aug15%20v4.2beta.xlsx/view URBAN FOREST AUDIT SYSTEM: SOURCE 22 The original audit and supporting spreadsheet were developed by Urban Forestry South (USDA Forest Service, Region 8, SRS -4952, Athens, Georgia ). The spreadsheet was based on the current Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Review Checklist developed in cooperation with Agnes Scott College Office of Sustainability and the ASC Arboretum Advisory Council and the City of Austin (TX) RECOMMENDED TREE LIST & SISTER CLIMATE CITY ASSESSMENT In support of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas’ 2023 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN October 2023 CONTENTS Climate Impacts in Fayetteville ........................................................................................ 1 Fayetteville’s Current Tree List and Planting Practices ....................................... 1 Overview 1 The Danger of Single Species Planting 2 Criteria for Selection for the List 2 Street Tree Planting Scenarios 2 Fayetteville’s Sister Climate City .................................................................................... 4 Sister Climate City Tree List Comparisons 5 Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX Tree List Crosswalk - Results ................................................................. 6 Summary of Matching Tree Species ...................................................................................................... 8 USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas Considerations ................................................................... 9 Summary of Trees in the SCCA List and Favorable with Climate Change .............................................. 11 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Climate Adaptation Report .................................................................. 13 Climate Change Impacts for Southeast ................................................................................................................ 13 Tables Table 1. Summary of tree species in the Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX recommended or approved tree lists ..................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of matching tree species from Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX's recommended or approved tree lists ..................... 8 Table 3. Summary of Fayetteville's trees on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and the predicted habitat change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Summary of Fayetteville's trees that are on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and whose habitat is predicted to increa se or not change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas .................................................................................... 11 Figures Figure 1. Excerpt from the City of Fayetteville's recommended tree list showing the attributes and a sample of large species trees in the list .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Map displaying the Sister Climate City of Longview, TX and the City of Dallas, TX which was utilized for comparing recommended tree lists ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 1 CLIMATE IMPACTS IN FAYETTEVILLE Urban areas around the world are facing dramatically intensifying extreme weather and climate impacts including drought, long-term water shortages, flooding, extreme weather events, and prolonged heat. Urban trees can play a significant role in making Fayetteville resilient to weather and climate extremes, and in protecting human and ecosystem health and safety. View Appendix A for the Climate Adaptation Report generated for the southeast United States from the Climate Adaptation Workbook. Increased temperatures and prolonged heat have a dramatic effect on urban trees. Urban trees already face many struggles of the urban environment, including competition for space, elements of an urban environment, vandalism, and harmful pests and diseases. Some of Fayetteville’s established trees are unlikely to survive the changes in the climate and weather patterns over the next 50-75 years. Planting the right trees for Fayetteville today and in the future will play a vital role in the resiliency of the City’s urban forest as well as overall community sustainability. In pursuit of a sustainable and resilient urban forest, the City of Fayetteville seeks to apply climate adaptation strategies to urban forest management planning. Building toward this objective, the City maintains a recommended tree list of small, medium, and large trees prepared by the Arkansas Native Plant Society. The following provides an analysis of the changing climate and considerations for new tree species to integrate into Fayetteville’s urban forest over time . FAYETTEVILLE’S CURRENT TREE LIST AND PLANTING PRACTICES Recreated from the City of Fayetteville’s website— www.fayetteville-ar.gov/3979/List-of-Recommended-Native-Trees- and-Shr Overview Urban Forestry Staff reviews, recommends and selects trees for a variety of sites and growing environments. Staff evaluates each place for site-specific variables when selecting the most appropriate trees for a site. Not every tree is right for every location, and the Urban Forestry staff uses our extensive tree knowledge, research and site evaluation when selecting trees, mindful of how each tree and each site may change in the short- and long-term future. This list of trees contains recommendations for trees planted in Fayetteville, including ideal locations and notes on each tree. It highlights how many species of butterflies and moths each of these trees can host. The list does not include all the insects, birds, reptiles and small mammals that a tree can host. The Arkansas Native Plant Society was the catal yst for this updated list, and the Urban Forestry Advisory Board assisted with information. Urban Forestry Staff is continuously researching and contemplating the use, space, species and varieties of trees, shrubs and plants used throughout the City. We seek expert advice in our community and are lucky to have professional connections with the Horticulture, Landscape Architecture, and Plant Pathology Departments at the University of Arkansas. We also have a healthy relationship with the Arkansas Forestry C ommission and the Arkansas Native Plant Society. We utilize the wealth of knowledge surrounding us to benefit the City by helping Staff and residents choose the right tree for the right space. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 2 The Danger of Single Species Planting Historically, the use of a single species of street trees has had negative consequences. In the early 1900s, the American Chestnut, a popular and heavily planted street tree, was devastated by the chestnut blight. The blight caused large swaths of trees in the American streetscape to perish and left large gaps in the American landscape. A similar incident occurred with the spread of Dutch Elm disease. Due to the monoculture planting of elm trees as street trees, the impact was even more noticeable on streetscapes throughout the country. For these reasons and other global issues with plant disease, pests and pathogens, Fayetteville's Urban Forestry Staff encourages and recommends a diverse planting palette. Using native species trees is vital because it benefits the local ecosystem and saves the City money and time. Native species are well suited for our climate and prosper in Northwest Arkansas's soils because they originated here. Criteria for Selection for the List The City Urban Forestry Staff carefully selects species of trees as each location offers unique challenges. The overall criteria include: • Native or native cultivars first • Trees tolerant of pollution, drought and harsh conditions (salt/sand from winter and winds) • Trees that create litter problems or produce large fruit are not used as street trees • Tree shape – to ensure limbs are not too low and could create a visibility issue • Small trees under power lines • Trees with seasonal interest: fall color or blooms • Amount of sun and shade in the existing conditions • Speed of traffic • Pedestrian intensity • Visibility for traffic • Maintenance issues • Pest problems • Longevity of the tree • Type of Street Tree location: o Urban tree well o Large median (over six feet wide) o Small median (usually the green space between a curb and sidewalk, less than six feet wide) Street Tree Planting Scenarios Urban Tree Well Trees planted in urban tree wells have the most difficulty surviving and thriving for several reasons: the structured soils do not offer the same nutrients as a forest; space for the root systems is limited; and exposure to pollutants. The tree's shape also has to be considered for pedestrian visibility, automobile visibility, and not interfering with buildings. Large Medians Large median spaces vary in size from six to 10 feet wide. The space is adequate for most trees, and Staff considers maintenance needs when choosing a tree to be planted in the medians. Trees that produce less litter and fruit are ideal for large medians. Finally, visibility is another characteristic when choosing a large median tree. Urban Forestry staff selects trees that allow for visibility under and through the canopy to increase vehicular safety. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 3 Small Medians - Trees between Curb and Sidewalk (Tree Lawn less than Six feet) Small medians are the green spaces between the curb and the sidewalk, typically less than six feet wide. In these cases, Staff prioritizes maintaining the structural integrity of the sidewalk and curb. Other factors included in choosing the right species for this condition are sightline visibility for vehicles and pedestrians, sun and shade conditions, the ap propriate size for location in town (residential, commercial, downtown), watering needs, amount of litter produced, and environmental benefits. This list does not contain every tree used in Fayetteville. Urban Forestry Staff does consider other trees not listed as viable options and will examine all proposed trees. There are construction techniques that allow larger trees in small locations. Staff will consider these techniques with appropriate construction details. Figure 1. Excerpt from the City of Fayetteville's recommended tree list showing the attributes and a sample of large species trees in the list Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 4 FAYETTEVILLE’S SISTER CLIMATE CITY The Future Urban Climates tool, created and maintained by University of Maryland Center for Applied Sciences, is a mapping tool that matches and displays similar climates for cities across the United States. The comparisons are based on minimum and maximum temperatures and seasonal precipitation in each city. The closest area where current climate data is available is the Springdale, Arkansas area, just 10 miles north of Fayetteville. Results for a high emissions scenario show that the climate in 2080 for the Fayetteville region will feel most like today's climate near Longview, Texas—approximately 130 miles east of Dallas, Texas. The typical winter in Longview, Texas is 10.7°F (5.9°C) warmer and 40.8% wetter than winter in Fayetteville. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 5 Sister Climate City Tree List Comparisons Based on the climate projections, Longview, Texas (Sister Climate City) currently has a climate that is similar to Fayetteville’s projected climate and plant hardiness zone. The Sister Climate City’s approved tree planting list was researched and compared with Fayetteville’s “2020 Tree List From Arkansas Native Plant Society” list. After online research, no recommended tree list exists or was found for Longview, TX’s urban forestry program. Therefore, the City of Dallas, Texas’s recommended tree list was utilized given Dallas is only 130 miles west of Longview and the urban forestry consultants conducting this SCCA study have extensive experience in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Figure 2. Map displaying the Sister Climate City of Longview, TX and the City of Dallas, TX which was utilized for comparing recomm ended tree lists Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 6 Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX Tree List Crosswalk - Results A total of 38 of 74 (51%) tree species in Fayetteville’s tree list are in the “Approved Tree List” for Dallas, TX. The majority (24 tree species) are in the “Large” category, four are in the “Medium” category, and nine are in the “Small” category. The table below details Fayetteville’s tree list (shrubs excluded) and an indicator of the species that is also in the Dallas tre e list. Table 1. Summary of tree species in the Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX recommended or approved tree lists COMPARISON OF FAYETTEVILLE TREE LIST TO SISTER CLIMATE CITY TREE LIST Fayetteville Tree List (ordered by Scientific Name) Common Name Dallas, TX Tree List? Acer rubrum Red Maple Yes Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Yes Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Asimina triloba Pawpaw Betula nigra River Birch Yes Carpinus caroliniana Hornbeam or Musclewood Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Yes Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree Yes Cladrastis kentuckea Yellowwood Cornus alternifolia Alternate Leaved Dogwood Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Corylus americana Hazelnut Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Yes Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur Hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Yes Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn Yes Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Fagus grandifolia American Beech Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes Hamamelis vernalis Ozark Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana Common Witch Hazel Ilex decidua Deciduous Holly Yes Ilex opaca American Holly Yes Ilex vomitoria * Yaupon Holly Yes Ilex X attenuata ‘E.Palatka’* East Palatka Holly Ilex X attenuata ‘Eagleston’ * Eagleston Holly Ilex X attenuata ‘Fosteri’ * Foster Holly Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 7 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes Liquidambar s. ‘Rotundifolia’ Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Yes Liriodendron tulipifera* Tulip Tree Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Magnolia grandiflora ‘Bracken’s Brown Beauty’* Bracken’s Brown Magnolia Yes Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Magnolia virginiana* Sweet Bay Magnolia Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo Ostrya virginiana Hophornbeam Pinus echinata Shortleaf Pine Pinus strobus * Eastern White Pine* Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Quercus alba White Oak Yes Quercus bicolor * Swamp White Oak Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes Quercus nigra Water Oak Quercus phellos Willow Oak Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes Quercus velutina Black Oak Rhamnus caroliniana Carolina Buckthorn Yes Sapindus saponaria var. dummondii Soapberry Yes Sassafras albidum Sassafras Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes Thuja occidentalis* Eastern Arborvitae Tilia americana American Linden Yes Ulmus americana ‘ Valley Forge’ Valley Forge Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘Lewis & Clark’ Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘New Harmony’ New Harmony Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’ Princeton Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘Jefferson’ Jefferson Elm Yes Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw Viburnum Viburnum rufidulum Rusty Blackhaw Yes * See original tree list for notes on the respective species Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 8 Summary of Matching Tree Species Table 2. Summary of matching tree species from Fayetteville, AR and Dallas, TX's recommended or approved tree lists SUMMARY OF TREE SPECIES MATCHES Fayetteville Tree List (ordered by Scientific Name) Common Name Dallas, TX Tree List? Acer rubrum Red Maple Yes Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Yes Betula nigra River Birch Yes Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Yes Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree Yes Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Yes Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Yes Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn Yes Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes Ilex decidua Deciduous Holly Yes Ilex opaca American Holly Yes Ilex vomitoria * Yaupon Holly Yes Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes Liquidambar s. ‘Rotundifolia’ Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Yes Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Magnolia grandiflora ‘Bracken’s Brown Beauty’* Bracken’s Brown Magnolia Yes Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Quercus alba White Oak Yes Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes Rhamnus caroliniana Carolina Buckthorn Yes Sapindus saponaria var. dummondii Soapberry Yes Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes Tilia americana American Linden Yes Ulmus americana ‘ Valley Forge’ Valley Forge Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘Lewis & Clark’ Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘New Harmony’ New Harmony Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’ Princeton Elm Yes Ulmus americana ‘Jefferson’ Jefferson Elm Yes Viburnum rufidulum Rusty Blackhaw Yes * See original tree list for notes on the respective species Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 9 USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas Considerations Table 3. Summary of Fayetteville's trees on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and the predicted habitat change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas SISTER CLIMATE CITY AND US FOREST SERVICE CLIMATE CHANGE ATLAS CONSIDER ATIONS Fayetteville Tree List (ordered by Scientific Name) Common Name Dallas, TX Tree List? Predicted Habitat Change** Acer rubrum Red Maple Yes Increase Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Decrease Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Decrease Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Yes Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry Decrease Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Asimina triloba Pawpaw Betula nigra River Birch Yes Increase Carpinus caroliniana Hornbeam or Musclewood Increase Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory No change Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Increase Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory Decrease Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Yes Celtis occidentalis Hackberry No change Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Increase Chionanthus virginicus Fringe Tree Yes Cladrastis kentuckea Yellowwood Cornus alternifolia Alternate Leaved Dogwood Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Increase Corylus americana Hazelnut Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Yes Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur Hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Yes Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn Yes Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Increase Fagus grandifolia American Beech No change Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Increase Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Yes Hamamelis vernalis Ozark Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana Common Witch Hazel Ilex decidua Deciduous Holly Yes Ilex opaca American Holly Yes Increase Ilex vomitoria * Yaupon Holly Yes Ilex X attenuata ‘E.Palatka’* East Palatka Holly Ilex X attenuata ‘Eagleston’ * Eagleston Holly Ilex X attenuata ‘Fosteri’ * Foster Holly Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes No change Liquidambar s. ‘Rotundifolia’ Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Increase Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Yes Increase Liriodendron tulipifera* Tulip Tree Increase Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 10 Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora ‘Bracken’s Brown Beauty’* Bracken’s Brown Magnolia Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Increase Magnolia virginiana* Sweet Bay Magnolia Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo Increase Ostrya virginiana Hophornbeam Increase Pinus echinata Shortleaf Pine Increase Pinus strobus * Eastern White Pine* Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Increase Quercus alba White Oak Yes No change Quercus bicolor * Swamp White Oak Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Increase Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Yes Decrease Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes No change Quercus nigra Water Oak Increase Quercus phellos Willow Oak Increase Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Decrease Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes No change Quercus velutina Black Oak Decrease Rhamnus caroliniana Carolina Buckthorn Yes Sapindus saponaria var. dummondii Soapberry Yes Sassafras albidum Sassafras Increase Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes No change Thuja occidentalis* Eastern Arborvitae Tilia americana American Linden Yes Decrease Ulmus americana ‘ Valley Forge’ Valley Forge Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘Lewis & Clark’ Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘New Harmony’ New Harmony Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’ Princeton Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘Jefferson’ Jefferson Elm Yes Increase Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw Viburnum Viburnum rufidulum Rusty Blackhaw Yes * See original tree list for notes on the respective species ** USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario). Important Note: The USDA Forest Service Tree Atlas models predict habitat change for 134 native tree species in the eastern United States. Th e research is then modeled for tree species in the southeast U.S. including Arkansas. Some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included. With limited data currently available on the resilience and vulnerability of native Arkansas tree species, this table provides a glimpse of how the species’ composition of Fayetteville’s urban forest may change. Web source: www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/atlas/tree/ Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 11 Summary of Trees in the SCCA List and Favorable with Climate Change Table 4. Summary of Fayetteville's trees that are on the Dallas, TX (SCCA) tree list and whose habitat is predicted to increase or not change according to the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas Fayetteville Tree List (ordered by Scientific Name) Common Name Dallas, TX Tree List? Predicted Habitat Change** Acer rubrum Red Maple Yes Increase Betula nigra River Birch Yes Increase Carya illinoinensis Pecan Yes Increase Cercis canadensis Redbud Yes Increase Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Yes Increase Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless Honeylocust Yes Increase Ilex opaca American Holly Yes Increase Juglans nigra Black Walnut Yes No change Liquidambar s. ‘Rotundifolia’ Sweetgum (fruitless) Yes Increase Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Yes Increase Maclura pomifera Osage Orange Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora ‘Bracken’s Brown Beauty’* Bracken’s Brown Magnolia Yes Increase Magnolia grandiflora* Southern Magnolia* Yes Increase Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Yes Increase Quercus alba White Oak Yes No change Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Yes Increase Quercus muehlenbergii Chinquapin Oak Yes No change Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Yes No change Taxodium distichum * Bald Cypress* Yes No change Ulmus americana ‘ Valley Forge’ Valley Forge Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘Lewis & Clark’ Lewis & Clark Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘New Harmony’ New Harmony Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’ Princeton Elm Yes Increase Ulmus americana ‘Jefferson’ Jefferson Elm Yes Increase * See original tree list for notes on the respective species ** USDA Forest Service Climate Change Atlas for tree species habitat in Arkansas predicted to decrease (low emission scenario). Important Note: The USDA Forest Service Tree Atlas models predict habitat change for 134 native tree species in the eastern United States. Th e research is then modeled for tree species in the southeast U.S. including Arkansas. Some native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas and no cultivars or exotics are included. With limited data currently available on the resilience and vulnerability of native Arkansas tree species, this table provides a glimpse of how the species’ composition of Fayetteville’s urban forest may change. Web source: www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/atlas/tree/ Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 12 SUMMARY Fayetteville’s tree planting recommendations are in line with industry standards and best practices since the City utilizes the Arkansas Native Plant Society list and therefore, generally plants and recommends planting trees native to the region. The effects of climate change are already taking hold in the City and Fayetteville recognizes the challenges that lie ahead. Some of the experienced and anticipated effects include prolonged periods of high temperatures and drought, extreme weather events, changes in the duration of seasons, favorable conditions for harmful tree pests and diseases, among other impacts. To grow a sustainable and resilient urban forest, the City should continue to examine the performance of trees planted and the species of trees that are recommended for planting. To develop plans and strategies relating to tree planting for climate change, a Sister Climate City Analysis (SCCA) was conducted. This SCCA examined the predicted climate of Fayetteville 60 years from now and identified a city with a current climate that matches the projected climate of Fayetteville. The City of Longview, Texas was identified but no city-approved or recommended tree list was found. Therefore, a neighboring city, the City of Dallas, Texas was utilized given the location and the urban forestry consultant’s experience working with Dallas. From the SCCA, it was found that 51% of Fayetteville’s trees on the Arkansas Native Plant Society tree list are also in the City of Dallas’s approved tree lis t. This means that those trees in Fayetteville’s list may favor well with changing climate since the Sister Climate City of Dallas currently approves and is planting those tree species. In addition to the Sister Climate City Analysis, the U.S. Forest Service’s Climate Change Atlas was utilized to examine the predicted habitat change due to climate change. From this study, it was found that 44 trees in Fayetteville’s list are in the Climate Change Atlas study. Of the 44 trees, there are 28 species where it is predicted that the habitat will increase due to climate change. A total of 8 species have habitats that may decrease and 8 species have habitats that may not change with climate change. A full report is provided in the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan. When combining the SCCA results and the Climate Change Atlas, a total of 24 of the 74 (32%) tree species in Fayetteville’s list are on the Dallas, TX approved tree list and are predicted to have habitats either increase or not change. This analysis shows the City of Fayetteville is on track for planting a resilient urban forest but the City should be mindful of the diversity of species, the associated benefits of the trees planted, the maintenance needs, and other considerations beyond what is covered in this summary report. The results of this analysis are not meant to serve as a definitive guide for tree species selection. Instead, it provides an analysis of what is currently being planted compared to the effects of climate change and offers general guidance on the species of trees that should continue to be planted while considering other goals and standards such as species diversity. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 13 APPENDIX A. CLIMATE ADAPTATION REPORT Climate Change Impacts for Southeast Source: Adaptation Workbook, Developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the USDA Forest Service, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, and American Forests. Climate Change Impacts for Southeast research report by: Carter, L., A. Terando, K. Dow, K. Hiers, K.E. Kunkel, A. Lascurain, D. Marcy, M. Osland, and P. Schramm, 2018: Southeast. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 743 –808. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH19 This region was defined in the National Climate Assessment (2014) and includes the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia. National Climate Assessment (2018) - Southeast Temperatures in the Southeast are projected to increase by 4.4 to 7.7 degrees Fahrenheit by late -century (2071-2100). All climate models agree that temperatures are projected to increase over the 21st century across the Southeast. The spatial variations are projected to be relatively small across the region, with the largest temperature changes occurring in the northwest part of the region (Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee), the smallest variations occurring in southern Florida. Temperature increases will be the greatest in summer. The greatest warming during summer is expected in the northwest portion of the region. Compared to all other seasons, winter temperature increases are projected to be more mild. R.S. Vose, D.R. Easterling, and others. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Temperature Changes in the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Southeast is expected to experience between 5 and 30 more days per year with a maximum temperature exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the century. The smallest increase of 4 days per year is expected in areas with a currently low number of 95-degree days, including the highest elevation areas along the spine of the Appalachians where historically days above 95-degrees occur fewer than 10 days out of the year. The largest increase in the number of 95-degree days per year (35 days) is expected in south-central Florida, where these kinds of hot days are already common. The western portion of the region is expected to experience the largest number of consecutive 95-degree days, with as many as 16-20 additional days by mid-century. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. The Southeast is expected to experience between 0 and 14 fewer days per year with a minimum temperature below 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the century. The largest decreases are expected in Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and the northern part of Arkansas. The smallest decreases in cold days are expected along the coastal and southern areas, where these kinds of cold days rarely occur. Similarly, the Southeast region is expected to have more than 20 fewer days with a minimum temperature below 32 degrees by the middle of the century. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 14 Average annual precipitation is projected to increase slightly in the northeast portion of the Southeast, but may decrease in the southwest half of the region. There is uncertainty between different climate scenarios for future precipitation projections in the Southeast. Generally, there is a southwest-to-northeast gradient in annual precipitation projections. The greatest increases are projected in North Carolina and Virginia (3-9% increase by the end of the century), and the greatest decreases are projected in Louisiana and Arkansas (3-12% decrease by the end of the century). Overall changes in precipitation for the Southeast are projected to be slight and comparable to current year-to-year variations. Daily precipitation totals in the Southeast have increased substantially in the fall season, and this trend is expected to continue. D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, and others. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Precipitation Change in the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. The number of days per year with more than 1 inch of precipitation will increase across the Southeast by the middle of the century, and double the number of heavy rainfall events are projected by late century. Extreme rainfall events have increased in frequency and intensity in the Southeast, and will continue to increase in the future. Most of the region is projected to experience 6% to 25% more days each year with more than an inch of precipitation by the middle of the century. The largest increases (up to 25% increases) in extreme precipitation are expected across the Appalachian Mountains. The smallest increases (less than 10%) are expected across Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Days with more than 2 inches, 3 inches, and 4 inches of precipitation are also expected to occur more frequently by the middle of the century. Under a high emissions scenario, projections indicate approximately double the number of heavy rainfall events (2-day precipitation events with a 5-year return period) and a 21% increase in the amount of rain falling on the heaviest precipitation days (days with a 20-year return period) by late century. Heavy precipitation associated with hurricanes and tropical storms could result in more flooding and damage to coastal forests, and contribute to an increase in inland flooding as well. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. A majority of climate models suggest that precipitation in the Southeast will increase in the winter, spring, and fall by the end of the century, but summer is generally expected to become drier. Simulated changes in summer precipitation by the end of the century range from a 0-10% decrease, with the largest decreases occurring in southern Florida and Arkansas and Tennessee. The means of several climate models indicate that winter and spring precipitation may increase around 15% by the end of the century, particularly in the northern part of the region. Daily precipitation totals in the Southeast have increased substantially in the fall season; this trend is expected to continue, with the greatest expected increases along the Gulf Coast. Overall, only minimal change or slight increases in precipitation are projected along much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. These projections are averaged outputs from a climate scenario with higher emissions (A2), and under mild climate scenarios changes are generally expected to be smaller. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 15 The annual freeze-free season is expected to increase by 20 to 30 days in the Southeast by 2055. The freeze -free season lengthens by more than a month by the late 21st century in climate simulations based on a high emissions scenario. The freeze-free season is defined as the period of time between the last spring frost (daily minimum temperature below 32 degrees F) and the first fall frost. The length of the annual freeze-free season has been increasing since the 1980s, and all climate models agree that it will continue to increase in the future across the Southeast. The largest increases of 25-30 days are mainly expected in Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. The smallest changes are expected in southern Florida, which is not surprising because freezing events are already rare in this part of the Southeast. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. K. Kunkel, L. Stevens, and others. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment - Southeast. NOAA. Red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock are projected to decline substantially across the Southeast by the end of the century, and conditions for pines may also deteriorate. Red spruce and eastern hemlock are already declining in some areas, and these species are projected to be extirpated from the southeast by 2100 as a result of the combined stresses of warming, air pollution, and insects. If temperature continues to increase and precipitation becomes more variable, conditions for pine growth may begin to deteriorate. Even if regional forest productivity remains high for pine species, the center of forest productivity could shift northward into North Carolina and Virginia, causing significant economic and social impacts. J. Vose, D. Peterson, and others. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector.. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Climate change will amplify many existing stressors to forest ecosystems in the Southeast, such as invasive species and insect pests. Forest ecosystems throughout the Southeast Region are exposed to a range of natural, introduced, and anthropogenic stressors. Stressors such as invasive plants, forest pests, and diseases are expected to become more damaging under climate change, and these factors may interact in unpredictable ways. The southern pine beetle is already the most destructive pest in the region's forests, and longer growing seasons could allow populations of the pest to expand more rapidly. Cogongrass and kudzu are expected to expand into new territory under climate change, and both of these species have cascading effects on disturbance regimes and diversity. J. Vose, D. Peterson, and others. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector.. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Wildfire risk is projected to increase across the Southeast by the end of the century. Rising temperatures and increases in the duration and intensity of drought are expected to increase wildfire occurrence and also reduce the effectiveness of prescribed fire in the Southeast. While this region experiences the highest number of wildfires in the country, prescribed fire is currently more common than wildfire in Southeastern forests. However, as fire seasons lengthen in the future, the window for prescribed burning may decrease because of increased fuel flammability. Decades of wildfire suppression has increased the potential for crown fires, and model projections indicate that wildfires are likely to occur more frequently in the Southeast in the future. Annual fire probability, calculated solely with climate data and physical principles, is projected to increase by 20% to 80% across the Southeast by the end of the century, with the greatest increases in the southern Appalachians. The incidence of atmospheric conditions that contribute to large and erratic fire behavior, measured by the Haines Index, is also projected to occur more 8 to 11% more frequently by the end of the century. The limitation for these sorts of projections is that they do not account for changes in land use, fire suppression rates, or vegetation changes. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 16 L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. J. Vose, D. Peterson, and others. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector.. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Y. Tang, S. Zhong, and others. 2015. The Potential Impact of Regional Climate Change on Fire Weather in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. R. Guyette, F. Thompson, and others. 2014. Future Fire Probability Modeling with Climate Change Data and Physical Chemistry. Forest Science. Damage from hurricanes and sea -level rise is expected to increase in the Southeast by the end of the century. Global sea level rise is projected to rise between 1 and 4 feet by the end of the century. Sea level rise and related increases in storm surges pulsing farther inland will continue to exacerbate ongoing land loss in low -lying coastal areas and may result in excessive saltwater inundation of coastal forests. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased since the 1980s, and this trend can be attributed both to natural variability and climate change. High -intensity hurricanes such as the 2017 Hurricane Irma are expected to become more common in the future. Rapid intensification of storms is also more likely as the climate warms, even though there is also some historical evidence that the same conditions that lead to this intensification also act to weaken hurricane intensity near the U.S. coast, but it is un clear whether this relationship will continue as the climate warms further. Damage from these kinds of storms can be intense and extend for hundreds of miles inland, including windthrow and blowdown, inundation, damage to infrastructure on land, and significant ecological impacts to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems due to saltwater intrusion and altered hydrology. L. Carter, A. Terando, and others. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment: Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. L. Carter, J. Jones, and others. 2014. National Climate Assessment – Southeast. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Low-diversity systems are at greater risk from climate change. Studies have consistently shown that diverse systems have exhibited greater resilience to extreme environmental conditions and greater potential to recover from disturbance than less diverse communities. This relationship makes less diverse communities inherently more susceptible to future changes and stressors. The diversity of potential responses of a system to environmental change (response diversity), is a critical component of ecosystem resilience. Response diversity is generally reduced in less diverse ecological systems. Genetic diversity within species is also critical for the ability of populations to adapt to climate change, because species with high genetic variation have better odds of producing individuals that can withstand extreme events and adapt to changes over time. E.V. Moran, F. Hartig, and others. 2015. Intraspecific trait variation across scales: Implications for understanding global change responses. Global Change Biology. A.S. Jump, R. Merchant, and others. 2009. Environmental change and the option value of genetic diversity. T. Elmqvist , C. Folke, and others. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. A. Hoffman and C. Sgrò. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature. Systems that are more tolerant of disturbance have less risk of declining on the landscape Disturbances such as wildfire, flooding, and pest outbreaks are expected to increase in the future. Forests that are adapted to gap-phase disturbances, with stand-replacing events occurring over hundreds or thousands of years, may be less tolerant of more frequent widespread disturbances. Mesic hardwood forests can create conditions that could buffer Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 17 against fire and drought to some extent, but these systems are not expected to do well if soil moisture declines significantly. Forest systems that are more tolerant of drought, flooding, or fire are expected to be better able to withstand climate-driven disturbances. This principle holds true only to a given point, because it is also possible for disturbance-adapted systems to experience too much disruption. For example, dry pine forests and woodlands might benefit from drier conditions with more frequent fire, but these systems might also convert to savannas or open grasslands if fire becomes too frequent or drought becomes too severe. G. Nowacki and M. Abrams. 2008. The Demise of Fire and “Mesophication” of Forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience. E. Gustafson and B. Sturtevant. 2013. Modeling Forest Mortality Caused by Drought Stress: Implications for Climate Change. Ecosystems. Species in fragmented landscapes will have less opportunity to migrate in response to climate change. Habitat fragmentation can hinder the ability of tree species to migrate to more suitable habitat on the landscape, especially if the surrounding area is nonforested. Modeling results indicate that mean centers of suitable habitat for tree species will migrate between 60 and 350 miles by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario and between 30 and 250 miles under milder climate change scenarios. Based on data gathered for seedling distributions, it has been estimated that many northern tree species could possibly migrate northward at a rate of 60 miles per century. Fragmentation makes this disparity even more challenging, because the landscape is essentially less permeable to migration. L. Iverson, M. Schwartz, and others. 2004. How fast and far might tree species migrate in the eastern United States due to climate change?. Global Ecology and Biogeography. C. Woodall, C. Oswalt, and others. 2009. An indicator of tree migration in forests of the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. Systems that are limited to particular environments will have less opportunity to migrate in r esponse to climate change. Some species and forest types are confined to particular habitats on the landscape, whether through requirements for hydrologic regimes, soil types, or other reasons. Similar to species occurring in fragmented landscapes, isolate d species and systems face additional barriers to migration. Widespread species may also have particular habitat requirements. For example, sugar maple is often limited to soils that are rich in nutrients like calcium, so this species may actually have less available suitable habitat than might be projected solely from temperature and precipitation patterns. Riparian forests are not expected to be able to migrate to upland areas because many species depend on seasonal flood dynamics for regeneration and a competitive advantage. Similarly, lowland conifer swamps contain a unique mix of species that are adapted to low pH values, peat soils, and particular water table regimes. These species face additional challenges in migration compared to more-widespread species with broad ecological tolerances. A. Jump and J. Peñuelas. 2005. Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change. Ecology Letters. The urban heat island effect can exacerbate the effects of increasing temperatures. Urban areas with one million or more people can be 2 to 13° F warmer than their surrounding rural areas due to the “urban heat island effect” from heat-absorbing infrastructure such as pavement and buildings as well as waste heat generated from manufacturing and automobiles. The urban heat island is often more pronounced in historically redlined areas with lower tree cover. H. Akbari. 2005. Energy saving potentials and air quality benefits of urban heat island mitigation. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Maxwell, K. , Julius, S. , and others. 2018. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Recommended Tree List and Sister Climate City Assessment 2023 P a g e | 18 The surface urban heat island response to urban expansion: A panel analysis for the conterminous United States Recent progress on urban overheating and heat island research. Integrated assessment of the energy, environmental, vulnerability and health impact. Synergies with the global climate change The Effects of Historical Housing Policies on Resident Exposure to Intra-Urban Heat: A Study of 108 US Urban Areas Impervious cover can exacerbate the effects of increased heavy precipitation events in urban areas. Increases in impervious cover can dramatically increase the size and frequency of localized flooding. Typically, urban floods are short-lived, but extended flooding can stress trees, leading to leaf yellowing, defoliation, and crown dieback. If damage is severe, mortality can occur. In addition, flooding can lead to secondary attacks by insect pests and diseases. Some species are more tolerant of flooding than others. Flood-intolerant species include upland species such as bitternut and shagbark hickory, Kentucky coffeetree, and white oak. Species that are generally tolerant of flooding include species that are generally native to wetlands and riparian areas such as baldcypress, sycamore, and red maple. Trees in coastal areas may also be vulnerable to saltwater intrusion during flood events. S. Bratkovich, L. Burban, and others. 1993. Flooding and Its Effect on Trees. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area. G. Hollis. 1975. The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval. Water Resources Research. Maxwell, K. , Julius, S. , and others. 2018. Causal Effect of Impervious Cover on Annual Flood Magnitude for the United States Assessing the tree health impacts of salt water flooding in coastal cities: A case study in New York City INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES PROGRAM REVIEW In support of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas’ 2023 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN October 2023 CONTENTS Fayetteville’s Current Invasive Plant Species Program ...................................... 1 Overview 1 Current Management of Invasive Plant Species 3 Evaluating and Updating the City’s Invasive Species Management Program 4 Planning a Management Strategy ................................................................................................................. 4 Invasive Plant Species Control and Removal Methods .................................................................................. 3 Re-establishing Native Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 4 Invasive Plant Species Program Review Checklist 5 Program Review Checklist for Fayetteville, Arkansas' Invasive Plant Species Management Program ............. 5 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 8 Resources ................................................................................................................................. 9 Attachment A: Ordinance #5820 ................................................................................. 10 Tables Table 1. Checklist for the City of Fayetteville to evaluate and update its invasive plant species management program (Source: PlanIT Geo, Inc.) ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Figures Figure 1. Example of the community event for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook) .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Example public messaging for the management of invasive plant species (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook) .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 3. The City of Fayetteville, AR's educational packet for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR) ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 4. City of Fayetteville, AR's 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan ...................................................................... 2 Figure 5. Identifying callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) an invasive tree species (Source: Watershed Conservation Resource Center’s “Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide) .......................................................... 3 Figure 6. City of Fayetteville's public education for invasive plant species removal (Source: KHBS News) ......................... 2 Figure 7. Revegetating with a native Ozark chinquapin tree (Source: Only in Arkansas) .................................................... 4 Figure 8. Before and after of volunteers removing invasive plants along a trail near Scull Creek in Fayetteville, AR (Source: North American Invasive Species Management Association, NAISMA) ......................................................... 4 Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 1 FAYETTEVILLE’S CURRENT INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES PROGRAM Overview An invasive plant is a plant species found outside its native range that threatens the survival or reproduction of native plants and animals, reducing biological diversity and causing significant damage to ecosystems, communities, habitats, and native species. The parks across the City of Fayetteville contain many invasive plant species, including two that are prolific: Japanese and Bush Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) and Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense). The City of Fayetteville’s Parks Maintenance Division in the Public Works Department is responsible for the invasive plant species removal and habitat restoration programs on public lands. Parks Maintenance also conducts and collaborates with organizations to host work days to remove targeted areas and rely heavily on volunteers for this work, which ranges from removal of plants with loppers and shovels, to replanting once invasives are gone. Volunteers that participate in these events are trained to take the skills learned back home so that they may remove these plants from their own back yards. The City has an events calendar and page for interested community members to sign up for text or email notifications about upcoming stewardship volunteer opportunities. In addition to events and trainings, the City has information about the Invasive Plants Ordinance and a list of invasive plants and native alternatives on its website. Figure 1. Example of the community event for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook) Figure 2. Example public messaging for the management of invasive plant species (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR Facebook) Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 2 The Fayetteville City Council adopted Ordinance #5820 on November 3, 2015 (see Attachment A); this ordinance established a list of eighteen invasive plants to be restricted from being installed in new developments that require a Landscape Plan Review by the Urban Forester. The list of invasive plants was determined through an open participation process which involved a team of thirteen stakeholders. Stakeholders included nursery owners/managers, landscape architects, academic experts, landscape installers, hobby gardeners, botanists, naturalists, conservationists, City Park Managers and local citizens. The team met to evaluate the economic and environmental harm caused by invasive plants. After recognizing the need for an invasive plant policy, the stakeholder group reviewed other communities’ invasive plant species policies and made recommendations to City staff. The Ordinance was established in response to Fayetteville’s Comprehensive Plan’s guiding policies for Natural Areas which calls to, “preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species.” To support the awareness and compliance of the Ordinance, the “Invasive Plant Species in Fayetteville, Arkansas” resource was created by the City which consists of the eighteen invasive plants and recommends appropriate plant species for trees, shrubs or ground cover. The City of Fayetteville encourages all property owners to identify, remove and replace invasive plants from the landscapes around their homes and businesses. This report was provided to the City of Fayetteville in support of the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan (“Plan”) and was created to examine the existing program for managing invasive plant species in the City. Within the Plan, invasive plant species were recognized as an external challenge facing the City’s urban forest now and in the future with changing climates. To address these challenges, Goal B1 in the Plan calls for the City to “prioritize public tree maintenance and tree risk management” and has a supporting action to “continue to manage invasive plant species on public properties and within public rights-of-way. Support controlled burns to manage invasives and wildlife on public properties.” The following provides a summary of the program review and recommendations based on industry standards and best practices and local research pertaining to the management of invasive plant species. Figure 3. The City of Fayetteville, AR's educational packet for invasive plant species management (Source: City of Fayetteville, AR) Figure 4. City of Fayetteville, AR's 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 3 Current Management of Invasive Plant Species For the City’s consideration, the following table summarizes the plant species that are invasive according to Fayetteville’s Invasive Plant Species educational packet compared to the University of Arkansas’ Cooperative Extension Service (U of A Cooperative Extension) Invasive Plants in Arkansas list: Plant Species Listed in Fayetteville’s Invasive Plant Species Educational Packet? Listed in the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service’s Invasive Plants in Arkansas List?* Asian Wisteria Yes Yes Bamboo Yes Yes Bigleaf Periwinkle Yes Yes Callery/Bradford Pear Yes Yes Burning Bush Yes No Bush Honeysuckle Yes No Chinese Privet Yes Yes Creeping Euonymus Yes No English Ivy Yes Yes Heavenly Bamboo Yes No Japanese Honeysuckle Yes Yes Kudzu Yes No Littleleaf Periwinkle Yes No Mimosa, Silktree Yes Yes Multiflora Rose Yes No Sericea Lespedeza Yes Yes Shrubby Lespedeza Yes Yes Tree-of-Heaven Yes No Running Monkey Grass No Yes Tall Fescue No Yes Chinese Tallow Tree No Yes Cogongrass No Yes *City of Fayetteville, AR’s webpage for Invasive Plants and Native Alternatives (www.fayetteville-ar.gov/3028/Invasive-Plants-and-Native- Alternatives) **University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service’s Invasive Plants in Arkansas List (www.uaex.uada.edu/environment-nature/ar-invasives/invasive-plants) Figure 5. Identifying callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) an invasive tree species (Source: Watershed Conservation Resource Center’s “Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide) Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 4 Evaluating and Updating the City’s Invasive Species Management Program The City may consider updating the invasive plant species listed in the Invasive Plant Species educational packet and the City Ordinance #5820 to align with recommendations provided by the University of Arkansas’ Cooperative Extension Service, the Arkansas Native Plants Society, the Watershed Conservation Resource Center’s “Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide”, the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust, and/or other reputable sources. According to the Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Arkansas, the following plant species have been invasive in some landscape situations and should be monitored by the City of Fayetteville to determine the level of invasiveness and the need for prohibiting planting: • Garlic Chives • Devil’s Walking Stick • Artemesia • Trumpet Creeper • Obedient Plant • Sweet Autumn Clematis • Mexican Hydrangea • Queen Ann’s Lace • Wintercreeper Euonymus • Chameleon Plant • Cypress Vine Planning a Management Strategy For the consideration of Fayetteville, the following management strategies are recommended for invasive plant species management on public lands and for educating the public to manage invasives on private land (recreated from the Watershed Conservation Resource Center’s “Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide.”): Prevent Invasive Plants From Establishing • Don’t introduce invasive plants; consider native alternatives • Younger invasive plants are easier to remove than well-established plants Identify Plant Species & Area To Be Managed • Take an inventory of your area and properly identify invasive and native plants • Use caution on streamside areas or heavily sloped areas • Seek assistance and consultation in sensitive areas • Determine where and how removed brush will be handled. If composting, heat must be maintained above 145° F to denature seeds Practice Safety • Dress appropriately o Long sleeves, pants, gloves, sturdy shoes or boots o Safety glasses, sunscreen, and/or insect repellant may be appropriate • If Using Chemical Herbicide Treatment, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Is Needed o Safety glasses o Latex or nitrile gloves o Prevent spills and use extreme caution near water sources o Read herbicide labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for additional PPE measures and application guidelines o The herbicide label is the law • Use Extreme Caution With Sharp or Heavy Tools o Acquire safety training for chainsaw use • Be Aware of Surroundings Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 2 o Swinging tools or falling limbs could injure you or others nearby • Contact Arkansas One-Call at 811 o Call 811 to locate underground utility lines prior to disturbing a substantial area and/or using heavy equipment. • Use Caution When Working Around Overhead Utility Lines • Work Areas May Not Be Easily Accessible o Be aware of steep slopes, banks, and slippery areas • Be Aware of Wildlife o Work areas may harbor animals, snakes, or insects o Use caution with plants such as Poison Ivy, Poison Hemlock, or thorns (Greenbrier and Multiflora Rose) • Rest Often • Stay Hydrated Divide Area • Work in phases • Large acreage may require focusing on one species at a time or dividing into smaller manageable areas • Plant densities can be overwhelming; distribute workload Seek Assistance From Local Professionals • Tree professionals may be required. Use a certified arborist • Consult your local extension office for herbicide recommendations Revegetate/Encourage Native Plants • Minimize damage to native vegetation during removal • Consult native plant resources and research • Choose correct native plant for growing conditions, ecoregion, and space • Currently, Fayetteville recommends the “Wildscaping with Ozark Native Plants - Native Wildflowers and Grasses” resource for revegetating with native plants and the “Ozark-Friendly Landscape – Native Trees and Shrubs” resource for native trees Do Maintenance Seasonally • Many plants sprout or sucker from cut points; revisit managed areas • Opening canopy may activate invasive seed bank and viney plants Figure 6. City of Fayetteville's public education for invasive plant species removal (Source: KHBS News) Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 3 Invasive Plant Species Control and Removal Methods Several methods are used to control or remove invasive plants each with varying degrees of effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages. Listing here is not an endorsement for any one method. The area of infestation often dictates removal techniques, such as sensitive riparian areas along waterways, wetlands, or sloped areas. Use of herbicide trade names does not indicate endorsement of any one product. Mechanical • Hand Pulling • Cutting (chainsaw, hand saw, pruners) • Stump pulling (weed wrench, shrub pullers, chains, mattock, shovel, large machinery) • Machinery (mowing, brush hog) “Hand removal” is very effective but does require manual labor and may not be practical across large areas. Cutting alone is rarely effective, unless used in conjunction with cut-stump treatments. The most effective way to kill invasive plants is by removing the entire plant including root systems. Stump pulling is useful for small to medium shrubs and trees and is easier in moist soil. Cultural Practices Prescribed fire has been used throughout history to control vegetation, but burning is often unavailable in urban settings. Fire can control the spread of some invasive plants, but must often be used in tandem with mechanical and/or chemical measures. It can risk harming native vegetation, activate invasive seed banks, or even stimulate some undesirable plants. Refer to local laws and ordinances to ensure compliance. Applying mulch helps to control invasive populations by preventing sprouting. It also holds moisture for native plants and covers bare soil to help prevent erosion. Chemical (Herbicide) • Foliar spray • Cut-stump treatments • Basal bark treatment • Frill (hack-and-squirt) Always read and follow herbicide label instructions and precautions. Great care should be taken when conducting chemical treatment and it is important to consult your local cooperative extension office for herbicides effective for weed and brush control. A brief description of herbicide treatments follows: Foliar sprays are not always a viable option in the urban landscape or public setting. This technique can be used to target young plants, but it tends to be ineffective on many resilient, mature, invasive plants in Northwest Arkansas. Foliar spray can damage or kill non-target native plants from drift and contaminate water resources. Cut-stump treatments minimize chemical use and contamination of native vegetation and water resources. Most effective in the fall, stumps are cut 3 to 4 inches from the ground and are treated with an herbicide-marking mixture within a few minutes using a squirt bottle or sponge applicator. The marking dye helps land managers or volunteers to see where the chemical has been applied. Stump treatments also help to prevent suckering or secondary growth. Resilient stumps may need cutting and chemical application again the following season. Basal bark herbicide treatment is effective on most invasive woody plants including vines. An oil soluble herbicide is mixed with an oil carrier. For woody plants with a 6-inch diameter or less, spray the bark of the plant from ground level to 15 inches. Plants should not be cut for 6 months. This method can be used anytime of the year except early spring. Frill or hack and squirt is used to target invasive trees and introduces the herbicide into the stem using spaced cuts below the last live branch and around the trunk. A hatchet is used to make downward angled incisions through the bark (2 inches long) evenly spaced (one inch) around the tree. Each cut is carefully filled (do not allow spillage) with herbicide- marking mixture using a spray bottle or gunjet. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 4 Re-establishing Native Vegetation Once invasive vegetation is removed from a property, it is important to establish a healthy stand of plants native to the local ecoregions of Northwest Arkansas. Native vegetation provides shelter and food for wildlife, and it contributes to the reproduction and survival of insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals. Native vegetation also supports migrating species, such as monarch butterflies and wood thrushes. Having adapted to the Ozark Mountain region, native species of plants generally are easy to establish and are drought resistant. Many are beautiful with showy flowers, berries, and leaves, and they can easily be incorporated into a landscaped setting. The previous tables of plants native to both the Boston Mountains and Ozark Highlands Ecoregion should be considered for replanting. These lists can be used as a guide for the revegetation of an area of interest where invasive plants have been removed. Just because a shrub is removed doesn’t mean it needs replaced with another shrub. As an example, there may be a preference to establish native grasses and woodland wildflowers in a forested area where bush honey suckle has been removed. As part of the invasive removal process, a plan for native plant establishment should be created. Native plants can be established by dispersing seed or by planting potted plants or bare roots. Native seed can be collected locally or purchased and is generally used for large areas where grasses and wildflowers are desired. If native seed is purchased, a local source or at a minimum, a source that was cultivated in or near the Ozark Mountain region should be considered. When dispersing native seed on bare soils, mix a nursery crop of winter wheat or oats with a variety of native grass and wildflower species. Following the application of the seed mix, cover with straw. Trees and shrubs are generally established by planti ng potted plants or bare roots. Again, if possible, find a local source for these plants. Once the treated area is replaced with native plants, it is important to inspect for and remove new invasive plants that will try to reestablish on the property. Once a healthy stand of native vegetation is established, less invasive vegetation will arise. Figure 8. Before and after of volunteers removing invasive plants along a trail near Scull Creek in Fayetteville, AR (Source: North American Invasive Species Management Association, NAISMA) Figure 7. Revegetating with a native Ozark chinquapin tree (Source: Only in Arkansas) Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 5 Invasive Plant Species Program Review Checklist The following checklist is provided by the urban forestry consultants at PlanIT Geo for the City of Fayetteville to examine and update its current Invasive Plant Species Management Program. By updating the program and aligning it with industry standards and best practices, the City will be better equipped to implement the 2023 Urban Forestry Management Plan and achieve the vision of a sustainable urban forest in Fayetteville. Program Review Checklist for Fayetteville, Arkansas' Invasive Plant Species Management Program Table 1. Checklist for the City of Fayetteville to evaluate and update its invasive plant species management program (Source: PlanIT Geo, Inc.) A) PROGRAM OVERVIEW A1) Mission and Goals Question Answer Status A1a) Are the program's mission and goals clearly defined and measurable? A1b) Do the goals align with the City's overall priorities and environmental goals? A2) Program Scope Question Answer Status A2a) What types of invasive plants does the program target? A2b) What geographic areas does the program cover? A2c) What types of interventions are used (e.g., education, removal, restoration)? A3) Program Budget Question Answer Status A3a) Is the program adequately funded to achieve its goals? A3b) How are resources allocated across different program components? A3c) Are there opportunities for additional funding or cost savings? B) PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION B1) Planning and Prioritization Question Answer Status B1a) Does the program have a strategic plan for managing invasive species? B1b) Are priorities set based on the ecological impact of different species and the feasibility of control? B1c) Is there a mechanism for regularly updating the plan and incorporating new information? B2) Outreach and Education Question Answer Status B2a) Does the program have a comprehensive outreach and education plan to engage the public and stakeholders? B2b) Are educational materials clear, accurate, and accessible to different audiences? B2c) Are there opportunities to partner with other organizations for outreach efforts? Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 6 B3) Invasive Species Removal Question Answer Status B3a) Are control methods effective and based on best practices? B3b) Are appropriate disposal methods used for removed plants? B3c) Are there monitoring protocols in place to assess the success of control efforts? B4) Restoration and Re-vegetation Question Answer Status B4a) Does the program include efforts to restore native plant communities after invasive species removal? B4b) Are native species selection and planting methods appropriate for the site and ecological goals? B4c) Are there monitoring protocols in place to assess the success of restoration efforts? C) PROGRAM EVALUATION C1) Data Collection and Analysis Question Answer Status C1a) Does the program collect data on the distribution and abundance of invasive species? C1b) Are data collection methods reliable and standardized? C1c) Is data analyzed regularly to inform program decision- making? C2) Monitoring and Reporting Question Answer Status C2a) Does the program monitor the effectiveness of its interventions? C2b) Are results reported to stakeholders and the public? C2c) Are there opportunities to improve monitoring and reporting procedures? C3) Adaptive Management Question Answer Status C3a) Does the program use an adaptive management approach to adjust interventions based on monitoring results? C3b) Are lessons learned from past efforts incorporated into future planning? C3c) Are there opportunities to share information and best practices with other programs? Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 7 D) PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION D1) Stakeholder Engagement Question Answer Status D1a) Does the program actively engage with stakeholders such as residents, landowners, and businesses? D1b) Are there opportunities for stakeholders to participate in program planning and implementation? D2) Interagency Collaboration Question Answer Status D2a) Does the program collaborate with other agencies and organizations involved in invasive species management? D2b) Are there opportunities to share resources and expertise? D3) Volunteer Engagement Question Answer Status D3a) Does the program utilize volunteers for invasive species removal and restoration efforts? D3b) Are volunteer opportunities well-organized and effective? E) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Question Answer Status E1) Based on the review findings, what are the key recommendations for improving the program's effectiveness? E2) What are the estimated costs and resources needed to implement the recommendations? E3) What are the potential benefits of implementing the recommendations? F) CONCLUSION Question Answer Status F1) Overall, is the Fayetteville invasive plant species management program meeting its goals and objectives? F2) What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? F3) What are the key opportunities for improvement? ADDITIONAL NOTES This checklist is a starting point and may need to be adapted to the specific context of the program. The review process should involve stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The results of the review should be used to inform program improvement efforts. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 8 SUMMARY Fayetteville's urban forest consists of all trees throughout the City on both public and private property. The trees and the overall urban forest are vital resources that provide numerous ecological, economic, and social benefits. However, invasive plant species pose a significant threat to the health and sustainability of this valuable asset. To ensure the long- term health of the urban forest, it is critical for Fayetteville to regularly review and update its programs for managing invasive plant species. By conducting the program review and applying the recommendations provided in this Report the City of Fayetteville will be position to: Address evolving threats: Invasive species are constantly adapting and evolving, requiring frequent reassessment of management strategies. New invasive species may emerge, and existing species may develop resistance to current control methods. Updating the program allows for incorporating new knowledge and implementing more effective approaches. Adapt to changing environmental conditions: Climate change and other environmental factors can significantly impact the distribution and abundance of invasive species. By reviewing and updating the program, Fayetteville can ensure it is adaptable and capable of responding to these changing conditions. Optimize resource allocation: Limited resources must be used efficiently and effectively. A review process can identify areas for improvement in resource allocation and ensure that program efforts are focused on achieving the most significant impact. Improve program effectiveness: Regular evaluation and feedback are crucial for identifying program weaknesses and areas for improvement. This information can be used to refine existing strategies, develop new interventions, and ultimately enhance the program's overall effectiveness. Maintain public support: An effective invasive species management program relies on public awareness and support. By demonstrating commitment to continuous improvement and transparency, the program can build trust and encourage broader community engagement. Ensure a sustainable future: Invasive plant species can have devastating consequences for the health and diversity of the urban forest. By proactively managing these threats, Fayetteville can ensure the long -term sustainability of this valuable ecosystem and safeguard its ecological, economic, and social benefits for future generations. Regularly reviewing and updating Fayetteville's invasive plant management program is crucial for maintaining a healthy and resilient urban forest. This proactive approach will require ongoing commitment and collaboration, but it will ultimately contribute to a more sustainable and vibrant City for all residents. Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 9 RESOURCES • Arkansas Native Plant Society: anps.org/category/native-plants/Missouri Department of Conservation mdc.mo.gov/trees-plants/problem-plant-control • Arkansas One-Call. Damage prevention information, local contacts and rules for safe digging in Arkansas: Dial 811 or 1 (800) 482-8998 • Arkansas State Plant Board (phone: 501-225-1598): aad.arkansas.gov/arkansas-state-plant-board • City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Ordinance #5820 https://library.municode.com/ar/Fayetteville/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=749989 • City of Fayetteville Invasive Plants and Native Alternatives: www.fayetteville -ar.gov/3028/Invasive-Plants-and- Native-Alternatives • Invasive Plant Atlas: invasiveplantatlas.org • MP44, “Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control,” University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Research and Extension, Arkansas 2021. See MP44 online at www.uaex.edu • National Invasive Species Information Center: invasivespeciesinfo.gov • University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension (phone: 501-671-2000): uaex.edu/yard- garden/in-the-garden/native-plants • University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service’s Invasive Plants in Arkansas List: www.uaex.uada.edu/environment-nature/ar-invasives/invasive-plants • Watershed Conservation Resource Center’s “Invasive Plants of Northwest Arkansas, A Field Management Guide Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 10 ATTACHMENT A: ORDINANCE #5820 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 5820 File Number: 2015-0496 AMEND CHAPTER 177 LANDSCAPE REGULATONS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 177 LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADOPT REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION, AND TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL REVISIONS WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City Council passed Resolution 101-15 requesting that City staff examine the need and propriety of submitting a proposed ordinance that would regulate or prohibit the sale or use of certain invasive plant specie s in Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, City staff assembled a team of thirteen diverse stakeholders who identified eighteen invasive plant species that warrant restrictions based on the economic and environmental harm that they cause. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.01 Purpose by adding a new subsection (B)(12) as follows: “Discouraging the new installation of identified invasive plant species and encouraging the removal of existing invasive plant species.” Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.01 Purpose by adding a new subsection (C)(8) as follows: “Plants identified as invasive in Section 177.09: Invasive Plant Species are prohibited from be ing installed in all development projects that require a landscape plan review.” Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.02(B) by replacing “Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee” with “Urban Forestry Advisory Board.” Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends § 177.03 Landscape Plan Requirements by adding the words “Combined Plan” to the beginning subsection (C)(5) and by adding a new subsection (C)(7)(h) as follows: “Plants listed in Section 177.09: Invasive Plant Species shall not be installed in developments requiring a landscape plan review.” Section 5: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adds a new Section 177.09 Invasive Plant Species as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED and APPROVED on 11/3/2015 Approved: Attest: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer Fayetteville, AR UFMP: Invasive Plant Species Program Review Oct2023 P a g e | 11 Exhibit A 177.09 Invasive Plant Species The following plants shall not be installed in development projects that require a landscape plan review. Asian Wisteria Wisteria sinensis, Wisteria floribunda Bamboo Pyllostachys Spp. Bigleaf Periwinkle Vinca major Callary/Bradford Pear Pyrus calleryana Burning Bush Euonymus alatus Bush Honeysuckle Lonicera maackii, Lonicera fragrantissima Chinese Privet Ligustrum sinense Creeping Euonymus Euonymus fortunei English Ivy Hedera helixHeavenly Bamboo Nandina domestica* Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Kudzu Pueraria montana Littleleaf Periwinkle Vinca minor Mimosa, Silktree Albizia julibrissin Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora Sericea Lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata Shrubby Lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima *Cultivars that do not produce flowers or fruit are not considered invasive. P L A N -IT G E O , L L C 5790 Y U K O N S T R E E T A R V A D A , C O 8 0 0 0 2 page left intentionally blank Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment November 2012 Prepared By Funding assistance was provided by a grant from the Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community Forestry Program through the USDA Forest Service. Special thanks to the U.S. Forest Service Urban Forestry South-Centers for Urban & Interface Forestry team for their assistance. Prepared For The Arkansas Forestry Commission-Urban & Community Forestry Program, Urban Forestry South-Centers for Urban & Interface Forestry, and the City of Fayetteville page left intentionally blank i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... 1 Urban Tree Canopy in Fayetteville ................................. 1 Ecosystem Services ............................................................ 1 Urban Forest Management Scenarios ............................. 2 Recommendations and Summary .................................... 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 3 MAJOR FINDINGS ................................................................ 6 METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 7 Data Inputs, Imagery and Land Cover Classification .. 7 Terminology ........................................................................ 8 RESULTS ................................................................................... 9 Land Cover in Fayetteville ................................................ 9 Tree Canopy in Fayetteville ............................................ 10 Tree Canopy by Land Use and Parcels ......................... 11 Tree Canopy in the Street Rights-of-Way .................... 15 Tree Canopy by Census Blocks ..................................... 16 Tree Canopy By Riparian Corridors ............................. 18 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ................................................... 19 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS ...... 21 2002 – 2012 Comparison ................................................ 21 Targeting Areas to Plant Trees ...................................... 27 Tree Canopy Cover Goals and Policy .......................... 30 Management ...................................................................... 31 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 33 SUMMARY .............................................................................. 35 APPENDIX ............................................................................. 36 Urban Tree Benefits ........................................................ 36 Land Cover Classification Methods & Accuracy ........ 38 Additional Maps for Potential Planting Sites .............. 41 References ......................................................................... 42 page left intentionally blank Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 1 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANS AS URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment provides a benchmark of Fayetteville’s current tree cover. The study delivers essential data layers, maps and tools to enhance urban forest management, policy and decision-making, and planning. Additionally, by calculating some of the services and benefits the tree canopy provides, City staff and elected officials have information that places a value on trees and forests in their community in order to promote sound environmental and land use plans and policies. Geographic information systems (GIS), Land Use / Land Cover data, and high-resolution summer imagery provide the basis for this assessment. The data and technologies were used to assess Existing UTC and Possible Planting Areas (PPA) for assessment boundaries with different planning scales and intents. These included Fayetteville’s city boundary, 6 land use types at the parcel-level, 2010 census blocks, riparian corridors by watershed boundary, and street rights-of-way. This report presents results for current land cover and UTC distribution, compares canopy cover to 2002 conditions, estimates tree canopy benefits through multiple scenarios, and offers an evaluation, custom maps and tools, and recommendations for setting and achieving UTC goals. URBAN T REE CANOPY IN FAYETTEVILLE This study encompasses 55.4 square miles (35,437 acres) defined by the city limits of the City of Fayetteville, in Washington County, Arkansas. Based on a land area (after excluding water) of 34,586 acres, the City of Fayetteville has 12,441 acres (36%) of existing tree canopy, 17,757 acres (51%) of possible planting area, and 4,388 acres (13%) that is likely unsuitable for tree planting. Riparian buffer analysis reveals there is 60% tree cover along Fayetteville’s streams and rivers. Canopy cover within land use categories ranged from 18% (Commercial) to 45% (Agriculture) while the street rights-of-way average 13% cover. Residential properties average 41% UTC with 6 available planting sites per acre. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Trees and forests in communities provide many “ecosystem services”, or direct and indirect economic and environmental benefits such as removing air pollutants, storing and sequestering carbon, mitigating stormwater runoff, conserving energy through shade and wind block, improving public health, and providing wildlife habitat. Fayetteville’s tree canopy currently provides an estimated $3.5M in air quality services each year and $64M in total stormwater management. Additionally, 50,000 planting sites were mapped near residential buildings where energy conservation Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 2 and associated carbon emissions reductions could be maximized. The impact on ecosystem services from increasing and decreasing canopy cover is presented in this report. URBAN FOREST MANAGEM ENT S CENARIOS Management scenarios are presented and discussed involving further mapping, analysis and evaluation of Fayetteville’s urban forest. Comparison of canopy cover and benefits (2002 – 2012) – urban forests are dynamic and constantly changing. Three (3) methods were used to assess gains and losses in tree canopy. Target areas to plant trees – an analysis of potential tree planting sites focused on (1) areas most vulnerable to urban heat island effects, (2) wildlife habitat and linking of corridors, and (3) current land use types. Other attributes were added to this GIS layer for additional prioritization. Evaluating Fayetteville’s canopy cover and tree preservation ordinance – at 36% UTC, Fayetteville is 4% (~1,400 ac) below the national recommendation of 40%. Scenarios to reach 40% and an evaluation on the City’s tree preservation ordinance are presented. Management of the urban forest on city owned properties – gains and losses in tree canopy on city properties is evaluated for future management purposes. RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY Understanding how and where trees are concentrated and distributed across Fayetteville is essential for maintaining a healthy and sustainable urban forest. This study provides the most up-to-date analysis to foster this overarching goal. Fayetteville currently has 36% tree cover with 52% of the City classified as possible planting space. A comparison and trends assessment indicates canopy cover has decreased from around 37% to 36% (approximately 750-acre net loss) from 2002 to present. Forest regeneration and new tree planting are helping to offset only some of the losses from new development. Broad recommendations offer suggestions on using the results of this assessment as well as ways to create, expand, or strengthen urban forestry practices in the City. As development and economic progress continue, communities and public officials place a value on their tree cover when drafting and revising policies that affect trees. Fayetteville’s leaders, business community, and citizens shape their urban forest in tree planting and protection ordinances, and should use the results from this study to reevaluate whether changes in the City’s landscape the past 10 years is acceptable for their health, the environment, and the local economy and community. Tree canopy cools impervious surfaces on hot sunny days therefore reducing the effects of radiant heat escaping back into the atmosphere (Downing, 2011). Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 3 INTRODUCTION Trees provide many economic, social, and environmental benefits that form the basis of livability in urban municipalities. Therefore, it is important for urban development to work closely with urban forest health protection and management goals in order to maintain community livability. Geographic distribution of land use plays a critical role in maintaining a uniform urban forest. Each category of land use has unique management objectives and regulatory constraints. This Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (UTC) in Fayetteville represents an opportunity to better understand baseline conditions of tree canopy, the distribution of existing canopy vs. potential tree canopy, and development of tools to incorporate urban forest benefits during policy and planning processes. It involves the use of high-resolution multispectral imagery, GIS, and remote sensing technologies, training and development of custom tools, ecosystem benefits modeling, and reporting to characterize existing and potential UTC. The products and outcomes of this study will support developing and monitoring of UTC goals, provide detailed data for management plans and ordinances, and foster greater understanding of UTC benefits. This analysis of urban tree canopy aims to reveal and provide a better understanding of the benefits of the City of Fayetteville’s green infrastructure, expanding upon previous studies by the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association (FNHA). This study looks at the urban forest's relation to air quality, stormwater control, and carbon sequestration and storage. With funding in part provided by the USDA Forest Service (USDA FS), the Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community Forestry (AFC) program contracted with Plan-It Geo, LLC to map Fayetteville’s urban tree canopy Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 4 (UTC). This assessment examines the area and percent cover for existing tree canopy, possible planting area (in vegetated grass areas and paved impervious areas), and areas unsuitable for planting (buildings, roads, water, agricultural fields, etc.). These metrics were calculated for six (6) assessment boundaries: (1) Fayetteville City boundary, (2) land use, (3) census blocks, (4) riparian corridors, (5) street rights-of-way, and (6) parcels (see Table 1 on the following page). The assessment was accomplished by using newly generated land cover data and assessment boundaries provided by City GIS. The land cover classification includes the following eight (8) classes for the City: (1) tree canopy, (2) other low-lying vegetation, (3) bare soil/dry vegetation, (4) water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, (7) agriculture, and (8) other impervious surfaces (parking lots, driveways, etc.). See Figure 1. Specific objectives of this assessment were to: Map and assess eight (8) land cover classes across Fayetteville. Map and quantify existing urban tree canopy and possible planting areas for the City and five other finer scale assessment boundaries. Estimate Urban Forest Ecosystem Services, including air pollution removal capacity, carbon storage and sequestration, and stormwater management, broken out by the City, residential land uses, and watersheds. Create a series of Urban Forest Management Scenarios describing how UTC has changed over time and what current vs. future projected tree benefits and tree canopy could look like. This involved developing a GIS layer for prioritized potential planting locations, a plug ‘n play Canopy Calculator tool, and an evaluation of the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Provide training to City staff, volunteer organizations, state agency officials, and others in a workshop demonstrating how to use the data and tools and conduct ecosystem services analysis. In addition, presenting the results to the Fayetteville City Council. The Fayetteville Urban Tree Canopy assessment provides data and tools to develop local and regional urban forestry goals, policies, outreach, and management plans to sustain and enhance the existing urban forest. In addition to this report, Plan-It Geo, LLC has also provided GIS data layers and Excel spreadsheets to accompany reported results. Only a fraction of the information available from this assessment is provided in the report. Fayetteville and other partners are encouraged to conduct additional analyses to answer specific questions related to local planning policies and concerns. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 5 Assessment Boundary # of Types or Features Description Map City Boundary 1 City of Fayetteville Land Use 6 Land Use Categories Used: Agriculture Commercial Industrial Public Land Residential Public Right-of-Way Census Blocks 1,894 2010 U.S. Census data provides demographic data at the tract, block group, and block level. The most detailed ‘block’ level was used for this project. Riparian Corridors 69 Buffered streams and rivers, segmented by watershed boundary into finer-scale reaches to provide a better planning scale for this assessment. Street Rights-of-Way 903 The public rights-of-way (ROW) along streets. Parcels 28,768 Tax lots from the county assessors property database. Table 1. List and description of UTC assessment boundaries for this study. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 6 MAJOR FINDINGS Based on Fayetteville’s analysis of aerial imagery, Land Use / Land Cover, ecosystem services, and potential tree planting sites, the following represents the major findings from this study. Fayetteville has 36% urban tree canopy cover based on 2010 imagery. Canopy trends indicate a loss of possibly 1.5% UTC since 2002. Residential lots cover 31% of Fayetteville with an average tree cover of 41% citywide. This represents 1/3 of the City’s total tree canopy. 19% of the City’s tree canopy is on publically owned properties. The current urban forest removes nearly 1.3M pounds of air pollutants from the air annually, valued at $3.5M per year. This equates to 1.1 billion pounds of stored carbon with an annual carbon sequestration rate of 8.4M pounds of CO2 taken up by the tree canopy. Stormwater Savings o At 36% UTC, Fayetteville’s tree canopy is valued at an estimated $64 million based on avoided stormwater facility construction costs. o If canopy declines, at 30.0% canopy cover, it is valued at $44M. o At 40% UTC with 4% of new canopy growth from regeneration (natural forested areas), it is valued at $65M o At 45% UTC with the new canopy growing over streets and parking lots, the tree canopy would be valued at $85M. Natural forest regeneration plays a large role in UTC gains in Fayetteville. Examples are provided in the Canopy Change section of this report. There are 50,000 potential tree planting locations near residential buildings. If trees are planted to maximize cooling in summer, energy conservation as trees reach maturity would be significant. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 7 METHODOLOGY The following section describes the data and methods used for land cover classification and the terminology for defining and assessing the urban tree canopy (UTC) and potential planting areas (PPA). Brief methods for the comparison of tree canopy cover from 2002 to 2010 are included in the Results section further below. DATA I NPUTS, I MAGERY AND LAND COVE R CLASSIFICATION Numerous GIS data layers from the City and County were used in the process of mapping land cover classes and in the UTC assessment process. Examples include streets, buildings, water bodies, streams, parcels, land use, publicly owned properties, watersheds, and GIS layers from Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association’s Green Infrastructure Plan. One-meter resolution imagery from summer 2010 (National Agricultural Imagery Program – NAIP) was used as the basis for this UTC Assessment. The final land cover classification data includes eight (8) classes: (1) tree canopy, (2) grass / open space, (3) bare soil/dry vegetation, (4) water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, (7) agriculture, and (8) other paved surfaces (parking lots, driveways) shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Land cover with 8 classifications as an overview and an inset map. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 8 T ERMINOLOGY The UTC types assessed in this study are defined and described below. The area and percent of each was reported for six assessment boundaries. More details are provided throughout the report. Existing forest canopy is comprised of all forests and individual trees mapped from the 2010 summer NAIP imagery. For the purposes of this study, water was excluded from the total study area when calculating percent UTC. Excluding water from the study area (35,437 acres) creates total land area (34,586 acres) which was used to create all UTC metrics. Possible planting area (PPA) is defined as the total land area where no tree canopy cover currently exists and it is biophysically possible to plant trees. In this analysis, mainly grass and open space constitute “PPA – Vegetation” while impervious surfaces such as parking lots makeup “PPA – Impervious”. These are combined to report Total PPA. This does not equal to potential canopy but rather the space on-the-ground that is available for tree planting opportunities. Unsuitable UTC, for this study, was the combination of bare soil, dry vegetation, roads, buildings, agricultural land use, and water. Soil and dry vegetation are considered unsuitable given they comprise baseball infields, industrial lots, and vegetation that is lacking completely or unmaintained. Some areas mapped as Unsuitable UTC could become PPA through natural and human processes over time. Agricultural lands from the county land use data were sub-categorized as a PPA type but are generally considered as Unsuitable UTC. Existing Urban Tree Canopy Possible Planting Areas – Streets & Yards Possible Planting Areas – Impervious Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 9 RESULTS Detailed land cover and UTC assessment results are presented below. Land cover results are presented first, followed by results for each assessment boundary with specific tables, maps and graphics for Existing UTC, Possible Planting Areas, and Unsuitable UTC. LAND COVER IN FAYETTEVILLE This study encompasses 55.4 square miles (35,437.4 acres) defined by the city limits of Fayetteville. The two predominate land cover types for the study area are green vegetation (grass and open space) at 41% (14,518 acres) and secondly tree canopy at 12,441 acres as shown in Figure 2. “Other impervious”, consisting of parking lots, driveways, patios, and other paved surfaces, is third comprising of 10% of Fayetteville or 3,539 acres. The next four land cover classes including roads, buildings, water, soil and dry vegetation each individually fall under 10% for land cover and as a whole comprise of 14% of Fayetteville’s land cover. Figure 2. Distribution of land cover in Fayetteville. Figure 3. Tree canopy classification overview and inset map. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 10 TREE CANOPY IN FAYETTEVILLE As seen in Table 2 and Figure 4, Fayetteville’s current UTC covers 12,441 acres or 36% of the total land area. In addition to tree canopy, total possible planting area (PPA) in Fayetteville is equivalent to 18,057 acres or 52% of the total land area. The remaining 4,088 acres (11.8%) of land area is considered unsuitable for planting additional trees. Figure 4. Percent distribution of UTC and PPA for the City of Fayetteville. Total Acres Land Area (acres) 2010 UTC (acres) 2010 UTC % City of Fayetteville 35,437 34,586 12,441 36.0% Table 2. Metrics for Fayetteville showing UTC and PPA in acres and percent. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 11 Land Use Category Total Acres Land Area (acres) % of Total City Area UTC (acres) Existing UTC % Distribution of UTC by Land Use Total Possible Planting (acres) Total Possible Planting % Distribution of Total PPA by Land Use Agriculture 9,880 9,757 27.9% 4,353 44.6% 35.0% 5,329 54.6% 29.5% Commercial 3,985 3,943 11.2%702 17.8% 5.6% 2,705 68.6% 15.0% Industrial 957 949 2.7%258 27.2% 2.1%549 57.9% 3.0% Public Land 6,731 6,106 19.0% 2,285 37.4% 18.4% 3,190 52.2% 17.7% Residential 11,017 10,968 31.1% 4,475 40.8% 36.0% 5,038 45.9% 27.9% Public Right Of Way 2,867 2,863 8.1%368 12.9% 3.0% 1,247 43.6% 6.9% TOTALS 35,437 34,586 100.0% 12,441 36.0% 100.0% 18,058 52.2% 100.0% City of Fayetteville TREE CANOPY BY LAND USE AND PARCELS Various policies, regulations, ordinances, and city codes influence tree canopy in Fayetteville. To provide data that advances urban forest management, six (6) broad land use categories were assessed for tree canopy and possible planting areas. Parcels from the county tax assessor’s database were provided which included broad land use categories. Public lands were derived from parcels with ‘exempt’ status and the Public Rights-of-Way occur outside of all parcel boundaries. This was the finest scale assessment boundary and included 28,768 records. Results can be queried and symbolized using GIS to drill down and identify specific planting opportunities in subdivisions, land use types, or neighborhoods. Table 3 provides complete results for UTC and PPA land use metrics. Table 3. UTC and PPA Results for 6 Broad Land Use Categories. As an example, Commercial properties makeup 11% of the City, have 18% average tree canopy cover which represents almost 6% of UTC citywide, have 69% possible planting area largely from turf grass areas and parking lots, which constitutes 15% of all the PPA citywide. Figures 5-7. The Distribution of Land Use, UTC by Land Use, and PPA by Land Use. Maps in Figures 8-13 on the following pages illustrate how the land use and parcels data can be used together with UTC and PPA metrics to target specific properties for tree planting as well as monitoring the effectiveness of ordinances. Maps are shown for commercial, residential, and public properties by the percent of Existing UTC and Total Possible Planting Areas. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 12 Figures 8-9. Existing UTC and Total PPA Percentages for Commercial Properties . Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 13 Figures 10-11. Residential parcels color-coded by Percent Existing UTC and Total PPA. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 14 Figures 12-13. Publicly owned parcels color-coded by Percent Existing UTC and Total PPA. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 15 TREE CANOPY IN THE S TREET RIGHTS -OF-WAY The City of Fayetteville’s urban forestry program plants, manages, and maintains trees in the street rights-of-way (ROW). This is where the City has the most direct influence on tree canopy aside from tree preservation or other private property ordinances. Key findings in Fayetteville’s ROW are: ROW total land area is equal to 2,863 acres, or 8% of the total city land area. Existing UTC in the ROW is 368 acres or 13% average cover. This represents 3% of all UTC citywide. PPA – Vegetation totals 611 acres or 21% of the ROW and PPA – Impervious totals 636 acres or 22% of the ROW. There are an estimated 15,000 potential planting sites in the ROW, or 5 per acre. If 25% of these sites were planted, grew to 30’ tree crown spreads, this would generate 61 acres of new tree canopy. 61 acres is 4% of the acreage required to reach 40% citywide UTC. Other UTC and PPA results for the ROW can be seen in Table 3 and Figures 5-7 in the Tree Canopy by Land Use section. Figure 14. Potential planting area in the Street ROW. The GIS queries in the map legend show 3 colors based on ranges of Existing UTC and Total PPA. As an example, streets colored red have less than 10% UTC and greater than 50% total planting area. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 16 TREE CANOPY BY CENSU S BLOCKS The 2010 U.S. Census data provides social and demographic information at a variety of scales, specifically in GIS format from large to small as census tracts, block groups, and individual blocks. In Fayetteville, 1,894 census blocks were assessed for UTC and planting areas. Figure 16. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color-coded by Percent of Total PPA. Darker areas have more planting potential from grass and open space as well as suitable paved (impervious) areas. Figure 15. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color-coded by Percent UTC. Darker areas have more tree cover than lighter colored areas. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 17 Figure 18. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color-coded by Percent of Total PPA. Darker areas have more planting potential from suitable paved (impervious) areas such as parking lots, driveways, etc. Figure 17. Census blocks (socio- demographic units) color-coded by Percent of Total PPA. Darker areas have more planting potential from grass and open space. Agricultural land use areas were excluded from percentages. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 18 TREE CANOPY BY RIPAR IAN CORRIDORS Fayetteville’s streams and rivers, or riparian corridors, provide many ecosystem services such as erosion and sediment control, stream temperature regulation, and wildlife habitat. Conservation buffers along riparian areas are a best management practice where development is often restricted and natural vegetation is encouraged to maintain natural processes. In this study, to provide assessment results at a useful scale, Fayetteville’s riparian areas were split along watershed boundaries and then segmented manually into smaller stream reaches. This resulted in 69 riparian corridor “segments” which were buffered by 100 feet and analyzed for UTC and PPA. Key findings included:  49 (of 69) riparian corridors segments have greater than 50% existing canopy cover.  14 have greater than 50% potential planting area (grass and open space).  Three watersheds with the largest amount of riparian area for tree planting are: o Hamestring Creek (78 acres of PPA; 1,559 potential planting sites) o Mud Creek-Clear Creek (92 acres of PPA; 3,037 potential planting sites) o Town Branch-West Fork White River (122 acres of PPA; 3,729 planting sites) Figure 19. Riparian buffer segments color-coded by percent Existing UTC. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 19 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Forest benefits are referred to as “ecosystem services”, and describe ways in which urban forests contribute to improving quality of life. We tend to take for granted the direct and indirect benefits trees provide because they are not assigned a dollar value. Examples include: Providing habitat and protecting biodiversity Decreasing stormwater utility costs, erosion, and flooding Reducing urban heat island effect and cooling costs Improving property values, tax revenues, recreation opportunities, and public health and well being Absorbing carbon dioxide annually through carbon sequestration and through carbon storage Improving air quality, water quality and groundwater recharge CITYgreen software was used to estimate the benefits of Fayetteville’s existing urban tree canopy and scenarios with decreased and increased canopy cover. CITYgreen, a GIS software developed by American Forests using research from the U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), was used to calculate current and potential benefits related to carbon storage (cumulative amount of carbon stored in trees over time), carbon sequestration (the rate that carbon is captured), air pollution removal by trees annually, stormwater benefit of urban forests. CITYgreen Parameters Used: 1.) Reference City for Air Quality: Tulsa was chosen as the closest, most representative city for the U.S. Forest Service reference city for air pollutant removal capacity of the urban forest. 2.) Soils: from the choices of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A, B, C or D, soil type “C” was chosen as most representative. C type soils allow for less infiltration (clay) and are more restrictive soil type than B (loam). 3.) Construction cost per cubic foot (cu. ft.): $3/cu. ft. was used as a conservative average for stormwater facility construction cost. 4.) Replacement Land Cover Type: when tree canopy is “replaced” in the CITYgreen model, the replacement land cover chosen was Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover 50% - 75%. This is more conservative than replacing the tree canopy with commercial or residential development which has a much higher curve number (CN). Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 20 City of Fayetteville "Tree Canopy & Environmental Benefit Scenarios" Benefit Type Citywide Decline to Increase #1 Increase #2a Increase #2b Residential UTC-%36%30%to 40% to 45% to 45%41% Annual $ Benefit . . . . . .$3.5 million $3.0 million $4.0 million $4.5 million $5.0 million $1.3 million Lbs. Removed/Year . . . .1.3 million 1.1 million 1.4 million 1.6 million 1.8 million 461,000 Total CO2 stored . . . . . .1.1 billion 915 million 1.2 billion 1.4 billion 1.5 billion 391 million Annual Rate Stored . . . . .8.4 million 7.1 million 9.5 million 10.7 million 11.9 million 3.0 million Total $ Benefit . . . . . . .$64.1 million $43.9 million $65.5 million *$67.1 million *$84.9 million ** $22.2 million Total Gallons Benefit . . .21.4 million 14.6 million 21.9 million 22.4 million 28.3 million 7.4 million * For Scenarios "Increase #1 and #2a", new projected tree canopy was assumed to be forests (natural regeneration), not individual yard trees. ** For the Scenario "Increase #2b", new projected tree canopy was assumed to overhang impervious surfaces, resulting in a larger $ value. SCENARIOS Air Quality Carbon Storage & Sequestration Stormwater Savings Table 4. Summary of Benefits from Current and Future Projected Scenarios of UTC in Fayetteville. Plan-It Geo then used i-Tree Design, a free web-based tool developed by the U.S. Forest Service, to estimate benefits such as energy conservation from a common tree. A red oak tree was modeled at 8” diameter at breast height (dbh) and then projected 25 years out (20” dbh). See Figure 20. Figure 20. Output from i-Tree Design software showing that a young red oak tree (8” dbh) provides $18 in annual energy savings if planted on the west side of a residential home. If the tree grows for 25 years, it would be expected to reach 20” dbh and provide nearly $48 in annual energy savings. With 50,000 potential planting locations near residential homes in Fayetteville, planting one-quarter (1/4) of these could provide roughly $600,000 in energy savings annually when those trees reach maturity. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 21 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Using the land cover data and UTC assessment results, further analysis provides a presentation of different management scenarios introduced below. GIS data models and interpretation were utilized to produce these scenarios. Sample maps or tables are presented for each scenario and provided as additional data along with this report. Comparison of canopy cover and benefits (2002 – 2012) – multiple data layers and methods were used to assess gains or losses in tree canopy over the roughly ten-year time period. Table 4 in the Ecosystem Services section illustrates scenarios that quantify decreases and increases in benefits as canopy cover changes. Target areas to plant trees – potential tree planting sites were modeled citywide using the land cover data and GIS analysis. Attributes were created focusing on (1) areas most vulnerable to urban heat island effects, (2) wildlife habitat and linking of corridors, and (3) current land use types. Multiple other attributes were added to the GIS planting points for prioritization. Evaluating Fayetteville’s canopy cover and tree preservation ordinance – this entails an analysis of Fayetteville’s current canopy coverage in comparison to the national recommendation of 40% and recommendations on the effectiveness of the tree preservation ordinance. Management of the urban forest on city owned properties – tree canopy is evaluated for gains or losses for future management purposes. 2002 – 2012 C OMPARISON Fayetteville’s urban forests are constantly changing over time resulting from natural and man-made processes, including tree growth and planting, and mortality and development. Monitoring forest change provides important information about the effectiveness of forest policy, community action, and natural processes impacting the urban forest. Today, urban forest managers have access to a variety of tools designed to evaluate forest cover at different spatial scales. This assessment uses three different approaches to evaluate forest change that has occurred since 2002. While no single available approach provides precise quantitative measurements of forest change, the combined methods elucidate several important trends. Agents of change: heavy winds, flooding, and ice storms such as the 2009 storm illustrated on the right can cause heavy damage and natural loss to forest canopy. Canopy Comparison Methods Canopy cover between the two time periods was compared using three methods presented here. 1. i-Tree Canopy Method:  A point-based statistical analysis was conducted using the i-Tree Canopy tool to compare canopy cover across Fayetteville based on current and 2002 high resolution Google Maps imagery. This method has been used to evaluate canopy cover in 20 cities across the country (Nowak and Greenfield, 2012). Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 22  Tree canopy was assessed for each time period at 770 randomly distributed points.  Results: 37% (13,147 acres) and 35.3% (12,509 acres) of the City was forest cover in 2002 and 2010 respectively (based on total area), for a net loss of 1.7% (640 acres). 2. GIS Land Cover Comparison Method:  Two previous land cover assessments mapped canopy cover in Fayetteville in 2001 and 2002 from satellite imagery. Although the assessments provided the best available data at the time, the overall accuracy of the final land cover products were below standards required for direct comparison with this assessment. Therefore, a manual GIS-based review and editing approach was conducted to provide an initial level of quality control in a comparison between the 2002 canopy data at 39% and the 2010 UTC results at 36%.  Forests greater than one-quarter acre from each time period was overlaid to identify significant areas of change. Areas were validated in this GIS-based approach by visually comparing with imagery from each time period and correcting obvious errors.  Results illustrate total forest canopy gains of 502 acres and losses of 1,249 acres, for a net loss of 747 acres (2%). See Figure 21. Tree Canopy Gained 502 Acres Tree Canopy Replaced by Impervious Areas 1,092 Acres Tree Canopy Replaced by Non-Impervious Areas 157 Acres Net Change -747 Acres Figure 21. Comparing forests using GIS analysis to show significant gain and loss areas. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 23 3. Growth of Trees from New Residential Development  Canopy growth from newly planted trees was estimated by digitizing individual tree crowns from current imagery and comparing canopy area to the expected canopy size at the time of planting (2002).  COF identified 22 new developments where tree plantings were known to occur around 2002. Within the new developments canopies from 250 randomly selected trees were digitized to measure current canopy areas in square feet. The estimated starting point of 40 square feet was subtracted from current canopy to estimate growth since planting. Figure 22. Individual tree crowns added about 23 acres per 1,000 newly planted trees between since 2002.  Results for 250 sampled trees on residential properties: o Total canopy area in 2011: 66,801 sq.ft. (estimated at 10,000 sq.ft. in 2002 as the starting point) o Total canopy growth = 56,081 sq.ft. (1.29 acres) o Average annual tree growth = 224 sq.ft. per tree  Residential canopy cover averages 41% citywide while it averages around 6 or 7% in the 22 subdivisions assessed in this task, implying newly planted trees are not yet compensating for the loss of trees removed during development. When extrapolated out forty (40) years, the sampled 250 trees are expected to comprise about 5.7 acres of canopy, or 0.02% of Fayetteville’s total area. Using this assumption, planting 1,000 trees each year for 40 years would yield about 23 acres of forest canopy annually. With an expected survival to maturity rate of about 70%, accumulated over 40 years a total of 13,000 acres of new tree canopy would be added. We estimate that around 60 medium sized mature trees are equivalent to one acre of forest canopy. Given mortality rates in the region, the City and residents should expect to plant around 80 trees to produce one acre of mature tree canopy in the future. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 24 Canopy Change and Interpretation Assessing urban tree canopy change presents many technical challenges given differences in image quality, availability, classification methods, and level of QA/QC. Data and computing capabilities are constantly making higher levels of accuracy and precision in land cover mapping possible. Comparisons with Fayetteville’s 2001 and 2002 classifications were challenged given the satellite imagery used as the input image for the 2001 assessment was unavailable and noticeable errors of under- and overestimation were visible. The fact that two independent methods (i-Tree and land cover data) used to assess canopy change yielded similar values provides confidence in both the stated canopy percent values for each time period and the methods used to present a trend in cover. Table 5. Canopy comparison analysis results from three (3) methods. Analysis Method Canopy Change Percent Change Description i-Tree Canopy 1.7% Loss Citywide City-wide statistical estimate comparing 2002 and 2011 tree canopy. GIS Overlay 2% Loss Citywide GIS analysis of gains and losses since 2002 in forest areas greater than ¼-acre. Tree Growth in Developments 0.1% Growth per 1,000 trees planted Canopy growth over 8 years reflects the challenge of reforestation compared with losses to development. Overall Trend 1.5% Loss Overall, canopy cover is in decline. Recommendations for Comparing Canopy Change Over Time Based on the comparisons done within the scope of this project, the following recommendations are offered for conducting reliable UTC comparisons over time: Use the same city boundary given they change over time due to annexations Because UTC percent is calculated based on land area which excludes water, ensure that the area of water is the same and/or accurate in both time periods. Use similar image resolution and quality and LiDAR (Light Detection & Ranging) when possible. Conduct time-intensive Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) for quality comparisons. o Accuracy of each time period should be 95% or greater to ensure losses are demonstrating actual canopy change. o Early forest regeneration is difficult to map with remote sensing and can be subjective with manual processing. Canopy mapping with sufficient detail to map individual trees will aid in mapping early canopy growth over time. Canopy Change analysis within i-Tree Canopy version-5.0 can be effective, but is still subjective to the analyst’s preference. Use multiple interpretations to arrive at confident values. A process known as “object fate analysis” can be conducted to assess change in land cover across time periods, though initial research shows this is a time-intensive and expense method. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 25 Figure 23. Examples of tree canopy increases from natural regeneration and street/yard planting. Fayetteville, 2002 Fayetteville, 2010 Fayetteville, 2010 Fayetteville, 2002 Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 26 Figure 24. Examples of tree cover loss during development (mapping result shown at bottom). Figure xx Fayetteville, 2002 Fayetteville, 2010 Forest Loss Area Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 27 Planting Site Attribute Total # of Planting Sites General Criteria Used 25% of Planting Sites 50% of Planting Sites 25% of Planting Sites 50% of Planting Sites City Owned 6,447 On City Owned Property 26 52 2% 4% School 1,100 On School Parcel 4 9 0% 1% Wildlife Habitat 47,181 Within 50 ft of Large Forests 191 383 14% 27% Along Riparian Corridor 18,360 Within 100 ft of Riparian Corridor 74 149 5% 11% Energy Conservation 69,153 Within 50 ft of Building 281 561 20% 40% Park 7,898 On Park Parcel 32 64 2% 5% Urban Heat Island 37,131 Within 50 ft of Large Impervious Area 151 301 11% 22% Trail 29,033 Within 100 ft of Trail 118 236 8% 17% Near Park 20,065 Within 1/8 mi of Park 81 163 6% 12% Front Yard 45,461 Within 25 ft of Rights of Way 184 369 13% 26% Near School 1,557 Within 1/8 mi of School 6 13 0% 1% Air Quality 5,691 Within 50 ft of Highways/Arterials 23 46 2% 3% * Numbers reflect planting sites in "Developed" areas with the exception of Riparian sites which include all * Projections based on trees with an average 30' crown spread (15' radius) Additional UTC Acres from Planting: % of Additional UTC Acres Needed to Reach 40% UTC Goal: TARGET ING AREAS T O PLANT T REES The land cover, land use, UTC, and other data were inputs to a sophisticated GIS model to automate the mapping of potential tree planting sites. The resulting GIS points will assist the City in targeting areas to plant trees, evaluating the effectiveness of tree preservation ordinances, and goal setting. Available planting sites exist where there is a lack of trees and adequate planting area exists in grass and herbaceous cover. To get a more realistic estimate of where trees could be practically planted, exclusions and constraints were applied in the model (see Table 6). After removing these areas from grass and open space in the land cover data, the remaining spaces were converted into potential planting site points. Table 6. List and description of the main rules used to map potential tree planting locations. GIS Layer(s) Rule Applied Reason Tree Canopy Buffered by 10 feet To allow for spacing and growth of existing trees Buildings Buffered by 5 feet To avoid tree and building conflicts Agricultural Land Use Buffered by 15 feet To allow for farming and related uses The City should ground-truth (field-verify) the points over time to exclude points that are invalid due to conflicts such as safety, utilities/power lines, and small trees not seen in the 2010 canopy mapping. The model resulted in roughly 190,000 sites, so prioritizing them is crucial. To prioritize sites, new attributes were added to the GIS planting sites layer. For example, land use types from parcels were spatially joined (overlaid) to each site. For proximity to urban heat islands and wildlife habitat corridors (as well as other high value areas), similar overlays and distances assumptions were used. Sites that meet each criterion can now be queried, symbolized, and counted. The list in Table 7 below shows the types, their count, the criteria used, and then calculates the impact on citywide UTC if 25% or 50% were planted. Maps on the following pages and Appendix offer many examples. Table 7. List of attributes added to each potential planting site (GIS point database) for prioritization and possible impact on UTC goals. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 28 The EPA reports that tree shading can reduce surface temperatures 20–45ºF in the summer. Figure 25. Census blocks with the largest contiguous impervious surface area and highest number of potential planting sites. Urban Heat Island Effect – refers to developed areas that are hotter than surrounding rural areas due to the abundance of man-made materials there which absorb the sun’s energy much more than trees or other plants, and in turn warm the air around them (Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, “Trees and the Urban Heat Island Effect”, 2010). Tree shade lowers ambient air temperatures which limits the formation of ozone and smog. Trees also absorb ozone which reduces air pollutant concentrations. Only 4% of Fayetteville’s urban tree canopy overhangs impervious surfaces. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 29 Figure 26. Potential tree planting sites along riparian corridors for improving water quality and decreasing storm water runoff. Figure 28. Potential tree planting sites in Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association (FNHA) core areas provide another potential for increased wildlife habitat. Figure 29. Potential tree planting sites along riparian corridors and near forested lands provide a higher quality wildlife habitat and often provide important wildlife corridors. Figure 27. Potential Planting Areas by Land Use. Wildlife Habitat – urban forests provide essential habitat for wildlife and provide opportunities for the community to experience nature in the city. The GIS planting site points were modeled with ecological and corridor data from the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association (FNHA), land use, and large contiguous forested areas. Figures 26-29 illustrates querying planting locations near habitat. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 30 TREE CANOPY COVER GOALS AND POLICY One objectives of this study is to compare canopy coverage to the national recommendation of 40%. At 36% UTC, bridging the 4% gap (1,383 acres) can be accomplished in a number of ways. Here are 2 very different scenarios showing what it might take: Using Plan-It Geo’s Canopy Calculator tool (Figure 30 below), 40% UTC can be achieved by increasing Commercial properties from 18% to 20% and Residential lots from 41% to 50%. Natural forest regeneration is a driver of canopy gains based on results from this study and a cost-effective path. With an estimated 500 acres of forest gain in 10 years (not considering losses), a similar trend could in theory help the City reach 40% UTC in 30 years, but would require a cessation of forest loss during development. Figure 30. Plan-It Geo’s Urban Tree Canopy Calculator tool used to set future goals in Fayetteville. Another objective is to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of Fayetteville’s tree preservation ordinance followed by recommendations if the ordinance is not working. The Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter under Fayetteville’s Unified Development Code provides a framework for maintaining urban forest quality while the City grows and develops. As the Chapter objectives state, trees provide a variety of benefits that contribute Fayetteville’s natural beauty and livability for its residents, including temperature and climate regulation, air and noise pollution reduction, storm water, flood, and erosion mitigation, provision of wildlife habitat, energy conservation, and property value enhancement. The Chapter aims to promote these benefits through the preservation of on-site trees during development, using on-site mitigation strategies when preservation in not possible, off-site preservation, off-site forestation projects, or financial contributions to a tree escrow account. How can UTC assessment be used to measure successes resulting from the ordinance? Measuring the incremental success of tree preservation and protection is important for meeting stated goals into the future. Of the many tools available to urban forest managers, this UTC assessment provides a snapshot of city-wide forest canopy extent as seen from above, and its requisition meets the goal of conducting an assessment by end of 2012. The following results can be used to evaluate the relative success of the Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter:  Overall forest canopy percent change across Fayetteville: 37% in 2002 to 36% in 2010.  Riparian areas canopy cover averages 61%, well above the citywide forest cover of 36%. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 31  Urban Heat Islands: Canopy percent averages 22% among census blocks with large impervious areas, and just 9% in high priority areas mapped in this study.  Rights of Way: Canopy percent averages 13% with only 4% of the total tree canopy overhanging impervious surfaces across the City. Additional Tasks to Measure Preservation and Protection Success Additional analysis steps can be conducted to measure Preservation and Protection success that were outside the scope of this analysis but could be implemented internally by COF staff:  Using this Assessment Data. Use the new data to evaluate whether recent developments have met preservation requirements (e.g. Minimum Canopy Requirements).  Conduct Periodic UTC Assessments. As the Chapter recommends, periodic assessments can evaluate ordinance progress. Consider using NAIP or i-Tree Canopy (Google Maps and Google Earth) during intermediate years to track development-specific progress.  Assess Hillside / Hillslope Overlay Districts for canopy change over time.  Hedonic Pricing models can be used to assess canopy’s contribution to property values.  Track Registry Tree growth of individual registry trees to ensure longevity and protection. Other forestry tools for measuring preservation success Today’s urban forest managers have access to host of tools which can enhance the effectiveness of management strategies. Many tools are inexpensive or free and can be used to target specific goals and locations.  Tree Inventories provide the greatest level of detail regarding individual tree conditions. Requiring developers to conduct a post-development tree inventory could be a cost-effective way to initiate Fayetteville’s citywide inventory.  i-Tree Eco provides the best available science to value benefits received from urban trees.  Localized Ecological Studies can be used to assess impacts from specific development and mitigation strategies by directly measuring impacts before and after implementation.  Developer Workshops hosted by Fayetteville’s urban forestry staff to promote best management practices (BMPs) and specific development strategies (such as ordinance requirements or recommendations like cluster development). MANAGEMENT The City currently owns and maintains 543 properties that include civic buildings, parks & open space, trails, and more. UTC and PPA metrics were calculated for each property and joined to the land use data layer at the parcel-level. This way queries and custom maps of these properties can be created along with other information. Results were summarized for all city owned properties and the results can be seen in Table 7. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 32 Total Acres Land Area (acres) % of Total City Area UTC (acres) UTC % Distribution of % Total UTC PPA Vegetation (acres) PPA Vegetation % PPA Impervious (acres) PPA Impervious % Total # of Planting Sites Planting Sites per Acre City Owned Properties 4,763 4,136 11.7% 2,355 56.9% 18.9% 1,491 36.0%195 4.7% 6,447 1.56 Table 7. Tree canopy and planting potential metrics summarized for all City Owned Properties. Using the results from the analysis steps described above, gains and losses of tree canopy was estimated for city owned properties (see Figure 31 below). This resulted in a loss of tree canopy for 54 acres or 1.3% of City Owned Properties. This information should be used as a general trend and not an exact measure of UTC change. Figure 31. Canopy change for City Owned Properties from 2002-2010. Tree Canopy Gained 135 Acres Tree Canopy Replaced by Impervious Areas 163 Acres Tree Canopy Replaced by Non-Impervious Areas 26 Acres Net Change -54 Acres Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 33 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this assessment, the following general recommendations are offered for using the data and for managing, maintaining, and monitoring a healthy, sustainable, robust working urban forest. 1. Share this report to promote cohesion among the City, AFC, FNHA, and other partners and community stakeholders: People are part of the urban forest. Use this report as a catalyst among urban forest managers and community stakeholders to meet Fayetteville’s natural resource goals. Solicit feedback from community partners for the refinement of tree preservation ordinances, tree planting initiatives, and steps to encourage survivability and forest health. Develop best management practices (BMPs) such as maintaining higher canopy cover in ecologically sensitive areas (wetlands), parking lots, schools, and commercial properties. 2. Monitor, adapt, and enforce existing tree Preservation and Protection ordinances. Streamline tree-related policies and identify if codes are working against local goals. Enforce requirements in the Tree Preservation plan, especially the 90% survival rate for forested areas and tree plantings. Collaborative planning can reduce costs and provide consistency for public works officials, planners, developers, and stormwater and resource managers. 3. Develop a regional urban tree canopy assessment report in Arkansas. Utilize the information gained from this assessment and others in the state to compile and compare results. Involve interdisciplinary partners in the process and draft an appropriate call to action. 4. Assess tree canopy every 8-10 years to monitor trends and assess the effectiveness of public education & outreach campaigns and the tree preservation ordinance. Tools such as i- Tree Canopy can be used in between comprehensive GIS-based assessments. 5. Disseminate the land cover and UTC assessment data from this project broadly. While it is current, encourage its use for applications such as water supply planning, stormwater modeling, land use planning, green infrastructure, and Low Impact Development (LID) design. 6. Foster academic partnerships. Recommend that the University of Arkansas become a Tree Campus USA and work with local schools to educate and plant/care for trees. 7. Explore all potential partnerships to achieve urban forest goals: public/private including corporate and academic sponsors, council representatives, environmental quality and stormwater associations, volunteers, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood associations. 8. Promote hardy, climate-adapted, and long-lived tree species that are appropriate for Fayetteville’s environment to insure investments in trees achieve maximum benefits. 9. Target areas for tree planting using the assessment data. Use results to justify targeted public tree plantings in the public rights-of-way and greater private planting in commercial landscaping. Ground-truth possible planting areas and planting site locations. Make these data sets available on a GIS webmap as social assessment tools available to residents and businesses. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 34 10. Create a central repository for monitoring tree planting and tree removals on public and private property, possibly using a web-based application that is open to the public. 11. Ensure consistency in future UTC assessments by using comparable image resolution, classification techniques, and QA/QC procedures. LiDAR and 1.5-2.0’ multispectral satellite imagery acquired at similar times would provide an ideal data set. 12. Create or update an existing targeted education and outreach campaign using the ecosystem benefits values. Use the data, maps, tools, and tree benefits to help non-profits, residents, and businesses visualize their role in reaching, maintaining and expanding Fayetteville’s urban forest for social, environmental, and economic benefits that are relevant to them. 13. Work urban forestry goals and design specifications into other environmental planning initiatives such as wetland restoration projects, open space conservation easements, green infrastructure & low impact development (LID) plans, and energy efficiency programs. 14. Assess forest stands at risk from development by overlaying zoning or future land use data and developable slope %. Quantify and locate areas at risk that if developed would impact overall citywide canopy cover goals as the economy improves and development follows. 15. Promote cost-effective professional development in urban forestry. eLearn Urban Forestry is a state-of-the-art online, distance-learning program geared specifically toward beginning urban foresters and those allied professionals working in and around urban and urbanizing landscapes, including service foresters, natural resource planners, landscape architects, city officials and public works employees. eLearn Urban Forestry provides free access to learning modules, with a link to the Continuing Forestry Education (CFE) group, where for a small maintenance fee you can get ISA or SAF credit. Visit elearn.sref.info/ for more details. 16. Provide an environment for natural forest regeneration. This study shows that grass, herbaceous, and shrub/briar land cover types are naturally regenerating into forests, contributing to the City’s overall tree canopy and ecosystem services. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 35 SUMMARY Urban forests are dynamic resources that are constantly changing through natural and human processes. Managing urban forests effectively requires an understanding of where trees are presently, where they can be planted equitably to maximize benefits, and where physical restrictions may prevent their growth. This assessment provides COF will their first high-resolution UTC data set and citywide estimate of 36% tree cover. While agriculture and residential land uses have similar average tree cover (45% and 41% respectively) and they makeup similar proportions of the total tree canopy (35% and 36% respectively), residential areas provide 28% of the total possible planting area citywide and are most realistic for canopy gains that benefit the community most. These results indicate that one of the most cost-effective means to advancing urban forestry in the city may be education and outreach on the benefits of urban tree canopy. Based on assessing land cover across several broad land use types, tree planting that focuses on vegetation land cover, such as grassy areas, and impervious land cover, such as parking lots, which are concentrated on public lands and residential land use types will have the greatest impact for increasing Fayetteville’s urban tree canopy. As population density and impervious cover increases, the necessity of planting trees will also increase. Regeneration, be it natural or by strategically planting seedlings and saplings, is important to the success and future of Fayetteville’s urban tree canopy. This study shows that natural regeneration is occurring and adding to canopy cover, but invasive species control and forest management is needed. It is import to sustain the health, environmental, and social benefits received from urban forests by consideration of tree maintenance and forest preservation during development through utilizing a specific urban forest management plan and furthermore the setting of goals. These plans should be dynamic in order to adjust with continuous forest change. On future periodic assessments, techniques for monitoring gains and losses need to be consistent and include strict quality control / quality assurance methods to reliably track change over time. Additional technology tools are becoming available such as open source wiki-style mobile and web-mapping applications to engage the public in tracking and caring for trees. Balancing new development with the protection and conservation of environmental values related to forest cover such as wetland habitat, air quality, and climate adaptation related to carbon storage and energy conservation will be an ongoing work item. The economic benefits of urban tree canopy alone are incentives to continue in this direction. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 36 APPENDIX Additional details on Fayetteville’s 2012 urban tree canopy assessment are provided including supporting information on urban tree benefits, land cover classification methodology and accuracy, addition tree planting site maps, and literature citations. URBAN TREE BENEFITS The benefits of urban trees include environmental, economic, and social values. These “ecosystem services” are direct or indirect benefits provided by urban forests and individual trees that are often dismissed or underrepresented when valuing infrastructure because they don’t readily have an associated dollar value. Types of tree benefits are listed and briefly described below. While none alone are a “silver bullet”, when combined, trees and the urban forest are an impressive part of the solution for sustainability during urban planning and community development. Environmental “Services” of Urban Trees: Air Quality – trees absorb, trap, offset and hold air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and CO2. Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Carbon – trees store and sequester carbon through photosynthesis as well as offset carbon emissions at the plant due to energy conservation. Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff Mitigation – trees infiltrate, evapotranspire, and intercept stormwater while also increasing soil permeability and ground water recharge. Erosion control – tree roots hold soil together along stream banks and steep slopes, stabilizing soils and reducing sedimentation issues in water bodies. Urban heat island effect – trees cool the air directly through shade and indirectly through transpiration, reducing day and nighttime temperatures in cities. Increased wildlife habitat – Trees create local ecosystems that provide habitat and food for birds and animals, increasing biodiversity in urban areas. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 37 Economic “Services” of Urban Trees: Property value – numerous studies across the country show that residential homes with healthy trees add property value (up to 15%). Energy conservation – trees lower energy demand through summer shade and winter wind block, additionally offsetting carbon emissions at the power plant. Economic Development – trees attract businesses, tourists, and increase shopping. Stormwater facilities – trees and forests reduce the need for or size of costly gray infrastructure. Pavement – tree shade increases pavement life through temperature regulation (40-60% in some studies). Social “Services” of Urban Trees: Public health – trees help reduce asthma rates and other respiratory illnesses. Safe walking environments – trees reduce traffic speeds and soften harsh urban landscapes. Crime and domestic violence – urban forests help build stronger communities. Nature and trees provide settings in which relationships grow stronger and violence is reduced. Connection to nature – trees increase our connection to nature. Noise pollution – Trees reduce noise pollution by acting as a buffer and absorbing up to 50% of urban noise (U.S. Department of Energy study). Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 38 L AND C OVER CLASSIFICATION M ETHODS & A CCURACY Introduction to Image Classification and Accuracy The goal of image classification for the City of Fayetteville (COF) was to convert a landscape comprised of complex uses and cover types into target categories that are meaningful for the management of the City’s urban forests. The object-based classification approach used in this analysis provides the ability to segment landscape features at a fine scale with a high level of precision, based on the 1 meter horizontal resolution of the input imagery. Classification accuracy assessment describes how well the classification is able to translate the complex landscape into target land cover classes. Five target land cover classes (1. Tree Canopy, 2. Impervious Surface, 3. Green Vegetation and Agriculture, 4. Soil and Dry Vegetation, or 5. Water) were and three impervious sub-classes were initially mapped (for a total of eight classes) for the COF using four-band National Agricultural Inventory Program (NAIP) aerial photography from 2010. A single color infra-red image was mosaicked from multiple Geotiff image tiles purchased from USDA NAIP headquarters in Utah. Feature Analyst software (FA) was used to segment the COF mosaic into desired land cover classes. Additional vector layer inputs were used to further segment classification categories. Target land cover classes were selected because they segment the landscape into categories that are useful for urban forest management. Tree canopy describes the current forest cover as seen from above, but is only part of Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment. Subcategories of impervious surfaces segment areas where it may be impossible to plant trees (such as roads and buildings) and areas where trees offset many of the negative impacts of impervious materials (such as parking lots and sidewalks). Areas comprised of green vegetation are important for UTC assessment since they represent the easiest transition to additional forest cover through tree planting. In this assessment, all agricultural areas were classified in the vegetation category and later differentiated from other green vegetation using the agricultural land use data provided by the COF. Soil and dry vegetation is excluded from possible planting areas since these areas represent either current development, or areas where live vegetation is not supported. For this classification, water was directly digitized in combination with input data provided by the COF. Accuracy Assessment Accuracy assessments serve two main purposes; Accuracy assessments provide information to map producers about what methods are working and where improvements need to be made for creating the best possible product from available resources. Accuracy assessments also provide information to map users who need to understand how closely the intended classification categories represent the true classes observed on the ground. Procedure More than 100 sample points were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random numeric value. Sorting from lowest random value to highest, at each sample point, a 3x3 pixel (9 m2) reference sample unit was digitized onto the NAIP imagery and assigned one of the five target land cover classes. The procedure was repeated until an at least 100 pixels were sampled from the three dominant land cover classes (Tree Canopy, Impervious Surfaces, and Green Vegetation). Sample units were then intersected with the classified map to compare with the reference samples, as presented in the sample error matrix below. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 39 Interpretation Statistical relationships between the reference pixels (representing the true conditions on the ground) and the intersecting classified pixels are used to understand how closely the entire classified map represents the COF landscape. The sample error matrix represents the intersection of reference pixels manually identified by a human observer (columns) and classification category of pixels in the classified image (rows). The white boxes along the diagonals of the matrix represent agreement between the two pixel maps. Off-diagonal values represent the number pixels manually referenced to the column class that were classified as another category in the classification image. Overall accuracy is computed by dividing the total number of correct pixels by the total number of pixels reported in the matrix (238+165+220+72+66 = 761 / 819 = 93%), and the matrix can be used to calculate per class accuracy percentages. For example, 260 pixels were manually digitized in the reference map as Tree Canopy, but only 238 of those pixels were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map, with 22 pixels misclassified as Green Vegetation. This relationship is called the “Producer’s Accuracy” and is calculated by dividing the agreement pixel total (diagonal) by the reference pixel total (column total). Therefore, the Producer’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (238 / 260 = 0.92), meaning that we can expect that 92% of all tree canopy in the COF were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map. Conversely, the “User’s Accuracy” is calculated by dividing the number agreement pixel total by the total number of classified pixels in the row category. For example, 241 classification pixels intersecting reference pixels were classified as Tree Canopy, but three pixels were identified as Green Vegetation in the reference map. Therefore, the User’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (238 /241 = 0.99), meaning that pixels classified as Tree Canopy the classification were actual tree canopy in the COF. It is important to recognize the Producer’s and User’s accuracy percent values are based on a sample of the true ground cover, represented by the reference pixels. As with any statistical relationship we can compute the level of confidence with which the classified map values represent the reference map of the COF. Confidence intervals are used to report the lower limit and upper limit of the expected percent values of each classification category. In the matrix above, the 95% confidence interval describes the range of values we would expect to observe 95 out of 100 times given a randomly distributed selection of reference pixels. For example, if the accuracy assessment was repeated 100 times, we expect that tree canopy accuracy would fall between 88% and 95% for Producer’s and 97% and 100% for User’s accuracy for at least 95 of the 100 samples. Relating Accuracy to the Classification Map Accuracy assessments provide important information regarding how well the landscape was classified into target land cover classes, but what do Producer’s and User’s accuracies mean for interpreting land cover results? It should be noted that for both the classification map and the error matrix, land cover classes are interrelated, meaning that if a pixel is incorrectly omitted from one category, it is also incorrectly committed to another category. For example, 22 pixels in the sample error matrix were erroneously omitted from the Tree Canopy class and erroneously committed to the Green Vegetation class. The classification map reports 36.5% of the COF is covered with Tree Canopy. The Producer’s accuracy of 92% can be interpreted as up to 8% of the overall landscape may be tree cover but was classified as another land cover category. Conversely, the User’s accuracy of 99% indicates that if a pixel is classified in the classification map as Tree Canopy, we are 99% confident that the pixel is tree canopy in the reference map. When combined, these two figures indicate that 36.5% probably underestimates the true canopy percent (and that the Green Vegetation category probably contains some actual tree canopy). Figure 32 below uses work by Pontius and Millones Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 40 (2011) to illustrate the total map area of each classification category where there is agreement between the reference and classification map (blue), where classification categories contained committed (pink) and omitted (green) pixels. The figure below uses concepts defined as Quantity and Allocation disagreement to estimate true land cover percent values based on statistical results. Land Cover Classes A total of eight land cover classes were mapped for Fayetteville including four impervious sub-classes classified using some of the City’s GIS resources. Fayetteville Land Cover Vegetation (Ag.) Building Green Vegetation Other Impervious Road Soil and Dry Vegetation Tree Canopy Water Figure 32. Land Cover Accuracy Assessment per land cover class Figure 33. An additional example of the land cover mapping data in Fayetteville. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 41 Fayetteville City Limits Surrounding % UTC 0% - 15% 16% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 100% Planting Sites by Surrounding % UTC Based on 2010 NAIP Imagery ¯0 0.1 0.2 Miles 0 0.1 0.2 Kilometers Fayetteville City Limits Trails Highways Buildings Rights of Way Riparian Corridors ¯0 0.1 0.2 Miles 0 0.1 0.2 Kilometers Reference Data for Planting Sites Based on 2010 NAIP Imagery Urban Heat Island Near Habitat City Owned Along Right of Way Along Riparian Corridor Energy Conservation Air Quality (Along Highway) Along Trail Park Near Park School Near School Fayetteville City Limits Air Quality Planting Sites Highways ¯0 0.1 0.2 Miles 0 0.1 0.2 Kilometers Air Quality Planting Sites Based on 2010 NAIP Imagery Fayetteville City Limits Planting Sites Near Park Parcels In Parks Near Parks Parks Parcels Containing Parks Planting Sites Near Park Parcels Based on 2010 NAIP Imagery ¯0 0.1 0.2 Miles 0 0.1 0.2 Kilometers Figure 35. Potential planting sites in and nearby parks. ADDITIONAL MAPS FOR POTENTIAL PLANTING S ITES Figure 38. Potential planting sites showing multiple prioritization criteria. Figure 34. Reference GIS Layers used to Prioritize Potential Planting Areas. Figure 36. Potential planting sites by % Existing UTC of underlying census block. Figure 37. Potential planting sites along major arterials and highways to maximize air quality benefits. Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 42 REFERENCES Downing, Adam, 2011. Ecology, Air: What’s a Tree Got to Do with It? http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/13/air-tree/. Accessed November 2, 2012. Pontius, R. and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 32, 15: 4407- 4429. The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Urban Forestry. urbanforestry.accessfayetteville.org/. Accessed November 2, 2012.