Urban update part II

Urban Reporting Team update Austin report Urban reporting in the future

What’s up in Wisconsin? New Tools

iTree Landscape My City’s Trees

Potential Guidelines for Urban Reporting

Annual Reports Automated “report” would be generated without

any customization.  Initially core tables generated in publishable form and would evolve into automatically generated tables and figures with standard text

Future could include use of a dynamic table making program like Tableau

Begin production after 50% of data is collected In accelerated cities/states, first annual report

release TBD

Potential Guidelines for Urban Reporting

Comprehensive 5-year report Initial report after a full cycle of data is complete – including more

custom analysis Comprehensive follow up report after 100% remeasurement Standard template is being developed, but will evolve over time

until we have realized: the full analytical power of combining iTree and core FIA variables explored urban to rural forest analysis developed the ability to monitor change over time

The baseline and remeasurement reports will be the only promised urban-only reports – after, urban reporting will be FIA 5-year state reports.  This will fulfill the 5-year reporting requirement and will facilitate urban to rural comparisons and demonstrate that urban forest reporting is a fully integrated “core” program.

Potential Guidelines for Urban Reporting

Regional/National Reporting: No formal timeline but national collaboration

will be encouraged to produce regional and national urban reports using urban FIA data.

What’s up in Wisconsin?

http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2015/10/WNR%20OCTOBER%20Forestry.PDF

Ten-year Change in Value to Communities of all Public and Private Trees

2002 2012Area: 729,000 ac 933,000 acNo. of plots: 111 185# of Trees (meas.): 651 597# of Trees (est.): 27 million 43 millionReplacement cost: $10.9 billion $19.3 billionCarbon Storage: $41 million $285 millionCarbon Seq./yr: $2.9 million $15 millionPollution Rem. /yr: $36.3 million $27.1 millionEnergy Savings: $25 million $86 million

2012 Species Diversity

2002: 56 Different SpeciesMaple – 23%; Ash – 20%2012: 65 Different SpeciesMaple – 16.7%; Ash – 7.6%

Change Analysis 2002 to 201291 plots were remeasured, but only 67

plots were used in change analysisNo significant change in total number of

treesOver the 10 year period, significant

changes in number of trees for 5 species:

Silver maple (n=9)White ash (n=10)Kwansan cherry (n=3)Red mulberry (n=5)Sugar maple (n=7)

Ash Mortality (FIA) in Wisconsin

0123456789

10

1983 1996 2009 2013

Mill

ion

cubi

c fe

et

Average annual mortality of ash

So…

We need a lot more urban plots!

General frameworkThe “three legged stool”

“The first leg”

Plot-based, continuous inventory and analysis on all ownerships to characterize the urban forest and its benefits

This will feed i-Tree Eco and i-Tree Landscape.

5x intensity on 1.25 million acres (roughly 1,300 plots)

“The second leg” : Wisconsin UTC Classification

Existing NLCD UTC Classification

Wisconsin UTC Classification

“The third leg”

Aggregation of existing municipal tree inventories to advise municipalities

These datasets are very useful in certain ways, but also have drawbacks

Other data sources may also become available

Currently assessing commercially available software

Study Area

Factsheets

Pilot street tree and canopy analysis factsheets were created to stimulate community questions.

Question:How much did the Fond du Lac City Council increase their annual Forestry budget as a result of this fact sheet?

Answer: $200,000

This DNR-developed template in now freely available to communities or to private consultants to use to assist other communities.

i-Tree Landscape Canopy

i-TL Census layers

i-TL Ecosystem Services

i-TL Planting Prioritization

i-TL Planting Priority

i-TL Report Generator