Citation
Urban forest planning

Material Information

Title:
Urban forest planning : a revised process using technology and concept development to develop structure and function
Creator:
Latimer, C. Fremont ( Dissertant )
Linscott, Lester ( Thesis advisor )
Acomb, Glenn ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
2010
Language:
English
Physical Description:
63 p.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Landscape architecture ( local )
Landscape Architecture, MLA ( local )
Forests ( jstor )
Vegetation canopies ( jstor )
Street trees ( jstor )
Coordinates:
30.669444 x -81.461667

Notes

Abstract:
The intent of this thesis is to develop a process for planning the urban forest that can be used by landscape architects, urban foresters and communities as an aid in visioning, concept development and concept analysis. By utilizing this process communities will be better able to understand their available options and the implications of their management decisions. The first step in developing the process was defining the core mission of urban forestry management and understanding how the typical planning process endeavors to achieve that mission. In researching the topic it became apparent that the current planning model does not take full advantage of recent research and analysis tools that measure the benefits of the urban forest. The second step was to revise the existing planning model to take advantage of these tools. An additonal step of visioning was included in the process. Visioning is a process that is commonly used in design professions where conceptual strategies are developed and compared so that the most appropriate strategy can be chosen. In designing the urban forest, analysis tools can be applied to these strategies to predict the relative benefits and costs of each. The third step was to test the process by applying it to a case study. Three strategies were developed for the street trees in the historic district of Fernandina Beach, FL. A schematic design was created for each strategy that was analyzed using i-Tree Streets. The analysis included a detailed breakdown of predicted benefits, costs and composition/structure. The final step was to consolidate the analyses into a single side-by-side report so that the results could be compared and easily communicated.
Acquisition:
Landscape architecture terminal project
Thesis:
Project in lieu of thesis

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Rights reserved by the author.
Resource Identifier:
886828242 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text








Urban Forest Planning:
A revised process using technology and concept
development to develop structure and function



By: Fremont Latimer
MLA Candidate





A project presented to the graduate school of the
University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of master of landscape architecture

Committee Chair: Lester Linscott
Member: Glenn Acomb

March, 2010


UF UNIVERSITY of
UFFLORIDA
College of Design,
Construction & Planning














Acknowledgments
I wanted to thank the City of Fernandina Beach for their interest in managing the urban
forest; my advisors Les Linscott and Glenn Acomb for generously sharing their time and
expertise; my family for their constant support; and to my wife for listening to me talk, ad
nauseam, about trees.










Table of Contents


page

List of Figures............................................................................... 5

Abstract.................................. .................... .................................... 6

Section 1: Developing a Process

Introduction............................ ................. ............................... 8
The Practice of Urban Forestry ...................................... ........... 9

Benefits of Trees........................................... .......................... 10

Quantifying Benefits with i-Tree Streets..................................... 11

Typical Planning Process........................................ ............... 12

A Revised Method of Planning................................................... 15
The Visioning Process............................................................. 16

Section 2: Applying the Revised Planning Process to Street Trees
in the Historic District of Fernandina Beach, FL

Introduction........................................... ................................. 21

Designing for Analysis........................................................... 22

Annual Costs and Benefits of Tree Species Common in
Coastal Plain Communities.................................... ................. 23

Analysis of Existing Forest
C anopy C over............................... .........................................26
Land U se.............................................. ........................... 27
Structure................................................... ....................... 28
C osts & Benefits........................... ........................................ 29
D iscussion.......................................... ............................. 30

Alternative Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover
Schematic Planting Plan.................................... .............. 32
C anopy C over............................... .........................................333
Structure................................................... ....................... 34
C osts & Benefits........................... ........................................ 35
D iscussion.......................................... ............................. 36











page
Alternative Strategy 2: A Wind Resistant Canopy
Schematic Planting Plan.................................... ............ .. 38
C anopy C over............................... .........................................39
Structure................................................... ....................... 40
Costs & Benefits........................... ................ ................41
D iscussion.......................................... ............................. 42

Alternative Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity
Schematic Planting Plan.................................... .............. 44
C anopy C over............................... .........................................45
Structure................................................... ....................... 46
Costs & Benefits........................... ................ ................ 47
D iscussion.......................................... ............................. 48

Summary Comparison
D esign............................................... .............................. 50
Canopy Cover................................................................ 51
Structure................................................... ....................... 52
Costs & Benefits............................................................. 53
D iscussion.......................................... ............................. 54
Limitations & Conclusion................................ ............... 56

W orks Cited.................................................. ................................. 58

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of Species by Category as Defined in i-Tree Streets...... 59

Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Benefit Table for Quercus virginiana......... 60

Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Benefit Table for Magnolia grandiflora...... 61

Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Benefit Table for Pinus taeda................. 62

Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Benefit Table for Cornus florida.............. 63








List of Figures


Figure page

1-1 Typical process m odel.............................................................................13
1-2 Revised process m odel........................................... ............................ 18
2-1 Regional context of site location........................................ .............. 21
2-2 Boundary of historic district........................................... ................ 21
2-3 Costs & benefits of various tree species over a 40 year period.................. 23
2-4 Existing canopy & street tree inventory.............................. ............. .. 26
2-5 G eneralized land use m ap........................................................................27
2-6 Structural analysis of existing forest.................................... ............ ... 28
2-7 Cost analysis of existing forest.................................................. .............. 29
2-8 Benefit analysis of existing forest............................................... ............ 29
2-9 Maximize canopy coverage: schematic plan.......................................... 32
2-10 Maximize canopy coverage: canopy coverage analysis............................ 33
2-11 Maximize canopy coverage: structural analysis............................... ....34
2-12 Maximize canopy coverage: annual cost analysis..................................... 35
2-13 Maximize canopy coverage: annual benefit analysis................................. 35
2-14 Maximize canopy coverage: sample strategy for residential block (1)......... 36
2-15 Maximize canopy coverage: sample strategy for residential block (2)......... 36
2-16 Wind resistant canopy: schematic plan..............................................38
2-17 Wind resistant canopy: canopy coverage analysis.................................... 39
2-18 Wind resistant canopy: structural analysis............................ ............ 40
2-19 Wind resistant canopy: annual cost analysis.......................................41
2-20 Wind resistant canopy: annual benefit analysis...................................... 41
2-21 Wind resistant canopy: sample strategy for residential block....................42
2-22 Economic opportunity: schematic plan............................... ............. 44
2-23 Economic opportunity: canopy coverage analysis................................... 45
2-24 Economic opportunity: structural analysis.........................................46
2-25 Economic opportunity: annual cost analysis........................................ 47
2-26 Economic opportunity: annual benefit analysis..................................... 47
2-27 Economic opportunity: sample strategy for residential block (1)............. 48
2-28 Economic opportunity: sample strategy for residential block (2)............... 48
2-29 Comparison: schematic plans........................................... ............... 50
2-30 Comparison: canopy cover............................................................... 51
2-31 Comparison: structural analysis........................................ .............. 52
2-32 Comparison: cost & benefit analysis................................... ............... 53
2-33 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a residential block................................... 55
2-34 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a commercial block............................... 55









Abstract


The intent of this thesis is to develop a process for

planning the urban forest that can be used by landscape
architects, urban foresters and communities as an aid
in visioning, concept development and concept analy-

sis. By utilizing this process communities will be better
able to understand their available options and the im-
plications of their management decisions.


The first step in developing the process was de-
fining the core mission of urban forestry management
and understanding how the typical planning process

endeavors to achieve that mission. In researching the
topic it became apparent that the current planning
model does not take full advantage of recent research

and analysis tools that measure the benefits of the urban
forest.


The second step was to revise the existing plan-

ning model to take advantage of these tools. An ad-


ditonal step of visioning was included in the process.

Visioning is a process that is commonly used in design
professions where conceptual strategies are developed
and compared so that the most appropriate strategy can

be chosen. In designing the urban forest, analysis tools
can be applied to these strategies to predict the relative
benefits and costs of each.


The third step was to test the process by applying
it to a case study. Three strategies were developed for the
street trees in the historic district of Fernandina Beach,

FL. A schematic design was created for each strategy
that was analyzed using i-Tree Streets. The analysis in-
cluded a detailed breakdown of predicted benefits, costs

and composition/structure. The final step was to con-
solidate the analyses into a single side-by-side report so
that the results could be compared and easily commu-
nicated.







































































































-7








Introduction


The urban forest is the most identifiable green
space in urban environments. It is a ubiquitous
presence along every street and throughout parks
and green spaces. The urban forest is of equal im-
portance with architecture in forming the character
and beauty of a city. The Avenue des Champs-Ely-
sdes in Paris would not be dramatic without rows
of clipped chestnuts lining its length. The French
Quarter of New Orleans would not be romantic
without the spanish moss hanging from the out-
stretched branches of live oaks.

Beyond its aesthetic qualities the urban forest
is a critical component of the urban green infra-
structure. It provides services that are necessary for
the basic function of the city and maintaining the
health of its population. These services have a con-
crete value that should be considered in the man-
agement and investment of the urban forest. In na-
ture a forest develops over time through a complex
interaction of climate, soils, organisms and cycles
of change; eventually forming an ecosystem that
is relatively stable and self sustaining. In an urban
environment the natural processes that create these
ecosystems are modified, suppressed or entirely ab-
sent. Change happens more quickly, more often
and on a greater scale than it does in a natural set-
ting. The result is that the form of the urban forest
is determined by human activity. In the absence of
a management plan it is largely designed by acci-
dent. With long term planning and management
the urban forest can be shaped to aid the inhabit-


ants and replicate many of the important natural
processes.

The goal is to create a designed ecosystem
that functions sustainably in terms of environmen-
tal, economic and social need. Individual trees that
make up the forest will die and be replaced, but the
overall function will be maintained. Sustainability
is a balancing act that maximizes the ecological and
social benefits of the forest while minimizing the
associated costs. This paper is intended to provide
a process that will aid in the planning of a sustain-
able urban forest.

In the past decade research has made great
strides in understanding the benefits of the ur-
ban forest. Large cities such as Chicago, IL and
Modesto, CA have developed comprehensive pro-
grams to monitor the structure and function of
the urban forest and manage their stock accord-
ingly. (Maco & McPherson, 2003) For small cit-
ies it is a greater challenge as they do not have the
capabilities or staff of their larger neighbors. This
has changed with the introduction of technolo-
gies that provide a level of detailed analysis that
once required a large and dedicated planning staff.
However, this capability alone does not ensure a
management plan will take full advantage of the
benefits the forest has to offer.

Urban forest management planning typically
follows a process that inventories and analyzes the
existing conditions. Goals are established based








upon the analysis. These goals then serve as the
framework for creating a management plan.

The typical process doesn't develop concepts,
it proceeds directly into management planning.
For most situations there is no single. There are a
variety of solutions that might be appropriate. The
planning process should be designed to include the


the development of conceps thereby allowing the
community to choose a most appropriate option.

I have developed a process that utilizes analy-
sis tools to assist in design by predicting the func-
tion, economic impact and management needs.
The analysis can be run on a variety of strategies
allowing for a side by side comparison of the costs
and benefits and drawback of each.


The Practice of Urban Forestry


As our society and environment becomes
more urban there is an increasing demand for in-
clusion of the natural within the urban fabric. Ur-
ban tree programs were first introduced in America
in the early 19th century. These programs primarily
focused on improving the aesthetics of the city and
providing shaded areas. While there was concern
for individual trees, the collection of trees in an
urban environment weren't studied as a collective
forest. In the mid 1960s the practitioners began to
apply knowledge of forestry and arboriculture to
the urban environment (Matheny & Clark, 2008).
This mixture of disciplines gave rise to the unique
field of urban forestry. The urban forester strives to
maximize the benefits of the forests while providing
a safe and healthy environment for the residents.
The urban forest is made up of all the trees on both
private and public lands that grow within a com-
munity, but the focus of urban forestry is often on
public trees as management options on private land
are limited due to property owners' rights. The core
mission of urban forestry is well summarized in the
introduction to the first National Urban Forestry


Conference in 1978 delivered by the mayor of Sa-
vannah, GA, John Rousakis.

"The time has come for urban communities to
stop seeing the trees and start looking at the for-
est. Isay this because the comprehensive environ-
mental benefits... can only be achieved through
a forest management program. They cannot be
achieved through tree management programs
designed solely to protect trees for anaesthetic or
historic purpose. If municipalities are to have ef-
fective municipalforest programs that will pro-
vide the maximum public benefits, they must
reorder their thinking. They should establish
the improvement of the urban environment as
the primary goal of such programs... This means
that we in municipalities must identify the
qualities in the urban environment we wish to
attain through our urban forestry programs, and
then design these programs to attain these quali-
ties" (Matheny & Clark, 2008)

Since Mayor Rousakis gave this speech our
understanding of the benefits provided by the for-
est has advanced considerably. As our understand-
ing of these benefits grows we must adapt our man-
agement and planning to take advantage of them.








Benefits of Trees


There are a host of benefits provided by the
urban forest, both tangible and intangible. A large
body of research exists on the subject. The focus of
this report is on those benefits for which there is
a method of quantifying value: energy, air quality,
stormwater and aesthetics/social.

Energy: The largest tangible impact is in en-
ergy usage as trees can reduce heating and cooling
budgets of buildings. On a large scale trees can buf-
fer the urban heat island effect resulting in tem-
peratures that are 5F-9F lower than if the site was
bare of trees (Akbari, Davis, Huang, & Winnett,
1992). On a site scale trees work as a windbreak
lessening heat loss through air infiltration and heat
conduction (Miller, 1988) The saving in cooling
costs can be as much as 34% in warm climates de-
pending upon tree placement (McPherson, et al.,
2006).

Air Quality: Trees can have an effect on air
quality. With global climate change in the news
much attention has been given to trees' ability to
sequester carbon dioxide (CO2). Trees reduce CO2
in two ways; by absorption into leaves and stems
and in avoided energy consumption in buildings.
In 2005 American Forests conducted a study of
Jacksonville, FL where they estimated the forest
covers approximately 32% of 125,000 acres and
stores a total of 1.7 million tons of CO2. In addi-
tion to CO2 trees absorb nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Tree canopies also trap
particulate matter in the air such as dust and smoke.
10


Through photosynthesis trees release oxygen into
the atmosphere. Trees can have a negative effect on
air quality as they release biogenic volatile organic
compounds (BVOCs). These gasses can contribute
to the formation of ozone (03), a greenhouse gas.
(McPherson, et al., 2006)

Stormwater: Urban runoff has become a seri-
ous issue as impervious surfaces become larger, the
runoff velocity becomes more intense and carries a
larger pollutant load into streams, rivers and lakes.
New legislation that is pending approval will dras-
tically limit the amount of runoff allowed to exit a
site. This will require new solutions and trees are a
necessary part of the equation. A tree reduces run-
off in several ways. The canopy intercepts rainfall
that would otherwise enter the stormwater system.
Tree roots create airspaces within the soil that al-
low for faster percolation to the water table and
through the process of transpiration trees absorb
water that is conducted through the stem and re-
leased as vapor through the leaves.

Aesthetic and social benefits: The presence of
trees provides identity and character to an area.
Studies have shown that the urban forest can re-
duce mental fatigue and have a positive effect on
health, well-being and community (Kaplan, 2004).
More tangibly, properties that are treed have in-
creased value in the range of 3%-7% (McPherson,
et al., 2006). In a time where municipal budgets
are shrinking, this represents a large increase in tax-
able value. Landscaping and trees have also been








shown to increase consumers' willingness to pay for
retail goods. Kathleen Wolf's research has shown
that a well maintained landscape with large trees


can result in consumer's willingness to pay 9%-
12% more for retail goods. (Wolf, 2005)


Quantifying Benefits


In order to plan the urban forest to harness its
potential benefits it's necessary to gain an under-
standing of how those benefits are produced and
a method of quantifying them. Calculating the
benefits of a single tree is a time consuming and
expensive procedure. Measurements must be taken
of the canopy, leaf area and woody volume. The
location of the tree has to be considered in relation
to paved surfaces and buildings. The climate and
environmental context of the tree has to be ana-
lyzed. Once the benefits are quantified they have to
be cross referenced with local commodity prices in
order for a value to be calculated.

Analyzing a large population of trees one
by one is impractical. The next best solution is to
model the forest based upon an analysis of repre-
sentative individuals. The USDA Forest Service in
cooperation with the Davey Tree Company, The
National Arbor Day Foundation, The Society of
Municipal Arborists and The International Society
of Arboriculture developed a program called i-Tree
that assists communities in analyzing the value of
their urban forest. The research behind the pro-
gram was compiled from academics and private
practitioners across the country. I-Tree is a software
suite that contains a number of programs that can
be used in analysis.


i-Tree Streets was formerly called STRATUM
(Street Tree Resource Analysis for Urban Forest
Managers). The only information required to run
the model is species identification and diameter at
breast height (dbh). Growth models were created
for species within specific climate zones that then
model the structure and value of the entire forest.
The process is outlined on the i-Tree tools website:

When you import a project into STRATUM
you are asked to choose your climate zone. The
STRATUM program uses data specific to each
zone to model the costs and benefits of trees. In
order to calculate tree-related benefits for your
city, STRATUM must know what species are
most likely to be found in your region, how big
the trees are expected to grow, how quickly they
will reach mature size and what leaf area they
will have. These factors vary by location due to
differences in growing conditions, management
practices, climate, and soils. Nineteen regional
tree-growth zones, based on aggregation of cli-
mate zones from Sunset's National Garden Book
(Eyre 1997), have been identified for the na-
tion. Cities within a zone are assumed to have
similar species of trees with similar growth and
size traits. The Center for Urban Forest Research
(CUFR) has completed eight regions and work is
underway in three additional regions.

The regional tree data are based on mea-
surements from a Reference City (STRATUM
Climate Zones Map). Approximately 800 trees








are randomly sampled-40 trees of each of the
20 most common species. For each species, five
to ten trees fom each diameter at breast height
(dbh) size class are measuredfor dbh, tree height,
crown diameter, crown shape, and tree condi-
tion. Planting dates are determined fom city re-
cords and other local sources. Crown volume and
leaf area are estimated fom computer processing


of tree-crown images taken with a digital cam-
era. This method has shown greater accuracy for
open-grown trees than other techniques (+20%
factual leafarea) 1. Regression analyses are used
to determine regionally specific growth curves, so
that the tree-related benefits can be estimated for
each year of a tree's life. (USDA Forest Service)


Typical Planning Process


Planning is the critical first step in the cre-
ation of a functioning urban forest. The planning
process can be complex as it requires the input of
multiple user groups and an understanding of a
variety of disciplines such as arboriculture, con-
struction, landscape architecture and traffic en-
gineering. A model for planning the urban forest
has been proposed by Robert Miller and adopted
by the International Society of Arboriculture. The
planning process is structured around four basic
questions:

1. What do we have? (Inventories)
2. What do we want? (Management Goals)
3. How do we get what we want? (Manage-
ment plans)
4. How can we improve on what we have
done? (Feedback)

Inventories: This is the portion of the process
that describes the existing situation. The area of
forest that is to be managed is defined and becomes
the planning unit. The unit can be defined to in-
clude all of the trees in the area, only the public
trees, just street trees or park trees or trees on a spe-


cific property.

An inventory of the vegetation resource is
then compiled that usually includes at a minimum;
species identification and size. Most inventories
gather additional information such as condition
and maintenance requirements.

Some understanding of public attitudes needs
to be gathered. These conversations can be with
City staff and decision makers or with the public at
large and can range from informal conversations to
detailed survey techniques.

Agents of change should be identified that
may impact the forest in the future. Miller sepa-
rates these agents into three categories: biotic, pub-
lic and private. Biotic factors are those caused by
the environment such as pests, diseases and hur-
ricanes. Public factors include the legal instru-
ments around trees such as codes and ordinances.
Departmental organization and responsibilities
should also be considered. Private factors are the
human factors that effect the forest that are outside
of government control. Examples are land develop-
ers, public organizations and business associations.







Typical Process Model


A ,I

ANALYSI
L OA CV:RAL OA L GA



BLONGINTEMEDATE& HORTB


Fig. 1-1 Adapted from Miller, 1988


(Miller, 1988)

Management Goals: The goal setting process
begins with an analysis of the data gathered during
the inventory phase. It is becoming increasingly
common for the analysis to be a complex break-
down of benefits and structure such as that pro-
vided by i-Tree Streets combined with geographic
information system (GIS) to assist in maintenance
planning.

Based upon the analysis, goals are established


that are usually broken into time periods ranging
from annual goals to overall goals that look 40
to 50 years into the future. A good management
plan will organize the short and intermediate term
goals that are incremental to the overall or long
term goals. Most goals fall into one of three catego-
ries: increasing benefits, reducing cost or reducing
risks.

Goals that aim to increase benefits are usually
concerned with increasing the amount of vegeta-


GENTS OF^
CHANGE^


VIVi B LIC
RESORCE PLJ3LC IPU








tion. For large areas there will typically be a goal of
increasing canopy cover. When planning for street
trees the goal will often be to increase stocking
density,. This refers to the percentage of available
planting spots that are planted with trees. Increas-
ing canopy cover and stocking density have the
same intent, to increase the amount of vegetative
material with the logic being that more vegetation
equals more benefits.

Decreasing costs is usually related to mainte-
nance costs. This can be achieved by operational
changes such as changing the ratio of work that
is contracted out versus the amount performed by
public works. More effective goals are those that
are preventative such as choosing species that re-
quire less maintenance and following a "right tree,
right place" philosophy.

Reducing risk applies to the risk of harm to
people, property and the risk of widespread dam-
age to the forest. Reducing the risk to people and
property is effected by maintenance and inspection
practices as well as species selection and design.
Reducing the risk to the forest requires knowledge
of the agents of change and using this knowledge


accordingly. One of the most common ways to re-
duce risk to the forest is to increase species diversity
so that no more than 10% of the forest is from
one species, 20% from one genus and 30% from
one family. This lessens the impact if a species is
decimated by disease or pest like the American elm
was by dutch elm disease in the mid-twentieth cen-
tury.

Management Plans: The actual management
plan is a document that outlines the specific actions
to be taken to achieve the goals and objectives set
during the goal setting process. Each action plan
defines a task, who is responsible for administer-
ing that task, how the task should be done and the
deadline for completion. Management plans often
include details such as best management practices
(BMPs), specifications and budgets. (Matheny &
Clark, 2008)

Feedback: Feedback is the ongoing evaluation
of the program to measure its success in meeting
goals and revising the goals themselves to meet the
changing needs of the environment the commu-
nity and its residents. A schedule is also set to re-
inventory the forest peridoically so progress can be
measured over time.








A Revised Method of Planning the Urban Forest


The use of technology with programs like i-
Tree and GIS have vastly increased the capabili-
ties of communities to analyze the urban forests.
The results of this analysis helps decision mak-
ers to enter the goal making phase of the process
with a solid understanding of how the forest is
structured and the costs and benefits associated
with that structure. This type of analysis has also
generated a broader awareness of the positive
impact that the forest can have on a community.
As a result there is increased demand for proper
management and planning that takes advantage
of the benefits the forest has to offer.

Where technology has not been utilized is in
the goal setting and design phase of the planning
process. There have been attempts to simplify
the process using on-line resources. Urban For-
estry South Expo developed a web site that has a
number of menus with lists of common goals and
concerns that the user ranks from most important
to least important. The results are then compiled
into a list of prioritized goals. Approaches such
as this, while useful, do little to inform the user
about the end result. The goals do not allow the


end user to envision the end result of following
a given set of goals nor to weigh the possibility
of using an alternate set of goals. Particularly for
those who aren't trained in forestry or landscape
architecture there is a tendency to set goals based
upon what one desires in individual trees and not
in the forest as whole.

In the design profession there is an interme-
diate step in the planning process called vision-
ing that takes place after the analysis and before
the creation of the final plan. Visioning involves
the development of schematic plans that convey
critical information to the client. These plans are
created based upons individual goals and a final
best concept can be developed from those. These
plans should communicate in a manner that is
easily understood and that allows the client to
be more involved in the process, thus leading the
client to a more informed decision. Short, in-
termediate and long term goals can be set. This
creates a unity of effort as each goal is designed
to meet a single vision.








The Visioning Process


The visioning process must become an inte-
gral part of the urban forest planning process. The
intent is to predict problems or concerns follow-
ing the inventory and analysis phase that might
not come to light until the management plan was
evaluated in the feedback phase of the process. The
visioning process involves the creation of alternate
concepts and applying technology and research to
analyze and compare the concepts.

There are four steps to the process:

1. Propose strategies to be evaluated
(Alternative Strategies)
2. Evaluate structure and function of each strategy
(Schematic Design)
3. Comparatively analyze the strategies
(Comparison)
4. Determine a best strategy or combination of
strategies?(Evaluation)

Alternative Strategies: Once the inventories
and analysis are complete the community should
be able to identify the goals that are most press-
ing for their community and forest. By prioritizing
these goals differently they can develop a variety of
strategies. For example a community may identify
their primary goals as increasing canopy cover and
reducing the risk of wind throw. By changing the
priority of these goals there might be a much dif-
ferent end result. See the following example:


Strategy 1
1. Goal: Increase canopy cover
Design: Plant as many broad canopy trees
as can fit along streets and in parks. Con-
duct routine pruning to promote strong
branching and single leader.
2. Goal: Reduce risk of trees uprooting dur-
ing storm events
Design: Use construction methods that
allow for root growth where space is con-
stricted. Install support systems in high risk
trees. Conduct routine reduction pruning
of trees prone to wind throw.

Strategy 2
1. Goal: Reduce risk of trees uprooting dur-
ing storm events
Design: In areas with limited rooting space
only plant small trees or shrubs. Conduct
routine reduction pruning of all trees in
proximity to high value targets.
2. Goal: Increase canopy cover over urban ar-
eas
Design: Plant tree with the largest canopy
given the available rooting space.

Both of these strategies are legitimate, but
they will produce a much different result when im-
plemented. In the first strategy there will be a high
percentage of large shade trees that will provide
cover and ecosystem services. But, there is a poten-
tial for conflict as trees with extensive root zones
may be planted in close proximity to infrastructure








resulting in higher maintenance and construction
costs. In the second strategy the canopy cover will
be reduced and there will be less conflict with in-
frastructure. But, there will be an increased cost for
pruning and maintenance.

Schematic Design: The schematic design is not
a detailed planting plan that specifies the location
and species of each tree. Instead, the schematic
design models a mature forest in enough detail so
that the character and structure of the forest can
be communicated graphically and the inventory
produced from the design can be used to create
a reasonable estimate of benefits and costs. The
detail of the design will largely be determined by
the method of analysis, particularly if the analysis
is done using software such as i-Tree Streets. For
every strategy a plan will need to be designed in or-
der to meet the goals of that strategy. For example;
to meet the goal of increasing canopy cover over
roads one might place large broadleaf trees 50 ft.
on center along roads in residential zones, 100 ft.
on center in industrial zones and small trees 40 ft.
on center in commercial zones. Regardless of the
goal the design should be based upon a working
knowledge of the growth habit, required rooting


space and the performance of the type of tree being
used.

Design Analysis: This analysis is critical to the
report as it is the vehicle that communicates the
predicted impact the design will have upon the
community. At a minimum the analysis should
contain a cost/benefit analysis, canopy cover esti-
mation and a graphic depicting character and aes-
thetics.

Summary Comparison: The analysis of the al-
ternate strategies should be condensed into a single
analysis that easily conveys the information in a
side by side comparison. This allows the informa-
tion to be quickly consumed by the layman and
allows for informed input by the public and deci-
sion makers regarding what they may or may not
prefer.

Feedback: The summary comparison allows
decision makers and the public to intelligently
weigh their options and to see the mechanics of
how their forest functions. Their input should be
gathered for consideration.

Evaluation: Based upon the feedback by the
public and decision makers the design alternatives
can be assessed for what works, and what doesn't.
The design can then be reworked and analyzed un-
til a satisfactory solution is found. This then forms
the final framework that will serve as the basis for
goal setting and the management plan.





Revised Process Model


^INVENTORIES
V ET INU NSO
RSR HAffl BMBMB


^^^^^^^ ^^^ANALYSIS^^^


Fig. 1-2


"7
u
,<


_ I1 i II^I

I 1r

A!EE PA I

































































19









Applying the Revised Planning
Process to Street Trees in the Historic
District of Fernandina Beach, FL









Introduction


This report implements the visioning process
for street trees in the historic district of Fernan-
dina Beach, FL using data gathered in an inventory
conducted from July to September of 2009. 7,000
trees were examined along rights of way and in
public parks and facilities. The inventory includes
all trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 5
inches or greater and a minimum height of 6 ft.

Fernandina Beach is located on a barrier is-
land in the Atlantic Ocean just south of the Geor-
gia border. The historic district is located on the
west side of the City along the intracoastal water-
way. The district has an urban core dominated by
retail and institutional use. The surrounding area


is predominately single family homes. A large part
of the city's economy is derived from tourism in
the historic district, especially in the commercial
core.

This case study applies the revised planning
model to the point that it is ready for presentation
to the public and decision makers to receive feed-
back. The forest was analyzed based upon existing
conditions. Three strategies were developed along
with a corresponding schematic planting plan. i-
Tree Streets was used to analyze structure and func-
tion. The first strategy maximizes canopy cover, the
second creates a wind resistant forest and the third
maximizes economic opportunities.


Fig. 2-1 Above: Regional context of site location.
photo courtesy of Google Earth
Fig. 2-2 Right: Boundary of historic district


Legend
Sai, L.its
IH, r:,, I, r,,.r








Designing for Analysis


The schematic designs were formatted specifi-
cally for analysis using i-Tree Streets. The species
and sizes were generalized into categories to aid in
comparison and to allow for flexibility during the
management planning and implementation phases
of the process.

Species: i-Tree Streets divides species into four
categories: broadleaf evergreen, broadleaf decidu-
ous, conifer and palm. These categories are further
divided into large, medium and small. There is
some variability in the benefits and costs for spe-
cific species within a given category. The benefits
were calculated using the generic species selection
within i-Tree that represents a species that falls near
the average of all species in a category.

Size: The dbh of the trees are grouped into
8 categories: 0-6", 6-12", 12-18", 18-24", 24-30",
30-36", 36-42", >42". The number of trees in each
category was based upon a size profile of a represen-
tative species derived from the 2009 inventory. For
example, all of the trees that fall into the broadleaf,
evergreen large category will have the same distri-
bution of sizes as the existing live oak.

Benefits and Costs: The attached tables are
summaries of the i-Tree calculations for annual
benefits and costs associated with a single tree in
a public area in a coastal plain community. The
data indicates that benefits are strongly associated
with size. A large broadleaf tree such as live oak
(Quercus virginiana) will average $120 in benefits
22


per year over 40 years, whereas a medium broadleaf
such as southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)
will produce an average of $37 per year over 40
years. Costs are more closely associated with tree
type than with size. The largest cost over the life
time of a tree is pruning and both large and me-
dium broadleaf trees will require aerial pruning
as they approach their mature size. Conifers and
small trees tend to require much less in the way of
maintenance and associated cost.

Fernandina Beach had no records indicating
their current breakdown of maintenance costs. Es-
timated costs were calculated from surveys with
municipal foresters in Jacksonville, FL, Savannah,
GA and Charleston, SC. For the case study a flat
cost was applied to each tree based upon the 40
year average. (McPherson, et al., 2006)

The Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide
that contains the published research behind i-Tree
Streets did not include data on palm trees, but the
program does calculate the benefits. Costs were
unknown so the costs for small broad leaf trees
were used instead. These may be under-estimated
as palms are commonly pruned annually or bian-
nually.



















Costs & benefits of various tree species over a 40 year period


Annual Benefits of Representative Species


- olto WMaB
-s-i- LoblollyPmin
Apmod


Annual Costs of Representative Specie


-U-$ UmeOa Mi
-ogo. P-M


Cost/Benefit of Representative Species


--uife Oak


as- Loblol Pine
-COtw Md
LahlV no .


Annual Benefits for a Large Broadleaf Tree in a
Public Area (Quose virginionao


/







i i ^i I
- E as K


--Cooling

-9-Haas






-...
- : Aelhekt and otlin
-- Tofdl be*n

a s


Annual Benefits for a Medium Broadleaf Tree in a
Public Area {MFagnoli grandiforo)
-*-Coolina









-- t C nd 2 r


1atal bnfits






Annual Benefits for a Conifer in a Public Area
IPinus trod


r--g


Coding


- NCt Encn

W*nJ CO;

-f Pition

-Hyealogy
M-- Ae lstl and othwr

-- rotal benefits


Annual Benefits for a Small Broadleaf Tree in a
Public Area [Cornus Florida






-N* COi2


*--~=1~~


Hvftlm~

-- Asheri and other
b- nefitb fi


Annual Costs for a LargeBroadleaf Tree in a Public
Area tQuercus virgrwia)w

-- Tee & plaminv
L- Prunire
d- Rtulns nd disptr




-- Cleat-cUp
.. __. dmtn/lnsperf h pr







Annual Costs for a Medium Bradleaf Tree in a
Public Area IManolof grandiforo)

T- rre & 0nlr





S i- iratrrure repet
-c and/lpct/


Totalosts






Annual Costs for a Conifer in a Public Area (pinus
Toeda)




Renme ar diipae

Ms- Rto & dnesase












Annual Costs for a Small Broadleaf Tree in a Publc
-i nfratrture rpar











ClhUP

-A/---" CB/Ut
Area (C-mu t F oo


Fig. 2-3 produced using data from Coatal Plain Community Tree Guide i,.li, ,i', et al, 2006)

































































24









Analysis:
The Existing Forest









Fernandina Beach:
Existing Canopy and
'* f. 7 Screec Tree Invenrory
4 . .
,V. .. ., .


S ., -. ,


2. "" .; .-/ -.; .. ^. i.


.4-. 1 -.,


A. -




', *;"1 : '"
". "lll~~iii.
:.


,. -%.


Z.' .




li11







.. A "6 -. --- l,
'I '


4, :$ A .." ;"
. :!>. .
S :. .. ....- .,. .. i -


N


r
1.


j C
K .,
r. c, .


-i



I'
-


4

'p..


J4}


S *'
. 4-* 44


LEGEND
* Ini..ll[,rlcd StriC Trcc


I ,, .. 500


ii~

.4


I, *.

4* 4!7


It


Fig. 2-4
26


4


p-I;










Fernandina Beach:

1 '* Generalized Land Use



I4

j
'- "A J i -
f *, r











.. / ,, , '
-, , ".' ,' ..- .-

V ------ i__ /- -- :'-;'* : "' "











S/-__ I F 4 .








/' ?t C r
f > // i i-- - -. ' '







"" . Institutional










SCommercial
-,,; ,., -"- ."---. i .__/ ,";-'.-; .-,-. - ,
: "....:.i I /X ": '





I : !" '-.: ." -: .... ". :,..... /- P v .




i" . ^ i i I



I "''.. ., l I ', i;" j ",x 2
t' a" *~ ~~' ,.'" Cmeca
" ;. , L ', : *
;" lcF 'L .; . 0 5


"r *


.9 II


4,
I.


. ,, .

" ', '
r

-r. I.., '
$ -



*:^ ; .,,:;. *
.' ,. ,'. .. \


*r '. '^
"C`


-, .,' '. *. '=
.. , .

" '
1 14




' *
c.


at


4'I


500A


Fig. 2-5


*.


*I


b I -'C
r












Designing for Analysis


The existing forest is planted with landscape trees typi-

cal for the climate with sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) as

the most common tree making up 40% of the total

trees, crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) 10%, canary

island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) 9% and live oak

7%. Species location is strongly related to land use with

smaller trees and palms most common in the commer-

cial core and canopy trees in the residential areas.



The commercial core is largely made of impervi-

ous surfaces with frequent tree wells measuring approxi-

mately 3.5'x3.5' and occasional large tree islands. The

tree wells are most frequently planted with sabal palm

(Sabal palmetto), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica)

and occasionally with east palatka holly (Ilex x attenu-

ata 'East Palatka') The tree wells have limited rooting

space and medium broadleaf trees such as the east pal-

atka struggle to survive. The islands are most frequently

planted with live oak (Quercus virginiana) and brad-

ford pear (Pyrus calleryana). The trees in islands are

generally doing well and provide much of the character

and canopy cover for the commercial core.



The planting zone in the residential district con-

sists of areas both with and without sidewalks and there

is a significant presence of overhead utilities. The side-

walks do not seem to impede root growth as trees in ar-

eas without sidewalks are in similar condition to trees in

areas with sidewalks. The majority of the canopy cover

for the area is created by large canopy trees located on

private land.



The largest portion of the total tree count, 60%, is


composed of palm trees and small broadleafs. But they

contribute very little to the over all canopy accounting

for only 21% of the total leaf area and 33% of total can-

opy cover. Conversely, large deciduous and evergreen

broadleafs make up 16% of the tree count, 59% of the

total leaf area and 44% of the total canopy cover.



Fernandina Beach Existing Forest
Structural Analysis
% of % of Total
Number % of Total TotalLeaf Canopy Cover Canopy
Species of Trees Trees Leaf Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Cover
Palm Evergreen Medium 315 40 44 127,592 40 12 36 77,436 38 14 66
Broadleaf Deciduous Small 85 1091 12,00001 116 26,08927 494
Palm Evergreen Large 67 860 76,142 14 7 38 72,504 68 13 73
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 65 834 100,67867 975 50,611 30 958
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 63 809 326,60658 31 64 112,94842 21 38
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 60 770 286,70867 27 77 120,423 36 22 80
Palm Evergreen Small 35 449 9,037 79 088 6,344 12 1 20
Broad eaf Evergreen Small 32 4 11 6,957 49 067 7,515 56 1 42
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 21 2 70 48,566 71 4 70 30,661 78 580
Conifer Evergreen Large 20 2 57 27,903 43 2 70 16,091 38 3 05
Conife EvergreenMedium 16 205 10,147 53 098 7,607 42 144
Othertrees 0 000 000 000 000 000
Total 779 10000 1,032,341 43 10000 528,233 66 10000



% Other trees

SConifer Everreen Medium
90%
0 Conifer Evergreen Large
80%
@ Broadleaf Deciduou Medium
70 Broadleaf Evergreen Small

60% Palm Evergreen Small
SBroadleaf Evergreen Large

SBroadleaf Deciduous Large

SBroadleaf Evergreen Medium
30%
Palmn Evergreen Large
20% Broadleaf Deciduous Small

10% P Palm Evergreen Medium

0%
% of TotalTrees % of TotalLeaf % ofTotalCanopy
Area Cover


Relative Age Distribution (%)


* Palm Evergreen Medium
SBroadleaf Deciduous Small
M Palm Evergreen Large
SBroadleaf Evergreen Medium
* Broadleaf Deciduous Large
SBroadleaf Evergreen Large
" Palm Evergreen Small
* Broadleaf Evergreen Small
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
SConifer Evergreen Large
Civwide total


Fig. 2-6 Structural analysis of.. \ 'i,,- forest


20 f .




DBH Class













The Existing Forest: Costs & Benefits


The existing forest is currently providing an


annual benefit of $38, 657 and incurring an an-


nual cost of $12,104 for a net annual benefit of


$26,552. By far the largest benefit is in aesthetic/


other as trees provide an increase in property val-


ues. The large evergreen and deciduous broadleafs


provide the largest benefit in every category ac-


counting for 40% of all the benefits. The benefits


received from storm water are of particular impor-


tance to this area as heavy rainfall and flooding are


frequent problems.




Costs are relatively low due to the small num-


ber of large trees to prune. But pruning is still the


largest expenditure at 37.8% of the estimated an-


nual budget.


Fernandina Beach Existing
Costs by Tree Category
Admin, Avg.
Number Tree & Remove & Infrastructure Inspection, Annual % of Total % of Total
Species ofTrees Planting Pruning Dispose Repair Clean-up Other Irrigation Cost/Tree Total Trees Cost
Palm Evergreen Medium 315 1,181 25 1,64745 51975 327 60 15435 26460 192 15 13 62 4,287 15 4044% 35 42%
Broadleaf Deciduous Small 85 31875 44455 14025 88 40 41 65 71 40 51 85 13 62 1,15685 1091% 956%
Palm Evergreen Large 67 2125 350 41 110 55 69 68 32 83 56 28 40 87 13 62 911 87 8 60% 7 53%
Broad leaf Evergreen Medium 65 243 75 243 75 33995 107 25 67 60 31 85 5460 1789 1,08875 834% 899%
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 63 23625 647 01 223 65 140 49 65 52 112 14 3843 23 24 1,463 49 809% 12 09%
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 60 225 00 61620 213 00 133 80 62 40 106 80 3660 23 24 1,393 80 770% 11 51%
Palm Evergreen Small 35 131 25 183 05 57 75 36 40 17 15 29 40 21 35 13 62 476 35 449% 3 94%
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 32 12000 167 36 52 80 33 28 15 68 2688 19 52 13 62 435 52 4 11% 3 60%
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 21 7875 16884 47 67 2982 13 86 23 94 12 81 1789 375 69 2 70% 3 10%
Conifer Evergreen Large 20 75 00 63 40 56 00 35 20 16 40 28 20 12 20 14 31 28640 2 57% 2 37%
Conifer Evergreen Medium 16 6000 50 72 4480 28 16 13 12 22 56 976 1431 229 12 2 05% 189%
Othertrees 0 000 000 000 0 00 0 00 000 0 00 14 31 000 000% 000%
Total 779 2,92125 4,582 74 1,80617 1,030 08 500 56 77405 490 14 12,104.99 100 100


Annual Cost by Category

5,000 00
4,000 00
3,000 00
2,00000 1
1,00000
0000



,/ / ,/




Fig. 2-7Above: Annual cost analysis of.. \,ri forest

Fig. 2-8 Right: Annual benefit analysis of.. \%r ii forest


Fernandina Beach- Existing Forest
Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species

Species Energy CO2


Palm Evergreen Medium
Broadleaf Deciduous Small
Palm Evergreen Large
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium
Broadleaf Deciduous Large
Broadleaf Evergreen Large
Palm Evergreen Small
Broadleaf Evergreen Small
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
Conifer Evergreen Large
Conifer Evergreen Medium
Other street trees


1,509 87
51547
1,25541
887 17
1,827 50
1,796 43
12002
13822
52428
29526
14098
000


Air Storm Aesthetic/ % of Total
Quality water Other Total ($) $


1,856 73
34593
1,417 87
1,327 44
2,780 15
3,470 23
14187
13923
585 38
39173
16549
000


70340
26056
1,009 97
1,686 07
5,348 38
3,772 15
020
27796
81982
983 96
29586
000


4,263 67
1,26460
3,927 16
4,107 02
10,52136
9,208 54
27706
61583
2,09627
1,71094
66514
000


Citywidetotal 9,01060 1,310 76 555 83 12,622 04 15,15834 38,657 57 10000


Total Annual Benefits by Category
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4000ooo
$200 ooo
So



,"/Z/Z44///

4 4// ^//^/


SAesthetic/Other

*Storm water

Air Quality

*C02

* Energy






























































30









Alternative Strategy 1:
Maximize Canopy Cover










Fernandin;

._ . ..Planting Schei
/ i -. ,,'" Maximum C



7i r



:4qj
44
*i r. % j' .'. .1
,'**- E ,



1 .r.,.r. 2- :, ....

- ." f '"." ...

,,, -- p0 .X G" .


,, "
.. t e I ,,O: .


; *-- r .
,'; i '

I .' ;; r '" .- .^'

,' 4 -. "
,, t ,4 4


~- -, _5
X ; '^ ,,-.,
---. --i

,, , *, . / -
,., .. . .

'* *' * >' " '" 4 J -

..... )- j A. / t r -

K . k .-. 4_ f t.
::.. .. .ee -" ** J 4 4
I t 1 *, .. i

S t*,. tt, "* ^ r ,' "

" " .-.,"t j *
S' .' ,, ; :




:. ; ...,. '. *, ". J ** 4 ,,,,,* ^
4 *









' '' "" i '
*-f i f [ -^ i-'l I I _
~~7 1 *I; A)







' ,1",. .f'&. ": . *I_*.* S
I.J -. 4' I ':
.1 I
.~j I 11.t


4
4
'I

~/


* l


a Beach:

matic for Scenario 1:

>anopy Coverage


* *14


41t


..r


i



." ^
U "4



'9
S1* .;-" *
''' <


4r


Nz


I 2
~ *~'
.1.
t ? ,
*) ?-V.
r


;I.

5' ,,,
~i -K
-,: . .

0-



*t
4








It:.
i, .;'
!.' "*

'7^;'


-- LI3
I

"I



'I


It.
* t1.
41


.* ". a
* .. . .- '


LEGEND
SExisting Tree
Broadleaf Large
Broadleaf Medium &
Conifers
Broadleaf Small
Palm


250 0 500 A


If-
i


/
/
/
/


, 54, '1
" J i
i '





'V1


i 1
I: t

I ;
", ',




I
S,s
, i' .

? *:
*\


Fig. 2-9
32


l










Fernandina Beach:
Canopy Cover Analysis for Scenario 1:

Maximize Canopy Cover





II

,4 ',
," "' t '"







































.'k .LEGEND
SLxiscing Canop Co er
,VAddicional Canopy wirh
[ lancing Plan




Fig. 2-10
Fig., 2-.1











Maximizing Canopy Cover: Structure


The primary goal of this plan is to produce as

much canopy cover and leaf area as possible. Benefits are

directly related to these two factors so this plan should

find the upper limit of what is possible in regards to

benefits. The tree with the largest possible canopy was

chosen for any given rooting space.



In the retail core there was minimal increase in

canopy cover as the tree wells and islands were already

planted with the largest possible stock given the limited

rooting space.



In the residential areas there was a significant

change as there were abundant planting spaces with

ample rooting space. Along all of the residential streets

large deciduous and evergreen broadleaf trees were

planted 50 feet on center. This spacing allowed the can-

opy of each tree to grow to its largest extent. Evergreen

trees were given preference over deciduous trees as they

transpire year round. However, for large trees there is

only one evergreen species that grows in this area, live

oak. To allow for diversity planting of large evergreen

broadleafs were limited to 11.4% of the overall tree

count.



This strategy results in a total of 71% of the total

tree count being large broadleaf trees, However there

are a large number of large deciduous broadleaf trees

that can be chosen so diversity can be maintained while

following this strategy.



The overall tree count is nearly identical to the ex-

isting forest with 779 trees in the existing forest and 772

in this strategy. Canopy cover was increased by 200%
34


and leaf areas by 250% over the existing forest. How-

ever, this design does not take overhead utility lines into

account. In implementation smaller trees would have

to be located in those areas, but the strategy of planting

the largest possible tree is still feasible.





Fernandina Beach Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover
Structural Analysis


Species


Number %ofTotal
of Trees Trees Leaf Area (ft2)


% of %of Total
TotalLeaf CanopyCover Canopy
Area (ft2) Cover


Broadleaf Deciduous Large 460 59 59 2,062,937 14 80 21 752,835 50 7180
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 88 1140 309,92135 12 05 148,292 00 1414
Palm Evergreen Medium 67 868 27,186 68 106 16,488 32 157
Palm Evergreen Large 65 8 42 73,869 25 2 87 71,293 57 6 80
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 35 4 53 51,924 35 2 02 25,788 48 2 46
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 28 3 63 13,568 72 0 53 12,119 80 1 16
Conifer Evergreen Large 16 2 07 19,864 81 0 77 12,664 74 121
Conifer Evergreen Medium 10 130 8,790 41 034 6,28131 060
Other trees 3 0 39 3,965 51 0 15 2,746 58 0 26
Total 772 100 00 2,572,028 21 100 00 1,048,510 29 100 00



S100 Othertrees

90% Conifer Evergreen Medium

80% Conifer Evergreen Large

0 Broadleaf Evergreen Small
60%
o Broadleaf Evergreen Medium

Palm Evergreen Large
40%
11 Palm Evergreen Medium
30%
Broadleaf Evergreen Large
20%

1% Broadleaf Deciduous Large
10

%ofTotalTrees %ofTotal Leaf %ofTotal Canopy
Area Cover


Relative Age Distribution (%)

- -.Broadleaf Deciduous Large
Broadleaf Evergreen Large
50 Palm Evergreen Medium
40 Palm Evergreen Large
o Broadleaf Evergreen Medium
~10 0 Broadleaf Evergreen Small
0Conifer Evergreen Large
U Conifer Evergreen Medium
SBroadleaf Deciduous Medium
Citywide total
DBH Class


Fig. 2-11 Structural analysis












Maximizing Canopy Cover: Costs & Benefits


This strategy results in an annual benefit of

$95,892 and incurs an annual cost of $15,906 for

a net annual benefit of $79,986. This is a 200%

increase in net benefits over the existing forest. The

increase of benefits is not even with energy increas-

ing 90%, CO2 100%, air quality 280%, storm

water 100% and aesthetic/other 218%.


Large evergreen and deciduous broadleafs ac-

count for 90% of all benefits.



Costs only increased by 31% with the larg-

est increase being in pruning and administration/

inspection as the larger trees pose a greater risk and

will require more maintenance and monitoring.


Fernandina Beach Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover
Costs by Tree Category
Admin, Avg.
Number Tree& Remove& Infrastructure Inspection, Annual % of Total % of Total
Species ofTrees Planting Pruning Dispose Repair Clean-up Other Irrigation Cost/Tree Total Trees Cost
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 460 1,725.00 4,724.20 1,633.00 1,025.80 478.40 818.80 280.60 23.24 10,685.80 59.59% 67.18%
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 88 330.00 903.76 312.40 196.24 91.52 156.64 53.68 23.24 2,044.24 11.40% 12.85%
Palm Evergreen Medium 67 251.25 350.41 110.55 69.68 32.83 56.28 40.87 13.62 911.87 8.68% 5.73%
Palm Evergreen Large 65 243.75 339.95 107.25 67.60 31.85 54.60 39.65 13.62 884.65 8.42% 5.56%
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 35 131.25 281.40 79.45 49.70 23.10 39.90 21.35 17.89 626.15 4.53% 3.94%
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 28 105.00 146.44 46.20 29.12 13.72 23.52 17.08 13.62 381.08 3.63% 2.40%
Conifer Evergreen Large 16 60.00 50.72 44.80 28.16 13.12 22.56 9.76 14.31 229.12 2.07% 1.44%
Conifer Evergreen Medium 10 37.50 31.70 28.00 17.60 8.20 14.10 6.10 14.31 143.20 1.30% 0.90%
Othertrees 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.31 0.00 0.00% 0.00%
Total 772 2,883.75 6,828.58 2,361.65 1,483.90 692.74 1,186.40 469.09 15,906.11 100% 100%


Annual Cost by Category


6,000.00
6,000.00
5,000.00
4,000.00

3,000"' 00 r r


16 /
/ ..


Fig. 2-12 Above: Annual cost analysis
Fig. 2-13 Right: Annual benefit analysis


Fernandina Beach-Strategy 1: Maximum Canopy Cover
Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species
Air Storm Aesthetic/ % of Total
Species Energy C02 Quality water Other Total ($) $
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 12,497 00 1,894 16 2,007 11 18,078 89 39,228 15 73,705 31 76 86
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 2,327 55 48801 -119 63 3,993 05 5,87468 12,563 67 13 10
Palm Evergreen Medium 322 16 30 19 9 67 395 54 97 69 855 24 089
Palm Evergreen Large 123529 10838 131 99 1,387 00 79862 3,66127 3 82
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 449 49 76 27 24 33 680 41 85965 2,090 16 2 18
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 22532 46 79 42 39 243 48 32521 883 19 092
Conifer Evergreen Large 233 48 46 18 8 73 296 06 789 70 1,35669 141
Conifer Evergreen Medium 112 98 33 61 19 35 139 78 212 08 517 80 0 54
Other street trees 50 27 10 08 8 05 50 68 140 06 259 14 0 27
Citywide total 17,453 54 2,733 67 2,114 53 25,264 89 48,325 84 95,89247 10000


Total Annual Benefits by Category


S7oooo --
$5,oo --
$40,000
$0,0000 --

So0ooo
SO
$20,000 -0 -
$10,00 -
$0 -


MAesthetic/Other
SStorm water
Air Quality
MCO2
* Energy


o'









Maximizing Canopy Cover: Discussion


This strategy requires the use of the largest appro-
priate tree for a given site. Constraints such as power
lines, hardscape or rooting space limit the size of tree
that should be planted on the site. In these situations
a smaller tree can be planted or the site can be altered


to remove the constraint. A common example is bury-
ing power lines to remove the risk of conflict with large
trees. Solutions have been found for many of the most
common constraints allowing for larger trees with
greater benefits to be planted.


Fig. 2-14 Sample strategy for a residential block
1. Trees are widely spaced according to their predicted canopy spread. Trees will develop open branching canopies that
will maximize the amount of canopy cover
2. A number of species develop large canopies. Variety is necessary to maintain diversity, but the growth characteristics
and morphology of each species should be evaluated for its compatibility with the site.


Fig. 2-15 Sample strategy Jor a residential block
1. Large canopy tree require large rooting space. Planting the tree on the far side of sidewalks allows the roots to grow
unimpeded.
2. Where sidewalks and roots conflict an alternate paving material such as porous pavers can be used.
3. If power lines impede overhead growth it is best to simply plant a smaller tree. When a tree is too large the pruning
around power lines is expensive and typically destroys the integrity of the tree
4. Where a large tree cannot be planted along the right-of-way, the city could partner with homeowners to plant
canopy tree set back on private property.
36









Alternative Strategy 2:
A Wind Resistant Canopy










Fernandina Beach:
l
'.... '. Pla nrino chom~arir F'nr cena rin 7"


" i .. Wind Resistant Canopy
it, .


" ''ir ;1
.11


j "

S .; ..

.' ..' "

p.. .;',, ,(

t.. 7.. '
t.7....! !.,
** --
Si ;. ** .1
L_ ^ -
T '

; i^ -*1 ~
? -------*


. -' '
;. "" c&:-i
. ; I




.4
3 ^c
-i .4'


.." '


At
*r


-I
.zr;


. .,. -----
S



"'P

L-4^


Pd .4 /
j. 4,
*"^y^ ^
r i l
I1


'-'
4i


4 I A

.1 *


LEGEND
SExisting Tree
^ Broadleaf Large
Broadleaf Medium &
SConifers
SBroadleaf Small
SPalm


:-I
1 's


500 250 0


I-a

1/j


~IS f


'4'


*445
VL =


v ; **-s --i 9


I"~
,..*" .*,; : F f P

j "- t 1, * , ,, "** ,;*; *
":' .. '" .. -
: , :, :.,,. .-. '-
:-.;'._., , .^^ ^. _-,


Fig. 2-16
38


51


i I~ i


"'"' -'


.." '"o *,, ., 3 .,.-:

" ". ". ." ". '

S".,"' *; , :- ', '. ". .'
. ., ,-. **

..;., ,- : .. ,,.,,', .... -.
*4' "
S

lo





... 1,. .
S *- 1 , .
. * .'
-- *y 1..
; .r* : '" "' .lk
/ .4.. 4' 1b '4

S't' *-

i ,: .g ,, ',* T ^ ... .

* "' i
-pi .~-5 2i



Ir


. o.


*# ,


00 A









Fernandina Beach:


S Canopy Cover Analysis fo
ind Resistant Can, ..
r' : i h Wind Resistant Canopy


' ,: .* (-.


'
.-







I
! ;
ro-3;


r Scenario 2:


Iq. ,,y ti .


,. " ". I

-, i: ,
,: ., -,. .


1$ I
] , .* -** . .. X ,*.



a t;\ 4 .'- ;* ---t 7. *';
' ^ ', -. ~ * ', ', .,
'.' -" *v ".* " "' '- " T "'

- * - .. ,
: '' ": *,: *i, : ;


"",.' < ;-,;. --
," ,
I ,
i ? '4
'# % d .


t. *


I -/NO. .-


i i % *, '....
'i; : . -4. .







*, ,- ' ., *

,. rrr ^ . -"g,


Fr
U
a
a,
i -i ,
- 4 ,


1,
I-


LE(
, Existing Ca
Additional
Planting PI


;III 2i')


I


GEND
rnop) Coaer
Canopy % ith
in




0i .InII A


Fig. 2-17


,


4.
: >


'"


P P,,











A Wind Resistant Canopy: Structure


Hurricanes and high wind storms are frequent

events on the Florida coast. This design is intended

to limit the damage caused by storms, particular-

ly up rooting and wind throw. The University of

Florida IFAS Extension stresses two key factors in

designing a wind resistant urban forest: (Gilman &

Partin, 2007)



1. Select species according to available soil vol-

ume

2. Plant trees in groups rather than in isolation



This design groups trees together in clusters of

four or more and uses a variety of differently sized

trees to provide layers of canopy. Trees were clus-

tered close to existing canopy on private lands to

increase the effect of grouping. In locations where

trees are not in groups only small broadleafs and

palms were used. These trees are less likely to over-

turn. In the event that they do overturn they pose

less of a risk to people and property.



Where rooting space is limited, particularly

in the commercial core, smaller trees were chosen.

Tree wells were planted with palms or small broad-

leafs and tree islands with medium broadleafs..



This strategy resulted in the greatest diversity


as a wide variety of tree types were used. There were

significantly more trees, 1,123, using this strategy

than currently exist in the forest, 779. Canopy

cover was increased by 96% and leaf area by 103%

over the existing forest.






Femandina Beach Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Forest
Structural Analysis
%of %ofTotal
Number % of Total Total Leaf Canopy Cover Canopy
Species of Trees Trees Leaf Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Cover
Broad eaf Evergreen Medium 213 18 97 312,694 89 14 90 155,963 22 15 08
Broad eaf Deciduous Large 211 1879 983,77117 4687 348,86090 3373
Broad eaf Deciduous Medium 178 15 85 327,973 23 15 63 210,267 50 20 33
Broad eaf Decduous Small 136 1211 23,50580 112 50,33366 487
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 136 1211 10,66789 051 19,89550 192
Palm Evergreen Medium 67 597 27,18668 130 16,48832 159
Palm Evergreen Large 65 579 73,86925 352 71,29357 689
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 58 516 269,354 94 12 83 116,419 60 11 26
Conifer Evergreen Large 48 427 63,72328 304 40,09393 388
Other trees 11 098 6,024 23 029 4,65834 045
Total 1,123 10000 2,098,77136 10000 1,034,27454 100 00



SO-her trees

90% Conifer Evergreen Large
90%
SBroadlea EvergreenLarg

70% Palm Evergreen Large

Palm Evergreen Medium

S" Broadleaf Evergreen Small

SBroadleaf Deciduou Small
40%
a Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
30%
20% Broadleaf Deciduou Large

Broadleaf Evergreen Medium


% of Totalree %of alLeaf %of To alCanopy
Area Cover


Relative Age Distribution (%)


* Broadleaf Evergreen Medium
* Broadleaf Deciduous Large
* Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
* Broadleaf Deciduous Small
* Broadleaf Evergreen Small
* Palm Evergreen Medium
" Palm Evergreen Large
* Broadleaf Evergreen Large
Conifer Evergreen Large
* Conifer Evergreen Medium
Citwde total


DBH Class

Fig. 2-18 Structural analysis












AWind Resistant Canopy: Costs & Benefits


This strategy results in an annual benefit of

$84,682 and incurs an annual cost of $19,429 for

a net annual benefit of $65,252. This is a 145%

increase in net benefits over the existing forest. The

increase of benefits is uneven across categories, with

energy increasing 95%, C02 114%, air quality

- 236%, sv 87% and aesthetic/other 155%.


Costs increased by 60% due to the fact that

there are an additional 344 trees that will require

maintenance. This strategy could require addition-

al pruning as trees are clustered closely together

resulting in canopies that could conflict with each

other.


Fernandina Beach Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Forest
Costs by Tree Category
Admin, Avg.
Number Tree & Remove & Infrastructure Inspection, Annual % of Total % of Total
Species ofTrees Planting Pruning Dispose Repair Clean-up Other Irrigation Cost/Tree Total Trees Cost
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 213 9875 1,712 52 483 51 302 46 140 8 242 82 12993 1 89 381057 18 97% 1961%
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 211 791 25 2,16697 74905 47053 21944 375 58 12871 23 24 4,901 53 1879% 25 23%
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 178 66750 1,431 12 40406 252 76 117 48 202 92 10858 1789 3,18442 1 85% 1639%
Broadleaf Deciduous Small 136 51000 711 28 22440 141 44 66 64 11424 82 96 13 62 1,85096 12 11% 953%
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 136 51000 711 28 22440 141 44 66 64 11424 82 96 13 62 1,85096 12 11% 953%
Palm Evergreen Medium 67 2125 35041 11055 6968 32 83 56 28 4087 13 62 911 87 5 97% 469%
Palm Evergreen Large 65 243 75 339 95 107 25 6 60 31 85 54 60 39 65 13 62 884 65 5 79% 455%
Broad leaf Evergreen Large 58 21750 595 66 205 90 12934 6032 103 24 35 38 23 24 1,34734 5 16% 693%
Conifer Evergreen Large 48 18000 152 16 134 40 84 48 39 36 67 68 29 28 1431 687 36 427% 3 54%
Othertrees 11 41 25 8844 24 97 15 62 726 12 54 671 1431 19679 098% 101%
Total 1,123 4,17000 8,171 35 2,643 52 1,6593 775 14 1,331 60 67832 19,429.66 100% 100%


Annual Cost by Category


9000 00
9,000 00
,000 00 ----
`,000 00
5,000 00
6,00000
2,00000 -.








Fig. 2-19 Above: Annual cost analysis
Fig. 2-20 Right: Annual benefit analysis


Fernandina Beach-Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Forest
Average Annual Benefits of Public Trees by Species
Air Storm Aesthetic/ % of Total
Species Energy CO2 Quality water Other Total ($) $
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 2,72437 47168 14944 4,106 27 5,33543 12,787 19 15 10
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 5,74427 84872 925 06 8,484 20 17,310 12 33,312 38 39 34
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 3,648 72 62447 597 08 3,990 64 7,46627 16,327 19 1928
Broadleaf Deciduous Small 99193 119 55 150 89 66937 35902 2,29075 2 71
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 367 38 98 55 70 27 306 80 91429 1,757 28 2 08
Palm Evergreen Medium 322 16 30 19 9 67 395 54 97 69 855 24 101
Palm Evergreen Large 1,23529 108 38 131 99 1,387 00 79862 3,66127 4 32
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 1,758 58 341 58 149 55 3,304 16 3,74135 8,996 12 10 62
Conifer Evergreen Large 73986 14626 -29 76 943 34 2,477 66 4,277 36 505
Other street trees 86 96 22 78 15 01 99 91 192 67 417 33 049
Citywide total 17,619 51 2,812 16 1,870 10 23,687 22 38,693 12 84,682 11 10000

Total Annual Benefits by Category


35,000 -

$20,000 ---
$15,000 -
$10,000 -
$5,000 -


- I


d 9~di 0<1 NO
y4 ^ Or / yySp 0

t\^/x t/d~4
I yv~r


* Aesthetic/Other
*Storm water

i Air Quality
*C02

* Energy









A Wind Resistant Canopy: Discussion


For a tree to remain upright in a storm the strength
of the root system holding the tree in place must be
greater than the force of the wind pushing against the
canopy. A good design develops strong root systems and
disperses the force of the wind upon the canopy. There


are some basic strategies that can be utilized to achieve
this. But the final selection of planting sites and species
should be based upon an understanding of the available
rooting space, the surrounding canopy, probable winds
and failure rates of tree species.


Fig. 2-21 Sample strategy for a residential block
1. Grouping trees of together disperses the force of the wind upon any one tree. Layering with different heights of
canopy prevents the wind from filling large canopies from below and lifting them out of the ground like umbrellas.
2. Sites that have limited rooting space or are isolated should be planted with smaller trees that are less prone to
windthrow
3. Groupings can also be formed by planting trees near established canopy on private property. This can allow large
trees to be planted on sites where there is insufficient room to plant an entire grouping within the right-of-way.









Alternative Strategy 3:
Economic Opportunity












Fernandina Beach:

S, ". Planting Schematic for Scenario 3:

S. ..*' Maximize Economic Opportunity


Z.-
i 4" 1

' 1 .- 1 r--

..J-- 4.. .. .. -.


? .4
L' .^ *'
-i?-
4 i .I ,


.. *...' : ". ,;.- :
.* "... .

. 4% 4. - ...

.-



I -
J- ,4. .4.



I.* < -. 1, -





V'. ..~
I -' ,
,. ,; 2 "T ,' '
L, *^-,, ..* ,'^ .<



!. ;'


41
i ; ~4


/ I









Ji



V.I

'A)

44 I


I J



i v



8'.


t
*i


4~


V.


, .- .-1. l~
T ,
4


r **
*. ,
^ *
* ,
'\-i


LEGEND
s Existing Tree
Broadleaf Large
Broadleaf Medium &
Conifers
SBroadleaf Small
Palm

T


500 250 0


Fig. 2-22
44


-4~,I


,4


4 -"
* "* I .
-. ,, . . ,'



- r: '
1 -^ ^-A,


, '1


-i"'


-F,*
" L: : '
-i ,


--


:Z.


.


-~;~a~


500











Fernandi

Canopy Co
I'
S .. '' . Economic


.. I





-I.
*. ., I







a.t i








' .. a .. .


*I .
I .h


'^ ., '- .

.: -. 4 '"
I i -. -








-: "- '-
'.


~ --,
'~ ~ ~ ~i' '.;" .. ' "=
"


na Beach:

ver Analysis for Scenario 3:

Opportunity


4j
p ':

**'^* .


1'*
s.

-.: "."
.4 5
,* ^

I "%



*'JS J
,
^'"^


** :

1 . *- :


V' .. ;
-. ,.


" '.*^ "'S"- : )
* 7 .



?'lp
*" A .i .,


rt .. -.
",. '" '. ;; ? -
^? .. .




.5
.4 4 -
- *, .T ,

r i] : *
*';- ^ ; -. 1


3 ' *


i i ; c. ,












-?.. 4 \.
P -




LEGEND
M Existing Canopy Cover
Additional Canopy with
Planting Plan



S500


1d'''

'I

"- I


4.
4' t


Fig. 2-23


I
~.


I



I


!"nr











Economic Opportunity: Structure


This is the most subjective of the three alternatives

as it is largely driven by visual preference and aesthetic

quality. The goal is to promote economic opportuni-

ty by enhancing the atmosphere for consumers in the

commercial core and improving the overall experience

for tourists visiting the historic district.


The design is based largely upon Kathleen Wolf's

research on the consumer response to the urban forest.

She found that certain characteristics elicit positive re-

sponses that can result in a willingness of customers to

extend shopping time and pay 9%-12% more for retail

goods (Wolf, 2005). The most preferred characteristics

are:


1. Well tended big trees

2. Ordered, rhythmic design

3. Landscaping that creates a sense of identity


The commercial core is designed with large trees

planted on all tree islands with evenly spaced small

broadleafs and palms along all of the streets. To achieve

the design a number of tree wells would need to be

installed, especially along the streets running North/

South. Plantings were mirrored on both sides of the

street to enhance the sense ofrhythym and order.


dium broadleafs. The large broad leaf trees are

spaced closely together at 40 ft on center to promote

upward growth forming an allee. The medium broad

leaf trees are evenly spaced to create rythym and order.

This strategy requires careful selection of species and

routine maintenance to achieve results.



The overall tree count is 1035 trees, 263 more trees


than the existing forest. Canopy cover was increased by

114% and leaf area by 131% over the existing forest.

This design does not take overhead utility lines into ac-

count. In implementation smaller trees would have to

be located in those areas. In these areas species selection

will be critical to maintain an ordered appearance.


Fernandina Beach Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity
Structural Analysis
% of Total
Number %ofTotal %ofTotal Canopy Cover Canopy
Species of Trees Trees Leaf Area (ft2) Leaf Area (ft2) Cover
Broadleaf Deciduous Large 233 2251 1,087,460 07 45 41 386,180 17 3411
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 166 16 04 245,62184 10 26 122,516 56 10 82
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 133 1285 231,44468 966 148,51973 1312
Broadleaf Evergreen Large 130 1256 530,77111 2216 239,796 07 2118
Conifer Evergreen Large 98 947 136,87414 572 83,622 06 739
Palm Evergreen Large 96 928 109,09919 456 105,034 13 928
Palm Evergreen Medium 95 918 38,54828 161 23,37895 206
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 37 357 2,87188 012 5,375 22 047
Broadleaf Deciduous Small 36 348 6,14540 026 13,174 76 116
Conifer Evergreen Medium 11 106 6,024 23 025 4,658 34 041
Othertrees 0 000 000 000 000 000
Total 1,035 10000 2,394,860 82 10000 1,132,256 00 10000



Other tree
100%
SConifer Evegreen medium
90%
80%
B roadleaf Evergreen Small
70% Palm Evergreen Medium
60% Palm Evergreen Large
50% Conifer Evergreen Large
40% Broadleaf Evergreen Large
3% Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
Broadleaf Evergreen medium
20%
Broadleaf Deciduous Large
10%
0%
% of Total Trees % of Total Leaf % of Total Canopy
Area Cover


Relative Age Distribution of Tree Species (%)

Palm Evergreen Medium
SBroadleaf DeciduousSmall
60 Palm Evergreen Large
50 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium
0 *Broadleaf Deciduous Large
20 3 Broadleaf Evergreen Large
10
SPalm Evergreen Small
SBroadleaf Evergreen Small
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
SConifer Evergreen Large
DBH Class Citywdetotal

Fig. 2-24 Structural analysis














Economic Opportunity: Costs & Benefits


This strategy results in an annual benefit of


$84,682 and incurrs an annual cost of $19,429 for


a net annual benefit of $65,252. This is a 145%


increase in net benefits over the existing forest. The


increase of benefits is not even across categories


with energy increasing 95%, C02 114%, air


quality 236%, stormwater 87% and aesthetic/


other 155%.


Costs increased by 60% over the existing for-


est. This strategy may incur higher costs and accrue


higher benefits than estimated with i-Tree Streets.


The program does not account for the value of


designing for consumer response or the additional


cost of cultivating a well maintained appearance.


Fernandina Beach Strategy 3: Economic
Costs by Tree Category
Admin, Avg.
Number Tree & Remove & Infrastructure Inspection, Annual % of Total % of Total
Species ofTrees Planting Pruning Dispose Repair Clean-up Other Irrigation Cost/Tree Total Trees Cost
Broad eaf Deciduous Large 233 873 75 2,392 91 827 15 51959 242 32 414 74 142 13 23 24 5,412 59 22 51% 28 58%
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 166 622 50 1,33464 37682 235 72 10956 189 24 101 26 1789 2,96974 1604% 15 68%
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 133 49875 1,06932 301 91 188 86 87 78 151 62 81 13 17 89 2,37937 12 85% 12 57%
Broad leaf Evergreen Large 130 487 50 1,335 10 461 50 289 90 135 20 231 40 79 30 23 24 3,01990 12 56% 15 95%
Conifer Evergreen Large 98 367 50 31066 274 40 172 48 80 36 138 18 59 78 1431 1,403 36 947% 741%
Palm Evergreen Large 96 36000 502 08 158 40 99 84 47 04 80 64 58 56 13 62 1,306 56 928% 690%
Palm Evergreen Medium 95 35625 49685 15675 9880 46 55 79 80 5795 13 62 1,292 95 918% 683%
Broadleaf Evergreen Small 37 13875 193 51 61 05 38 48 18 13 31 08 22 57 13 62 503 57 3 57% 2 66%
Broadleaf Deciduou Smal 36 135 00 18828 5940 37 44 17 64 3024 21 96 13 62 48996 3 48% 2 59%
Conifer Evergreen Medium 11 41 25 3487 3080 19 36 9 02 15 51 6 71 1431 15752 1 06% 083%
Other trees 0 000 000 000 0 00 0 00 000 0 00 14 31 000 000% 000%
Total 1,035 3,881 25 7,85822 2,708 18 1,70047 793 60 1,362 45 631 35 18,935.52 100% 100%


Annual Cost by Category

800000
7,000 00
6,000 00
500000
3,000 00
300000
2,000 00
1,000 00

o o
4e de





Fig. 2-25 Above: Annual cost analysis

Fig. 2-26 Right: Annual benefit analysis


Fernandina Beach-Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity
Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species


Species
Broadleaf Deciduous Large
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
Broadleaf Evergreen Large
Conifer Evergreen Large
Palm Evergreen Large
Palm Evergreen Medium
Broadleaf Evergreen Small
Broadleaf Deciduous Small
Conifer Evergreen Medium
Other street trees


Citywide total


Energy
6,360 52
2,13989
2,58140
3,686 34
1,53340
1,819 93
45684
9925
25970
8696
0 00


Air Storm
Quality water
1,02419 9,38598
117 38 3,225 60
422 15 2,817 71
-25661 6,64941
73 55 1,99438
194 06 2,045 37
13 71 560 84
1899 82 80
39 50 17517
1501 9991
0 00 0 00


19,02423 3,08586 1,514 83 27,037 16


Total Annual Benefits by Category


Aestnetic/
Other
19,16177
4,167 37
5,487 27
8,52745
5,096 23
1,18444
13677
247 50
96 54
192 67
0 00


Total ($)
36,872 37
10,020 98
11,755 16
19,348 78
8,853 52
5,403 42
1,21094
475 18
60241
41733
0 00


% of Total
$
3883
10 55
12 38
2038
932
569
128
0 50
063
044
0 00


44,298 00 94,960 09 10000


$40,000
$35,000 -
$30,000 -
$25,000 -
$20,000 -
$15,000
$10000 -
$5oo000
$0 .




^ k p C .p 6 t
4 #6/ /
*/ / ,//


MAesthetic/Other

SStorm water

MAir Quality

* C02

* Energy


Oth e, str eet trees u ri 000 000 000 000


u uu









Economic Opportunity: Discussion


The urban forest is a critical component to both
the historic character and mild environment of the
area and a major draw for tourism. Designing to en-
hance the tourist experience can result in a secondary
economic benefit beyond those calculated in the i-Tree


analysis. Implementing this strategy requires a design
that develops an aesthetic which reinforces a sense-of-
place. The historic, cultural and environmental context
of the city are important considerations.


1. An allee is formed by planting large trees close together to force their growth habit up. As the branches reach for
sunlight they will close over the road creating the look of the classic south.
2. The even spacing of the trees establishes rhythm and order to the design.


Pig.z-zo ample strategyjor a resiaenmiai OoCK
1. Using a single species unifies the design end ensures consistent growth habit. Different streets or blocks may each
be planted with a species, this can maintain diversity and assist in way finding.
2. In an allee wide branching trees may enclose the street entirely where upright trees leave room for sunlight. The
species selection and maintenance practices should be designed to meet the desired visual effect.
3. The growth of the trees can be influenced by pruning the tree early on. Developing a single leader creates a strong
tree and promotes upward growth to form the allee.









Summary Comparison











Femandina Beach:
i* 'I, r C -' rE ,, hn i: rar ,o I
r t ta ni (ete/el CClttaftr
t: o, C..P Cm ,




J
S. :



























.IEm m
e l" .





I I* ..'.


El I l 'I a












Br-odl.fSm.l
: . % 0 5d...
--,' B .adl- .m.

J0 0 0- :A




..,., ., j ; -- LEGEND



*'" '. ,, BldlcfSl
_'-\ ? ,1- *.' m ________ 1
*^ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,_I '* i'' 0 5 0


Comparison: Design



All three of these strategies would be appro-

priate for the historic district of Fernandina Beach.

The strategies employ basic design principles based

upon goals tailored to the City's environment and

economy.



The implementation of any of these strategies

would require taking these schematics to the next

level of specificity; selecting species and identifying

planting locations. It is easy to be consumed by

the minutiae of design and referring back to these

schematic designs can help preserve a focus on the

overall goals.


r Fernandina Beach:
I h'lr'... % her r ?



'4 I .1 Mi' B.,a driaf Me i ,







JI -





-4
4" : "

; ,
'_ If "' "-
.:, ,,, i .' :,

,r ;i -7 .












Fig. 2-29






50
** 1 BllMdl unota-
,! ; ^, ,. ..5 , Medium
; _* md. -'. Smal
. 250 0 5,
Fig. 2-29


-Femrn
j t. i! "- [. l



rL 1





ZM :


I





'1.


idina Beach:
"%J laLA .. o **
z- E Of i.-rirn









f 1 -
rl > '


LEGEND
J EnF.ingTe
SBoadleafLarge
Bmradleaf Medium &
Conien
Bodleaf Small

500 0 O A


B. I











Comparison: Canopy Cover



It is important to examine the overall context

of the urban forest. This planning exercise focuses

only on the public street trees in the area, but a ma-

jority of the forest is on private lands. To maintain

overall function its necessary to monitor the health

and structure of the forest as a whole.


81

1.
I,


Fernandina Beach:

ini Retu ", C "a.' l



1,, *. .'



r . .


:I


. 50A


Fig. 2-30


Fernandina Beach:
C ir..p i V.-cL r i_ l I. l.,r *. Lr. I
AW1'Mj:rzt Cjn-p L.-t













-.














. ..



Issi"' ., .. .---



F1 i" .'%... B h: ;i
f ".








1 :


I.F N Dc



n^ r i A


21












Comparison: Structure


Examining the three strategies side by side

reveals key differences in structure. For example,

the relationship between the number of trees and

canopy cover is not linear. Canopy cover is heav-

ily dependant upon species selection. The existing

forest and strategy 1 have nearly the same amount

of trees, yet strategy 1 has two and a half times the

amount of leaf area and twice the amount of can-

opy cover. But, following such a strategy limits the

number of species that will fit the given profile.


Each of these strategies has strengths and

weaknesses and any one of them is valid. Under-

standing how these strategies will impact the com-

position of the forest will help the public and the

City decide which strategy or combination of strat-

egies they would like to follow.


Forest Structure Summary
Number Canopy Cover
of Trees Leaf Area (ft2) (ft2)


BDL BEM BDM BES BDS


Existing Forest 779 1,032,341.43 528,233.66 60 8% 63 8% 65 8%
Strategy 1: Max 772 2,572,028.21 1,048,510.29 88 11% 460 60% 35 5%
Strategy 2: Win, 1,123 2,098,771.36 1,034,274.54 58 6% 211 19% 213 19%
Strategy 3: Ecor 1,035 2,394,860.82 1,132,256.00 130 12% 233 21% 166 15%


21 3% 32 4% 85 119/
0 0% 28 4% 0 09/
178 16% 136 12% 136 129/
133 12% 37 3% 36 39/


CEL CEM PEL PEM PES OTHER


20 3% 16 2% 67 9% 315 409
16 2% 10 1% 65 8% 67 9/
48 4% 0 0% 65 6% 67 6/
98 9% 11 1% 96 9% 95 8/


Structure of Forest by Category



1200 PES
m PEM
1000 PEL
PEL
800 CEM

600
E m BDS
400 m BES
0 BDM
200
*BEM
0 m BDL
Existing Forest Strategy 1: MaximizeCanopy Strategy2: Wind Resistant Strategy3: Economic Opportunity m BEL
Cover Canopy
Alternative Strategies



Structure of Forest by Canopy Cover and Leaf Area


3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
S2,000,000.00
1~ 1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
500,000.00
0.00----------------------------------------------
0.00
Existing Forest Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Strategy 3: Economic
Cover Canopy Opportunity
Alternative Strategies

Fig. 2-29 Comparison of structural analysis

52


35 4% 0 09
0 0% 3 09
0 0% 11 15
0 0% 0 0o












Comparison: Costs & Benefits


The ability to quantify the benefits and costs


of the forest is one of the most important innova-


tions in urban forestry. These numbers can com-


municate the logic of investing in the urban forest


and understanding it as an asset and not a liabil-


ity.



There is not as much variance be-


tween the costs and benefits as might Annual
Existing Forest
be expected with only a 19% difference t. ategyi Maxi
Strategy3 Econo
between the highest net benefits found


in strategy 1 and the lowest net benefits


found in strategy 2. Strategy Max.
Strategy 2 Wind


This analysis is limited by i-Tree "trate"g3 Eo


Streets ability to predict costs and ben- Annual Fores


efits and can only apply averages. For Existing Forest
Strategy 1 Maxim
SStrategy 2 Wind
example, developing a wind resistant Straegy3 Econo

100,
80,
60
40
2C


forest can result in massive saving if a hurricane


does hit. Or developing for economic opportunity


may result in an increase in property values. These


considerations should be included in the conversa-


tion as they provide an excellent basis for the con-


versation about how the city wants to manage and


invest in their forest.




orest Benefits/Costs Summary
Cost Beneft Net benefits
-12,10499 38,65757 26,552 58
1ze Canopy Cover -15,906 11 95,892 47 79,986 36
Resistant Canopy -19,42966 84,682 11 65,252 45
mic Opportunity -18,935 52 94,96009 76,02457

20000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Existing Forest

ie Canopy Cover Cost
I I I I I *Benefit
Resistant Canopy

nomic Opportunity


Benefits Summary
Aesthetic/
Energy C02 Air Quality Storm water Other Total
9,010 60 1,31076 555 83 12,622 04 15,15834 38,65757
ize Canopy Cover 17,453 54 2,733 67 2,114 53 25,26489 48,325 84 95,892 47
Resistant Canopy 17,619 51 2,812 16 1,87010 23,687 22 38,693 12 84,682 11
mic Opportunity 19,02423 3,085 86 1,51483 27,037 16 44,29800 94,96009


o00000
00000

*Aesthetic/Other
*Stormwater
0,000 Air Qualiy
000 C02
. Energy

Strategy
Economic
Opportunity


Annual Forest Costs Summary

Tree & Remove & Infrastructure Inspect on,
Planting Pruning Dispose Repair Clean-up Other Irrigation Total
Existing Forest 2,921 25 4,582 74 1,806 17 1,03008 50056 77405 490 14 12,10499
Strategy Maximize Canopy Cover 2,883 75 6,82858 2,36165 1,483 90 692 74 1,18640 46909 15,90611
Strategy 2 Wind Resistant Canopy 4,17000 8,171 35 2,643 52 1,659 73 775 14 1,331 60 678 32 19,429 66
Strategy3 Economic Opportunity 3,881 25 7,85822 2,708 18 1,70047 793 60 1,362 45 631 35 18,935 52


Pig. 2-32 Comparison oJ structural analysis


* Irrigation
EAdnmn, Inspection, Other
*Clean-up
* Infrastructure Repair
SRemove & Dspose
SPruning
STree& Planting


20,000 00 -- -
15,000 00
10,000 00
5,000 00
000

Maximize Strategy2 Wind
CanopyCover Resistant Strateg 3
Canop p Ecornict
Opportunity








Comparison: Discussion


Three overall goals were identified during the
inventory and analysis of Fernandina Beach's urban
forest.

1. Maximize the benefit of ecosystem services.

2. Reduce the damage incurred to the forest during
a high wind storm.
3. Enhance the cultural and environmental aspects
of the forest that encourage tourism and retail
spending

The strategies outlined in this paper were cre-
ated by taking each of the overall goals in turn and
using each one as a primary driver for form and
structure. However, the primary goal was not con-
sidered in isolation. Aiming too narrowly at any
one goal is folly. For example, a forest that is en-
tirely resistant to wind would have no trees at all.
A forest that truly maximizes canopy cover would
have oak trees in tree wells where they would soon
perish.

In deciding which strategy is best it seems
that a hybrid approach is most appropriate. Rely-
ing on one goal is too limited to develop a sensible
strategy, and one strategy is too limited to develop
a sensible management plan. The historic district
of Fernandina Beach is relatively small in area, but
there is enough diversity that the communities
needs will differ from area to area

The commercial core is the hub of tourist and
retail activity. There is significant pedestrian traffic
along the core and it is the "face" of Fernandina
54


Beach. The most appropriate strategy for this are is
to maximize economic opportunity by developing
an orderly, well manicured landscape that reflects
the character of the city and provides a pleasant
climate and experience for visitors.

In the residential areas where there is ample
rooting space it would be appropriate to maximize
the function of the forest by increasing canopy
cover. This should be balanced with the knowl-
edge that hurricanes will impact this area. Planting
groups of trees can achieve both wind resistance
and increase canopy cover. In situations where a
tree is isolated a small tree can be planted or a large
tree such as bald cypress that has a history of sur-
viving hurricanes could also be planted.

The final strategy should consider the envi-
ronmental and economic impacts outlined in the
analysis and balance them with the specific needs
of the site. The strategies outlined in this report
serve as guides that help to maintain a consistent
vision. Implementation will require creative solu-
tions and the application of alternative methods to
achieve a vision in areas where options are limited
due to existing conditions.

















Fig. 2-33 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a residential block
1. Groupings of trees both expand canopy cover and provide wind resistance. Planting these groupings around exist-
ing trees on private land will further distribute the wind load.
2. Planting a variety of species increases diversity and reduces the risk of major loss due to disease or pest damage.
3. Where it's not possible to plant a canopy tree a site will receive more sun. This is an opportunity to plant groupings
of small trees, shrubs and perennials. The level of ecosystem services will be relatively low but the visual impact will
be high.
4. Intersections require open sight lines and it may be inappropriate to plant groupings of trees. A large canopy tree
can planted in isolation if the species should has a history ol survival in hurricanes.


- 6. -1 __"1W1 _J _Uu, 6 o lJV -,,1,,1,1 -1 -
1. Instead of using individual tree wells planting strips can be used that allows for increased root growth. Trees will
live longer, require less irrigation and be less likely to up root.
2. Where there is sufficient rooting space large trees can be planted for shade and to provide character.
3. The visibility ofsignage can be maintained with proper pruning that lifts the canopy to the desired height.
4. Plantings on both sides of a sidewalk softens the edges of an urban space and makes the space more inviting.








Limitations


The designs and analyses in this report are
only estimations and schematics intended as an aid
in developing broad goals and strategies. A number
of site specific details such as the locations of drive-
ways, utilities and signage were not considered in
the development of these plans.

There are benefits of the urban forest that are
difficult to quantify and are not analyzed by i-Tree
Streets. These benefits include: habitat, noise re-
duction and psychological benefits. While these do
not figure directly into the analysis, they should be
a part of the conversation when deciding upon a
strategy.


The analyses and graphics in this report were
produced in Excel using data derived from i-Tree
Streets reports. i-Tree has the capability of pro-
ducing more detailed reports depending upon the
detail of the data contained in the inventory. For
the purpose of this report the detail was kept at a
schematic level.

This case study uses i-Tree Streets exclusively,
but there are a number of programs available that
can perform structural and functional analyses of
the forest that might be better suited to a differ-
ent project. The research and decision in software
should be made early as it effects the inventory pro-
cess as well as the planning process.


Conclusion


Trees are difficult to relate to; they don't speak,
they don't show emotion and when trees function
it is invisible to the human eye. The natural reac-
tion is to believe that trees don't do anything for
us besides the obvious benefits like visual appeal,
providing shade or bearing fruit. In the past, man-
agement of the urban forest was often been seen as
management of a liability. As our understanding of
the benefits of the forest grows, cities and manag-
ers are trying to find ways to adapt their manage-
ment and planning of the forest to take advantage
of what the forest has to offer.

The movement towards planning for ben-
efit has been ongoing for several decades, but it's


only in recent years that analysis tools have been
available that break these benefits down so we can
understand exactly how the forest functions. If we
know how the forest functions we should be able
to adapt that knowledge to our planning process
and to target specific benefits and clearly defined
results. To do that we need to adapt our processes
and techniques.

The revised process proposed in this report
will aid in developing a best concept and strategy
but it is not a management plan. Taking this docu-
ment into the management planning and imple-
mentation phase requires another level of detail.








Some of the actions that might be necessary in-
clude:

Mapping of infrastructure such as utilities
and sidewalks.
Mapping of environmental information such
as soils and micro-climates
Identification and prioritization of planting
sites
Reviewing the legal instruments around the
forest including codes and ordinances.
Developing a risk management plan
Reviewing maintenance practices and staff
training
Budgeting
Reviewing departmental organization

Applying this process and taking it into the
management planning and implementation phase
requires a wide breadth of knowledge and can be
overwhelming. Cities that do not staff specialists
would benefit from a partnership with consulting
professionals such as landscape architects, urban
foresters and consulting arborists

Landscape Architect Typically, landscape
architects are generalists with a broad scope of
knowledge including; design, planning, construc-
tion techniques, species selection. They are trained
to develop a sense of place, enhance aesthetics and
to create sustainable solutions in the outdoor envi-
ronment. The broad scope of the profession allows
for a holistic understanding of how the social, envi-
ronmental and economic aspects of the forest inter-
act. The visioning process in this report is adapted


from the concept development process commonly
employed by landscape architects. Professionals are
qualified by The American Society of Landscape
Architects (ASLA). Knowledge of specific tree care
practices may be limited and there can be an over-
emphasis on aesthetics.

Urban Forester & Consulting Arborists: Trained
specifically in the management of the urban forest.
The urban forester has a thorough knowledge of
planning, plant material, tree inventories, mainte-
nance practices and preservation techniques. Pro-
fessionals can be qualified by The International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American
Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). There
may be a tendency to focus on plants rather than
the overall vision. (Wolf, 2005)

The effort and expense of planning the ur-
ban forest is daunting, but the benefits of a well
planned and managed forest greatly exceed its cost.
Reports such as this one can demonstrate the value
of the planning process and the return a commu-
nity can expect from their investment.








Works Cited


Akbari, H., Davis, S., Huang, J., & Winnett, S. (1992). Cooling our Communities: A guidebook on Tree
Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington D.C.

Edwards, A. R (2005). The Sustainability Revolution. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

Gilman, E. E, & Partin, T (2007, September). Urban Design For a Wind Resistant Forest. Retrieved
January 15, 2010, from Trees and Hurricanes: http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/treesandhurricanes/

Kaplan, S. (2004). Some Hidden benefits of the Urban Forest. Selected Papers from conference jointly or-
ganized by IUFRO, EFI and the Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning in Copenhagen (pp.
221-232). Copenhagen: IUFRO.

Maco, S. E., & McPherson, E. G. (2003). A Practical Approach to Assessing Structure, Function and
Value of Street Tree Populations in Small Communities. Journal of Arboriculture 84-97.

Matheny, N. P., & Clark, J. R (2008). Municipal Specialist Certification Study Guide. Champaign: Inter-
national Society of Arboriculture.

McPherson, G. E., Simpson, J. R, Peper, P. J., Gardner, S. L., Vargas, K. E., Maco, S. E., et al. (2006).
Coastal Plain Community Guide. Berkeley: United States Department of Agriculture.

Miller, R W (1988). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall inc.

USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). about i-Tree. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from i-Tree: http://www.itreetools.
org/about/about.shtm

USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). Reference Cities-The Science Behind STRATUM. Retrieved March 3,
2010, from i-Tree Tools: http://www.itreetools.org/resource_learningcenter/elements/ScienceBehind
STRATUM.pdf

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford Community Press.

Wiersum, E K. (1995). 200 Years of Sustainability in Forestry: Lessons from History. Environmental
Management, 321-329.

Wolf, K. L. (2005). Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response. Journal of Forestry,
396-400.











Appendix 1: List of Species by Category as defined in the Coastal Plain

Community Tree Guide and in i-Tree Streets


Broadleaf Evergreen Large


ScientificName


CommonName


Eucalyptus saligna Sydney blue gum
Persea borbonia Redbay
Quercus virginiana Live oak
Broadleaf Evergreen Large Other Broadleaf Evergreen Large Other
Broadleaf Deciduous Large
ScientificName CommonName
Acer rubrum Red maple
Acer saccharinum Silver maple
Acer saccharum Sugar maple
Aesculus glabra Ohio buckeye
Carya species Hickory
Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory
Carya glabra Pignut hickory
Carya illinoensis Pecan
Carya tomentosa Mockernut hickory
Fraxinus americana White ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo
Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust
Juglans nigra Black walnut
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black tupelo
Platanus hybrida London planetree
Platanus acerifolia I i 1 London planetree I 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore
Populus alba White poplar
Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood
Prunus serotina Black cherry
Quercus species Oak
Quercus alba White oak
Quercus coccinea Scarlet oak
Quercus falcata Southern red oak
Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus nigra Water oak
Quercus palustris Pin oak
Quercus phellos Willow oak
Quercus rubra Northern red oak
Quercus shumardii Shumard oak
Quercus stellata Post oak
Quercus velutina Black oak
Sassafras albidum Sassafras
Tilia americana American basswood
Ulmus americana American elm
Ulmus rubra Slippery elm
Ulmus species Elm
Zelkova serrata Japanese zelkova
Broadleaf Deciduous Large Other Broadleaf Deciduous Large Other


Broadleaf Evergreen Medium


ScientificName


CommonName


Cinnamomum camphora Camphor tree
Eucalyptus cinerea Silver dollar eucalyptus
Ilex opaca x attenuata 'Savannah' Savannah holly
Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem' Little gem southern magnolia
Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew podocarpus
Prunus caroliniana Carolina laurelcherry
Quercus hemisphaerica Darlington oak
Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Other Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Other
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium
ScientificName CommonName
Acer buergeranum Trident maple
Acer negundo Boxelder
Acer rubrum 'October glory' October glory red maple
Betula nigra River birch
Broussonetia papyrifera Paper mulberry
Catalpa bignonioides Southern catalpa
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Cladrastis kentukea Yellowwood
Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon
Firmiana simplex Chinese parasoltree
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame tree
Melia azedarach Chinaberry
Morus rubra Red mulberry
Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache
Pyrus calleryana Callery pear
Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Bradford pear
Pyrus communis Common pear
Quercus acutissima Sawtooth oak
Quercus laevis Turkey oak
Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust
Salix species Willow
Salix matsudana 'Tortuosa' Corkscrew willow
Salix nigra Black willow
Salix babylonica Wisconsin weeping willow
Tilia cordata Littleleaf linden
Sapium sebiferum Tallowtree
Ulmus alata Winged elm
Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm
Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Chinese elm
Ulmus parvifolia 'Emer II' Emer II/Emerald Vase Chinese elm
Ulmus pumila Siberian elm
Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Other Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Other














Appendix 2: Cost/benefit table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Commu-


nity Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006)


Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative large broadleaf tree

(Southern live oak, Quercus virginiana). The 40-year average is also shown.


Benefitsltree
Cooling (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Heating (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net Energy (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net C02 (Ib)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Air Pollution (Ib)
03 uptake
N02 uptake+avoided
S02 uptake+avoided
PM10 uptake+avoided
VOCs avoided
BVOCs released
Avoided+net uptake
Hydrology (gal)
Rainfall Interception
Aesthetics and other benefits
Yard
Public
Total benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public


Year5 Year 10 Year 15 Year20 Year 25 Year 30 Year35 Year40 40 Year Avg
RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $

89 832 221 20612 309 2885 386 36 01 431 4028 466 4349 484 45 16 470 43 91 357 3333
54 505 147 137 216 20 13 283 2641 325 3036 358 3346 377 352 383 3576 268 2501
97 903 230 21 52 319 2978 394 3682 43 4097 46 437 482 4502 466 4355 362 338
39 366 100 933 145 135 192 1795 223 2085 249 2325 264 2466 276 258 186 1738

-25 -03 22 027 81 097 127 1 52 1 186 164 1 97 167 2 218 261 114 1 36
-181 -216 -550 -658 -74 -887 -857 -1026 -912 -1093 -941 -1127 -946 -1133 -774 -927 -738 -883
-68 -081 -18 -021 40 0 48 91 10 12 14 1 4 1 1 175 160 191 228 273 88 105
145 1 73 341 408 467 559 563 674 616 737 648 776 661 791 664 795 513 6 14

865 8 01 2,229 2087 3,170 29 82 3,983 37 53 4,469 42 14 4,821 45 46 5,003 47 16 4,920 46 52 3,683 3469
360 288 917 712 1,415 11 26 1,971 1614 2,339 1944 2,642 2219 2,823 2387 3,055 2649 1,940 16 18
899 821 2,286 21 3 3,229 3026 4,033 379 4,510 42 44 4,828 45 47 4,981 46 94 4,892 4628 3,707 34 85
537 539 1,340 1341 1,912 1909 2,485 2469 2,848 2822 3,137 3101 3,302 3257 3,427 3376 2,373 2352

176 132 427 321 595 446 732 55 817 6 13 871 654 900 675 889 667 676 507
110 082 259 1 94 371 278 476 357 546 1 594 4 594 446 623 467 653 489 454 341
181 136 436 327 604 453 741 55 823 6 17 873 654 897 673 885 663 680 5 1
128 096 300 225 416 3 12 520 39 586 44 632 474 657 493 676 507 489 367


005 007 012 017 016 024 021 031 024 035 026 038 0271 04 027 04 02 029
006 -009 -028 -041 -0821 -121 -1956 -289 3 -355 -526 -5 61 -832 8 -8 15 -1208 -11 15 -1653 -395 -585
098 1 15 243 278 317 344 332 32 262 181 1 33 -0 42 -064 -3 6 -332 -776 124 008


8361 5061 2,3091 13971 3,6441 22051 5,2261 31 621 6,4601 39081 7,8621 47571 9,0201 54571 10,2351 61 921 5,6991 34481

1 2249 5277 73 47 806 8579 5243
1 33 25 12 F4345 5894 71 75 82 06| 9003 9582 5856

1673 6332 9867 13062 1534 17261 8549 19313 12675
111 48 784 107 1286 1472 160 12 17134 10657
1697 6381 99 1 131 04 1537 1726 18524 19287 12694
1389 5753 91 14 12234 1452 1649 1785 18881 1203


Costs ($Iyearltree)
Tree & planting
Yard
Public
Pruning
Yard
Public
Remove and dispose
Yard
Public
Pest & disease
Yard
Public
Infrastructure repair
Yard
Public
Clean-Up
Yard
Public
Admin/Inspect/Other
Yard
Public
Total costs
Yard
Public
Total net benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public


40
30

019
463

398
249

030
000

010
1 02

005
047

000
081

4462
3941


3352
2765
2553


15 30
S20 04

751
470|





029|
288|

0 13
1 35|

000|
231

24 10
31 27|


123 17
14853
13369


550
664

358


050


0 17
1 67

008




1 34

982
1266


3848
5399
4486


501
605

582
364

074
000

025
247

0 11
1 15

000
1 98

11 93
1530

11868
9537
11911
10704


526|
8635

479|
30o|

064
S0001

021|
2 14

0 10
0 10|

000|
1 71

11 00|
14 18


6744
88 18
76 96


1448
1896

8240
5 15








0 14
1 39





2404
3088


13607

147 63


477
576

672
420

081
000

027
271

0 13
1 27

000
2 17

1269
1611

14071
11598
141 OE
129 15_


1365
1788

890
556

091
000

030
305

0 14
1 42

000
244

2390
3034

1692
14743
16896
15847


I3750















8732
1 1027

| 562
| 355



S0001

| 0221
| 223


1 04


1 78

| 19 241
| 2324

10750
8732
10769
9707


I













Appendix 3: Cost/benefit table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Commu-


nity Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006)


Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative medium broadleaf tree
(Southern magnolia, Magnolia grandiflora). The 40-year average is also shown.


Benefitsltree
Cooling (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Heating (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net Energy (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net C02 (Ib)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Air Pollution (Ib)
03 uptake
N02 uptake+avoided
S02 uptake+avoided
PM10 uptake+avoided
VOCs avoided
BVOCs released
Avoided+net uptake
Hydrology (gal)
Rainfall Interception
Aesthetics and other benefits
Yard
Public
Total benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public


Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 40 Year Avg
RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $

14 133 49 455 94 88 135 1259 169 1577 197 1841 216 2021 232 217 138 1292
8 077 28 265 56 5,2 83 777 108 1006 130 12 12 148 1384 164 153 91 846
18 1 65 57 528 102 956 142 1321 174 16 20 18 69 219 20 41 234 21 83 143 1336
7 067 22 201 38 358 53 512 69 6481 83 7731 95 885 105 981 59 553

-4 -0 04 -22 -0 27 -40 -048 -29 -034 -7 -008 18 0 21 47 056 72 0 87 4 005
-8 -0 1 102 -230 -2 7 -350 -419 -447 -535 -512 -6 13 -527 -631 -537 -643 -337 -403
-23 -0 28 -65 -0 78 -86 -1 03 -70 -0 84 -41 -049 -10 -0 12 25 0 3 57 0 68 -27 -0 32
29 035 83 099 144 173 201 241 250 299 291 348 320 33 344 4 12 208 249

138 1 28 465 428 902 832 1,319 1225 1,682 1569 1,989 1862 2,210 2077 2,396 2256 1,388 1297
74 067 199 163 327 245 482 358 631 471 785 598 955 754 1,102 888 570 443
153 137 501 451 938 853 1,345 1237 1,694 1572 1,992 1857 2,211 2072 2,394 2251 1,404 1304
101 102 298 301 528 531 749 753 943 947 1,118 1121 1,268 1269 1,394 1393 800 802

22 017 76 057 147 11 217 163 280 2 1 334 251 376 282 413 31 234 175
14 01 41 031 72 054 109 082 145 108 180 135 216 1 6 28 1 86 129 096
25 019 82 062 153 1 222 166 282 2 33 252 377 283 414 3 1 237 177
17 013 52 039 93 069 135 101 174 13 210 158 242 182 271 203 149 1 12

003 003 009 0 09 016 017 024 025 033 034 041 043 049 052 058 06 029 03
004 004 012 012 021 022 031 032 039 041 047 049 053 055 059 061 033 035
01 013 033 043 063 08 089 1 15 1 11 1 44 1 32 1 1 47 1 89 1 6 206 0 93 1 2
001 001 005 004 013 0 1 025 019 036 027 047 036 058 044 059 045 031 023
001 001 003 004 0 0 07 0 07 01 009 0 13 01 0 15 011 017 012 018 007 0 11
-0 06 -0 1 -0 21 -0 31 -0 46 -0 69 -0 88 -1 3 -1 37 -2 03 -1 94 -2 88 -2 6 -3 86 -2 6 -3 86 -1 27 -1 88
012 012 04 041 072 068 089 071 092 057 083 024 059 -029 088 004 067 031


2561 1551 6591 3981 1,1241 681 1,6461 9961 2,1731 13 141 2,7191 16451 3,2811 19851 3,8421 23251 1,962 11 871

1249 1297 1348 138 1396 1396 1381 134 135
1395 1449 1 1505 1542 1559 1 1559 1543 1512 | 508


1494 193 2394 2887 3347 3798 4253 4757 31 08
1572 2248 3064 3851 45 51 7 5692 6244 4049
16 222 285 346 400 450 4949 5438 364


Costs ($1yearltree)
Tree & planting
Yard
Public
Pruning
Yard
Public
Remove and dispose
Yard
Public
Pest & disease
Yard
Public
Infrastructure repair
Yard
Public
Clean-Up
Yard
Public
Admin/Inspect/Other
Yard
Public
Total costs
Yard
Public
Total net benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public


501
605

355
222

045
000

015
1 51

007
070

000
1 21

923
11 69


1964
M 9121


2928
2294


526|
635|

273|
1 71|





0 12|
1 22|












21 85
S0061
S0571

S0001
S0971






1541
22 11
1771


40
30

019
463

200
1 25

015
000

005
051

002
024

000
041

4242
3703

-2680
-2748
-2669
-2027


029
332

1 90
1 19

026
000

009
089

004
041

000
071

258
651


1672
K1964
1990
1576


1448
1896

588
367

064
000

0 18
2 13

009
0 10

000
1 71

21 26
2747

3570
21 27
3566
29202


452|
546J




5 12
320












270
1 96|





000|
1 57|







41 26
312
2746
41 22
31 95d


1365
1788

662
4 14

068
000

023
1227

0 11
1 06

000
1 81

21 28
2715


41 2
2629
41 16
2723


434






0 17
1 76






1 40


1245


2357
3561
2762


I 375l













25 562
F1:751
1 8031

| 3591
| 227



| 0314
S0001


1 42


S0661




1484
| 1789


1623
2565
18 51


I













Appendix 4: Cost/benefit table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Commu-


nity Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006)


Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative conifer (loblolly pine, Pinus


Benefitsltree
Cooling (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Heating (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net Energy (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net C02 (Ib)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Air Pollution (Ib)
03 uptake
N02 uptake+avoided
S02 uptake+avoided
PM10 uptake+avoided
VOCs avoided
BVOCs released
Avoided+net uptake
Hydrology (gal)
Rainfall Interception
Aesthetics and other benefits
Yard
Public
Total benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public

Costs ($Iyearltree)
Tree & planting
Yard
Public
Pruning
Yard
Public
Remove and dispose
Yard
Public
Pest & disease
Yard
Public
Infrastructure repair
Yard
Public
Clean-Up
Yard
Public
Admin/Inspect/Other
Yard
Public
Total costs
Yard
Public
Total net benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public


taeda).The 40-year average is also shown.
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year20 Year25 Year 30 Year35 Year40 40 Year Avg
RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $

22 2 1 94 881 16 1493 213 1992 249 2328 277 2588 297 27 312 2917 203 1897
12 109 57 532 106 991 152 1423 1 1739 21 2006 236 2204 254 2371 15 1422
24 225 96 899 160 149 209 1949 244 2281 274 256 293 2735 307 2864 201 1876
7 064 32 303 61 5 7 89 831 112 1046 134 1248 151 141 167 1562 94 88

-23 -028 -36 -043 22 026 1 123 165 198 220 264 258 308 287 344 125 149
-66 -079 -306 -367 -468 -56 -481 -576 -45 -55 -416 -498 -374 -447 -331 -397 -363 -434
-36 -044 -48 -057 26 031 119 142 187 224 245 293 283 339 312 374 136 163
29 035 121 145 219 263 311 372 374 448 426 5 1 459 548 481 575 302 362

201 1 82 908 839 1,620 15 19 2,236 21 15 2,658 2526 2,991 2851 3,223 3078 3,411 3261 2,156 2046
50 03 264 166 593 431 1,042 847 1,403 1189 1,731 1508 1,986 1756 2,207 1974 1,160 987
205 182 915 842 1,622 1521 2,206 2091 2,630 2506 2,986 2853 3,212 3074 3,379 3238 2,144 2038
98 099 446 449 830 833 1,200 1203 1,495 1495 1,762 1758 1,971 1961 2,154 2138 1,244 1242

32 024 149 1 12 271 203 382 287 462 346 527 395 575 432 618 463 377 283
12 009 66 0 5 140 1 05 230 1 73 302 226 367 275 418 3 14 465 349 250 1 88
33 025 150 1 13 271 203 378 284 457 343 526 394 573 43 613 46 375 281
17 0 13 83 062 160 1 178 299 224 355 266 400 3 442 331 249 1 87

003 003 0 13 013 025 027 04 041 053 055 066 069 078 081 0 094 046 048
005 005 02 021 036 038 051 053 062 065 072 075 08 083 0 87 09 52 54
0 14 0 18 06 077 1 05 1 34 1 43 1 84 171 22 1 96 251 213 2 28 292 141 1 81
001 001 008 006 018 014 032 024 046 035 06 045 073 056 086 065 041 031
001 0 0 0 0 0 11 016 013 02 0 15 022 016 024 017 026 011 0 16
-0 01 -0 02 02 02 -0-4 -0 1 5 -2 22 -3 26 -4 83 -5 68 -841 -876 -1298 -125 -1853 -4 01 -595
023 027 1 04 1 22 1 52 1 64 1 27 097 02 -0 88 -1 59 -378 -4 15 -78 -742 -1285 -1 11 -265

861 0521 5071 3071 1,1851 7 171 2,0981 1271 3,0481 18441 4,1121 24881 5,1771 31 321 6,3131 38191 2,8161 1704

S1311 21 03 2648 3009 3234 3357 3403 2397
1 23 1465 2349 2957 3361 36 12 375 3801 | 2677

395 2691 470 64 1 763 859 92 19 9661 61 64
228 1955 35 5034 61 8 71 26 7779 8259 50 1
395 2695 4709 6389 761 8591 92 14 9634 6155
3 14 2404 41 570 6835 7746 8363 8804 5544


F__4
- 30

0 19
463

398
249

030
000

0 10
1 02

005
047

000
081

4462
3941


-4234
-4067
3628


029


226
1 41

031
000

0 10
1 05






041

301



1654
2394
1736


027
3 17

341
2 13

045
000

0 15
1 52

007
071

000
1 22

436
875


3084
M4271
4273
33 07


281

057



0 19
1 91

009





089







4689


0265


550






022









674


6963

6940
5700


I 024
273

7864










463









7811
78 13
6508


022
7258

735
459

080
000

027
267

0 12
1 24

000
2 13

876
1322


6903
8338
7041


021




513

084



281

013
131

000



1393


7293
8667
7411


R 375

| 0251
1 3 17



S44510
1 2801






1 76






1 41


1431


3963
51 07
41 13













Appendix 5: Cost/benefit table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Commu-


nity Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006)


Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative small broadleaf tree
(dogwood, Cornus florida). The 40-year average is also shown.


Benefitsltree
Cooling (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Heating (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net Energy (kWh)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Net C02 (Ib)
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public
Air Pollution (Ib)
03 uptake
N02 uptake+avoided
S02 uptake+avoided
PM10 uptake+avoided
VOCs avoided
BVOCs released
Avoided+net uptake
Hydrology (gal)
Rainfall Interception
Aesthetics and other benefits
Yard
Public
Total benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public

Costs ($1yearltree)
Tree & planting
Yard
Public
Pruning
Yard
Public
Remove and dispose
Yard
Public
Pest & disease
Yard
Public
Infrastructure repair
Yard
Public
Clean-Up
Yard
Public
Admin/Inspect/Other
Yard
Public
Total costs
Yard
Public
Total net benefits
Yard west
Yard south
Yard east
Public


F


Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year30 Year 35 Year 40 40 Year Avg
RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $

32 296 63 59 83 773 100 938 109 102 116 1082 119 1108 121 1125 93 867
18 1 67 36 338 49 456 60 562 66 6 14 70 653 72 669 73 68 55 517
36 337 71 662 92 861 111 1039 120 1123 126 1181 129 1203 130 1215 102 952
16 1 54 32 302 43 399 52 485 56 526 59 5 54 61 565 61 572 48 445

36 043 66 0 79 86 1 03 105 1 25 114 1 37 122 1 46 125 1 49 127 1 52 98 1 17
31 037 44 053 48 058 51 062 51 061 48 058 46 0 55 43 0 52 45 054
23 028 47 056 66 079 83 099 92 1 1 100 1 2 104 125 107 128 78 093
66 079 123 148 157 188 188 225 202 2 212 254 215 258 217 26 173 207

353 339 697 668 915 877 1,109 1064 1,206 11 56 1,280 1227 1,311 1258 1,332 1277 1,025 983|
2101 204 407 3 91 537 5 14 653 623 708 675 747 7 11 763 724 772 733 6001 572


384 364 755 718 987 939 1,195 1138 1,294 1233 1,364 13 1,392 1327 1,408 1344 1,097 1045
231 233 447 45 584 587 707 7 1 765 768 805 8 08 821 8 23 830 8 32 649 6 51

58 044 111 083 142 1 07 170 1 28 183 1 37 192 1 44 195 1 46 197 1 47 160 1 17
39 029 72 054 91 068 109 081 116 087 120 09 121 091 122 091 99 074
63 047 119 09 152 1 14 182 1 37 196 1 47 204 1 53 206 1 55 208 1 56 166 1 25
41 031 76 0 57 96 072 113 085 121 091 125 094 126 095 126 095 103 077

005 005 01 011 014 0 14 0 17 018 02 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 0 17 018
008 008 015 016 02 021 024 025 026 028 028 029 0 29 03 029 031 0 22 0 23
022 028 043 055 056 072 069 088 074 096 079 101 081 1 03 082 1 05 063 081
002 002 0 06 005 011 009 017 013 018 013 0 18 0 14 0 18 0 14 0 18 0 14 0 14 0 1
002 003 003 005 004 007 005 008 006 009 006 009 006 009 006 0 1 0 05 0 07
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
038 045 078 091 1 06 1 23 1 33 1 53 1 45 1 66 1 54 1 77 1 58 1 82 1 62 1 86 1 22 1 4

S2091 1 261 4181 2531 5691 3441 7201 4361 8261 4991 9311 5631 1,0141 6 131 1,0971 6631 7231 4 37


253 1 89 1 54 1 29 1 1 096 085 075 1
283 2 11 1 72 1 44 1 24 1 08 094 0083 1 52


807 1285 1604 1909 207 2208 2284 2349 18 15

836 1341 1674 1992 21 56 229 2362 24 1884
7 18 1062 1297 1528 164 1749 1808 18 14


401
30



0 19
463

224
1 40




0 17
000

006
057

003
027

000
046

4268
3732

3461
36 11
3432
30 14


526
635

233
1 45

031
000

010
1 04

005
048

000
083

804
1015


399
M800
870
282


501
605

273
1 70

1035
L000

0 12
1 16

005
1 054

000
093


1039





4 89


1477
576

307|
1 92

S0371
S0001

0 12|
1 24|

S0061
S0581

S0001
S0991




139
700
13 17
599


452







000

013







791 29





149

791
700


428
5 17

363
227

039
000

0 13


006
061

000
1 05


1042





766I


404









0 13









849
1029

1501

1575
831


S3491
1 523

261
1 65

031


010
1 0001


1 04

005
1 049

S0001
084

11956
1362


204
728
097


1 14|










1036
729000
1091
422085
S0041
S0401

S0001
S0681

S2501
S6401



1091




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EKBFH37QN_4NA9H4 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-20T21:03:11Z PACKAGE UF00102038_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

Urban Forest Planning: A revised process using technology and concept development to develop structure and function By: Fremont LatimerMLA Candidate A project presented to the graduate school of the University of Florida in partial ful llment of the requirements for the degree of master of landscape architecture Commitee Chair: Lester Linscott Member: Glenn Acomb March, 2010

PAGE 2

AcknowledgmentsI wanted to thank the City of Fernandina Beach for their interest in managing the urban forest; my advisors Les Linscott and Glenn Acomb for generously sharing their time and expertise; my family for their constant support; and to my wife for listening to me talk, ad nauseam, about trees.

PAGE 3

Table of Contents page List of Figures ......................................................................................... 5 Abstract .................................................................................................. 6 Section 1: Developing a Process Introduction.................................................................................... 8 e Practice of Urban Forestry ....................................................... 9 Bene ts of Trees............................................................................. 10 Quantifying Bene ts with i-Tree Streets........................................... 11 Typical Planning Process................................................................ 12 A Revised Method of Planning........................................................ 15 e Visioning Process...................................................................... 16 Section 2: Applying the Revised Planning Process to Street Trees in the Historic District of Fernandina Beach, FL Introduction.................................................................................... 21 Designing for Analysis..................................................................... 22 Annual Costs and Bene ts of Tree Species Common in Coastal Plain Communities............................................................. 23 Analysis of Existing Forest Canopy Cover.......................................................................... 26 Land Use................................................................................. 27 Structure.................................................................................. 28 Costs & Bene ts...................................................................... 29 Discussion............................................................................... 30 Alternative Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Schematic Planting Plan.......................................................... 32 Canopy Cover.......................................................................... 333 Structure.................................................................................. 34 Costs & Bene ts...................................................................... 35 Discussion............................................................................... 36

PAGE 4

page Alternative Strategy 2: A Wind Resistant Canopy Schematic Planting Plan.......................................................... 38 Canopy Cover.......................................................................... 39 Structure.................................................................................. 40 Costs & Bene ts...................................................................... 41 Discussion............................................................................... 42 Alternative Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Schematic Planting Plan.......................................................... 44 Canopy Cover.......................................................................... 45 Structure.................................................................................. 46 Costs & Bene ts...................................................................... 47 Discussion............................................................................... 48 Summary Comparison Design..................................................................................... 50 Canopy Cover.......................................................................... 51 Structure.................................................................................. 52 Costs & Bene ts...................................................................... 53 Discussion............................................................................... 54 Limitations & Conclusion....................................................... 56 Works Cited ........................................................................................... 58 Appendices Appendix 1: List of Species by Category as De ned in i-Tree Streets...... 59 Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Bene t Table for Quercus virginiana......... 60 Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Bene t Table for Magnolia grandi ora...... 61 Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Bene t Table for Pinus taeda..................... 62 Appendix 2: Complete Cost/Bene t Table for Cornus orida................ 63

PAGE 5

5 List of FiguresFigure page 1-1 Typical process model................................................................................ 13 1-2 Revised process model............................................................................... 18 2-1 Regional context of site location................................................................ 21 2-2 Boundary of historic district..................................................................... 21 2-3 Costs & bene ts of various tree species over a 40 year period.................... 23 2-4 Existing canopy & street tree inventory..................................................... 26 2-5 Generalized land use map.......................................................................... 27 2-6 Structural analysis of existing forest........................................................... 28 2-7 Cost analysis of existing forest................................................................... 29 2-8 Bene t analysis of existing forest............................................................... 29 2-9 Maximize canopy coverage: schematic plan............................................... 32 2-10 Maximize canopy coverage: canopy coverage analysis................................ 33 2-11 Maximize canopy coverage: structural analysis........................................... 34 2-12 Maximize canopy coverage: annual cost analysis........................................ 35 2-13 Maximize canopy coverage: annual bene t analysis................................... 35 2-14 Maximize canopy coverage: sample strategy for residential block (1)......... 36 2-15 Maximize canopy coverage: sample strategy for residential block (2)......... 36 2-16 Wind resistant canopy: schematic plan...................................................... 38 2-17 Wind resistant canopy: canopy coverage analysis....................................... 39 2-18 Wind resistant canopy: structural analysis................................................. 40 2-19 Wind resistant canopy: annual cost analysis............................................... 41 2-20 Wind resistant canopy: annual bene t analysis.......................................... 41 2-21 Wind resistant canopy: sample strategy for residential block...................... 42 2-22 Economic opportunity: schematic plan..................................................... 44 2-23 Economic opportunity: canopy coverage analysis...................................... 45 2-24 Economic opportunity: structural analysis................................................. 46 2-25 Economic opportunity: annual cost analysis.............................................. 47 2-26 Economic opportunity: annual bene t analysis......................................... 47 2-27 Economic opportunity: sample strategy for residential block (1)............... 48 2-28 Economic opportunity: sample strategy for residential block (2)............... 48 2-29 Comparison: schematic plans.................................................................... 50 2-30 Comparison: canopy cover........................................................................ 51 2-31 Comparison: structural analysis................................................................ 52 2-32 Comparison: cost & bene t analysis.......................................................... 53 2-33 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a residential block..................................... 55 2-34 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a commercial block................................... 55

PAGE 6

6 e intent of this thesis is to develop a process for planning the urban forest that can be used by landscape architects, urban foresters and communities as an aid in visioning, concept development and concept analysis. By utilizing this process communities will be better able to understand their available options and the implications of their management decisions. e rst step in developing the process was dening the core mission of urban forestry management and understanding how the typical planning process endeavors to achieve that mission. In researching the topic it became apparent that the current planning model does not take full advantage of recent research and analysis tools that measure the bene ts of the urban forest. e second step was to revise the existing planning model to take advantage of these tools. An additonal step of visioning was included in the process. Visioning is a process that is commonly used in design professions where conceptual strategies are developed and compared so that the most appropriate strategy can be chosen. In designing the urban forest, analysis tools can be applied to these strategies to predict the relative bene ts and costs of each. e third step was to test the process by applying it to a case study. ree strategies were developed for the street trees in the historic district of Fernandina Beach, FL. A schematic design was created for each strategy that was analyzed using i-Tree Streets. e analysis included a detailed breakdown of predicted bene ts, costs and composition/structure. e nal step was to consolidate the analyses into a single side-by-side report so that the results could be compared and easily communicated. Abstract

PAGE 7

7

PAGE 8

8 e urban forest is the most identi able green space in urban environments. It is a ubiquitous presence along every street and throughout parks and green spaces. e urban forest is of equal importance with architecture in forming the character and beauty of a city. e Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris would not be dramatic without rows of clipped chestnuts lining its length. e French Quarter of New Orleans would not be romantic without the spanish moss hanging from the outstretched branches of live oaks. Beyond its aesthetic qualities the urban forest is a critical component of the urban green infrastructure. It provides services that are necessary for the basic function of the city and maintaining the health of its population. ese services have a concrete value that should be considered in the management and investment of the urban forest. In nature a forest develops over time through a complex interaction of climate, soils, organisms and cycles of change; eventually forming an ecosystem that is relatively stable and self sustaining. In an urban environment the natural processes that create these ecosystems are modi ed, suppressed or entirely absent. Change happens more quickly, more often and on a greater scale than it does in a natural setting. e result is that the form of the urban forest is determined by human activity. In the absence of a management plan it is largely designed by accident. With long term planning and management the urban forest can be shaped to aid the inhabitants and replicate many of the important natural processes. e goal is to create a designed ecosystem that functions sustainably in terms of environmental, economic and social need. Individual trees that make up the forest will die and be replaced, but the overall function will be maintained. Sustainability is a balancing act that maximizes the ecological and social bene ts of the forest while minimizing the associated costs. is paper is intended to provide a process that will aid in the planning of a sustainable urban forest. In the past decade research has made great strides in understanding the bene ts of the urban forest. Large cities such as Chicago, IL and Modesto, CA have developed comprehensive programs to monitor the structure and function of the urban forest and manage their stock accordingly. (Maco & McPherson, 2003) For small cities it is a greater challenge as they do not have the capabilities or sta of their larger neighbors. is has changed with the introduction of technologies that provide a level of detailed analysis that once required a large and dedicated planning sta . However, this capability alone does not ensure a management plan will take full advantage of the bene ts the forest has to o er. Urban forest management planning typically follows a process that inventories and analyzes the existing conditions. Goals are established based Introduction

PAGE 9

9 upon the analysis. ese goals then serve as the framework for creating a management plan. e typical process doesnt develop concepts, it proceeds directly into management planning. For most situations there is no single. ere are a variety of solutions that might be appropriate. e planning process should be designed to include the the development of conceps thereby allowing the community to choose a most appropriate option. I have developed a process that utilizes analysis tools to assist in design by predicting the function, economic impact and management needs. e analysis can be run on a variety of strategies allowing for a side by side comparison of the costs and bene ts and drawback of each. e Practice of Urban ForestryAs our society and environment becomes more urban there is an increasing demand for inclusion of the natural within the urban fabric. Urban tree programs were rst introduced in America in the early 19th century. ese programs primarily focused on improving the aesthetics of the city and providing shaded areas. While there was concern for individual trees, the collection of trees in an urban environment werent studied as a collective forest. In the mid 1960s the practitioners began to apply knowledge of forestry and arboriculture to the urban environment (Matheny & Clark, 2008). is mixture of disciplines gave rise to the unique eld of urban forestry. e urban forester strives to maximize the bene ts of the forests while providing a safe and healthy environment for the residents. e urban forest is made up of all the trees on both private and public lands that grow within a community, but the focus of urban forestry is often on public trees as management options on private land are limited due to property owners rights. e core mission of urban forestry is well summarized in the introduction to the rst National Urban Forestry Conference in 1978 delivered by the mayor of Savannah, GA, John Rousakis.  e time has come for urban communities to stop seeing the trees and start looking at the forest. I say this because the comprehensive environmental bene tsƒcan only be achieved through a forest management program. ey cannot be achieved through tree management programs designed solely to protect trees for anaesthetic or historic purpose. If municipalities are to have effective municipal forest programs that will provide the maximum public bene ts, they must reorder their thinking. ey should establish the improvement of the urban environment as the primary goal of such programsƒ is means that we in municipalities must identify the qualities in the urban environment we wish to attain through our urban forestry programs, and then design these programs to attain these qualitiesŽ (Matheny & Clark, 2008) Since Mayor Rousakis gave this speech our understanding of the bene ts provided by the forest has advanced considerably. As our understanding of these bene ts grows we must adapt our management and planning to take advantage of them.

PAGE 10

10 ere are a host of bene ts provided by the urban forest, both tangible and intangible. A large body of research exists on the subject. e focus of this report is on those bene ts for which there is a method of quantifying value: energy, air quality, stormwater and aesthetics/social. Energy: e largest tangible impact is in energy usage as trees can reduce heating and cooling budgets of buildings. On a large scale trees can buffer the urban heat island e ect resulting in temperatures that are 5°F-9°F lower than if the site was bare of trees (Akbari, Davis, Huang, & Winnett, 1992). On a site scale trees work as a windbreak lessening heat loss through air in ltration and heat conduction (Miller, 1988) e saving in cooling costs can be as much as 34% in warm climates depending upon tree placement (McPherson, et al., 2006). Air Quality: Trees can have an e ect on air quality. With global climate change in the news much attention has been given to trees ability to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2). Trees reduce CO2 in two ways; by absorption into leaves and stems and in avoided energy consumption in buildings. In 2005 American Forests conducted a study of Jacksonville, FL where they estimated the forest covers approximately 32% of 125,000 acres and stores a total of 1.7 million tons of CO2. In addition to CO2 trees absorb nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Tree canopies also trap particulate matter in the air such as dust and smoke. rough photosynthesis trees release oxygen into the atmosphere. Trees can have a negative e ect on air quality as they release biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs). ese gasses can contribute to the formation of ozone (O3), a greenhouse gas. (McPherson, et al., 2006) Stormwater: Urban runo has become a serious issue as impervious surfaces become larger, the runo velocity becomes more intense and carries a larger pollutant load into streams, rivers and lakes. New legislation that is pending approval will drastically limit the amount of runo allowed to exit a site. is will require new solutions and trees are a necessary part of the equation. A tree reduces runo in several ways. e canopy intercepts rainfall that would otherwise enter the stormwater system. Tree roots create airspaces within the soil that allow for faster percolation to the water table and through the process of transpiration trees absorb water that is conducted through the stem and released as vapor through the leaves. Aesthetic and social bene ts: e presence of trees provides identity and character to an area. Studies have shown that the urban forest can reduce mental fatigue and have a positive e ect on health, well-being and community (Kaplan, 2004). More tangibly, properties that are treed have increased value in the range of 3%-7% (McPherson, et al., 2006). In a time where municipal budgets are shrinking, this represents a large increase in taxable value. Landscaping and trees have also been Bene ts of Trees

PAGE 11

11 shown to increase consumers willingness to pay for retail goods. Kathleen Wolfs research has shown that a well maintained landscape with large trees can result in consumers willingness to pay 9%12% more for retail goods. (Wolf, 2005) Quantifying Bene tsIn order to plan the urban forest to harness its potential bene ts its necessary to gain an understanding of how those bene ts are produced and a method of quantifying them. Calculating the bene ts of a single tree is a time consuming and expensive procedure. Measurements must be taken of the canopy, leaf area and woody volume. e location of the tree has to be considered in relation to paved surfaces and buildings. e climate and environmental context of the tree has to be analyzed. Once the bene ts are quanti ed they have to be cross referenced with local commodity prices in order for a value to be calculated. Analyzing a large population of trees one by one is impractical. e next best solution is to model the forest based upon an analysis of representative individuals. e USDA Forest Service in cooperation with the Davey Tree Company, e National Arbor Day Foundation, e Society of Municipal Arborists and e International Society of Arboriculture developed a program called i-Tree that assists communities in analyzing the value of their urban forest. e research behind the program was compiled from academics and private practitioners across the country. I-Tree is a software suite that contains a number of programs that can be used in analysis. i-Tree Streets was formerly called STRATUM (Street Tree Resource Analysis for Urban Forest Managers). e only information required to run the model is species identi cation and diameter at breast height (dbh). Growth models were created for species within speci c climate zones that then model the structure and value of the entire forest. e process is outlined on the i-Tree tools website: When you import a project into STRATUM you are asked to choose your climate zone. e STRATUM program uses data speci c to each zone to model the costs and bene ts of trees. In order to calculate tree-related bene ts for your city, STRATUM must know what species are most likely to be found in your region, how big the trees are expected to grow, how quickly they will reach mature size and what leaf area they will have. ese factors vary by location due to di erences in growing conditions, management practices, climate, and soils. Nineteen regional tree-growth zones, based on aggregation of climate zones from Sunsets National Garden Book (Eyre 1997), have been identi ed for the nation. Cities within a zone are assumed to have similar species of trees with similar growth and size traits. e Center for Urban Forest Research (CUFR) has completed eight regions and work is underway in three additional regions. e regional tree data are based on measurements from a Reference City (STRATUM Climate Zones Map). Approximately 800 trees

PAGE 12

12 are randomly sampled„40 trees of each of the 20 most common species. For each species, ve to ten trees from each diameter at breast height (dbh) size class are measured for dbh, tree height, crown diameter, crown shape, and tree condition. Planting dates are determined from city records and other local sources. Crown volume and leaf area are estimated from computer processing of tree-crown images taken with a digital camera. is method has shown greater accuracy for open-grown trees than other techniques (±20% of actual leaf area)1. Regression analyses are used to determine regionally speci c growth curves, so that the tree-related bene ts can be estimated for each year of a trees life. (USDA Forest Service) Planning is the critical rst step in the creation of a functioning urban forest. e planning process can be complex as it requires the input of multiple user groups and an understanding of a variety of disciplines such as arboriculture, construction, landscape architecture and tra c engineering. A model for planning the urban forest has been proposed by Robert Miller and adopted by the International Society of Arboriculture. e planning process is structured around four basic questions: 1. What do we have? (Inventories) 2. What do we want? (Management Goals) 3. How do we get what we want? (Management plans) 4. How can we improve on what we have done? (Feedback) Inventories: is is the portion of the process that describes the existing situation. e area of forest that is to be managed is de ned and becomes the planning unit. e unit can be de ned to include all of the trees in the area, only the public trees, just street trees or park trees or trees on a spe-Typical Planning Processci c property. An inventory of the vegetation resource is then compiled that usually includes at a minimum; species identi cation and size. Most inventories gather additional information such as condition and maintenance requirements. Some understanding of public attitudes needs to be gathered. ese conversations can be with City sta and decision makers or with the public at large and can range from informal conversations to detailed survey techniques. Agents of change should be identi ed that may impact the forest in the future. Miller separates these agents into three categories: biotic, public and private. Biotic factors are those caused by the environment such as pests, diseases and hurricanes. Public factors include the legal instruments around trees such as codes and ordinances. Departmental organization and responsibilities should also be considered. Private factors are the human factors that e ect the forest that are outside of government control. Examples are land developers, public organizations and business associations.

PAGE 13

13Fig. 1-1 Adapted from Miller, 1988Typical Process Model (Miller, 1988) Management Goals: e goal setting process begins with an analysis of the data gathered during the inventory phase. It is becoming increasingly common for the analysis to be a complex breakdown of bene ts and structure such as that provided by i-Tree Streets combined with geographic information system (GIS) to assist in maintenance planning. Based upon the analysis, goals are established that are usually broken into time periods ranging from annual goals to overall goals that look 40 to 50 years into the future. A good management plan will organize the short and intermediate term goals that are incremental to the overall or long term goals. Most goals fall into one of three categories: increasing bene ts, reducing cost or reducing risks. Goals that aim to increase bene ts are usually concerned with increasing the amount of vegeta-

PAGE 14

14 tion. For large areas there will typically be a goal of increasing canopy cover. When planning for street trees the goal will often be to increase stocking density,. is refers to the percentage of available planting spots that are planted with trees. Increasing canopy cover and stocking density have the same intent, to increase the amount of vegetative material with the logic being that more vegetation equals more bene ts. Decreasing costs is usually related to maintenance costs. is can be achieved by operational changes such as changing the ratio of work that is contracted out versus the amount performed by public works. More e ective goals are those that are preventative such as choosing species that require less maintenance and following a right tree, right placeŽ philosophy. Reducing risk applies to the risk of harm to people, property and the risk of widespread damage to the forest. Reducing the risk to people and property is e ected by maintenance and inspection practices as well as species selection and design. Reducing the risk to the forest requires knowledge of the agents of change and using this knowledge accordingly. One of the most common ways to reduce risk to the forest is to increase species diversity so that no more than 10% of the forest is from one species, 20% from one genus and 30% from one family. is lessens the impact if a species is decimated by disease or pest like the American elm was by dutch elm disease in the mid-twentieth century. Management Plans: e actual management plan is a document that outlines the speci c actions to be taken to achieve the goals and objectives set during the goal setting process. Each action plan de nes a task, who is responsible for administering that task, how the task should be done and the deadline for completion. Management plans often include details such as best management practices (BMPs), speci cations and budgets. (Matheny & Clark, 2008) Feedback: Feedback is the ongoing evaluation of the program to measure its success in meeting goals and revising the goals themselves to meet the changing needs of the environment the community and its residents. A schedule is also set to reinventory the forest peridoically so progress can be measured over time.

PAGE 15

15A Revised Method of Planning the Urban ForestThe use of technology with programs like iTree and GIS have vastly increased the capabilities of communities to analyze the urban forests. The results of this analysis helps decision makers to enter the goal making phase of the process with a solid understanding of how the forest is structured and the costs and bene Þ ts associated with that structure. This type of analysis has also generated a broader awareness of the positive impact that the forest can have on a community. As a result there is increased demand for proper management and planning that takes advantage of the bene Þ ts the forest has to offer. Where technology has not been utilized is in the goal setting and design phase of the planning process. There have been attempts to simplify the process using on-line resources. Urban Forestry South Expo developed a web site that has a number of menus with lists of common goals and concerns that the user ranks from most important to least important. The results are then compiled into a list of prioritized goals. Approaches such as this, while useful, do little to inform the user about the end result. The goals do not allow the end user to envision the end result of following a given set of goals nor to weigh the possibility of using an alternate set of goals. Particularly for those who aren’t trained in forestry or landscape architecture there is a tendency to set goals based upon what one desires in individual trees and not in the forest as whole. In the design profession there is an intermediate step in the planning process called visioning that takes place after the analysis and before the creation of the Þ nal plan. Visioning involves the development of schematic plans that convey critical information to the client. These plans are created based upons individual goals and a Þ nal best concept can be developed from those. These plans should communicate in a manner that is easily understood and that allows the client to be more involved in the process, thus leading the client to a more informed decision. . Short, intermediate and long term goals can be set. This creates a unity of effort as each goal is designed to meet a single vision.

PAGE 16

16 e Visioning Process e visioning process must become an integral part of the urban forest planning process. e intent is to predict problems or concerns following the inventory and analysis phase that might not come to light until the management plan was evaluated in the feedback phase of the process. e visioning process involves the creation of alternate concepts and applying technology and research to analyze and compare the concepts. ere are four steps to the process: 1. Propose strategies to be evaluated (Alternative Strategies) 2. Evaluate structure and function of each strategy (Schematic Design) 3. Comparatively analyze the strategies (Comparison) 4. Determine a best strategy or combination of strategies?(Evaluation) Alternative Strategies: Once the inventories and analysis are complete the community should be able to identify the goals that are most pressing for their community and forest. By prioritizing these goals di erently they can develop a variety of strategies. For example a community may identify their primary goals as increasing canopy cover and reducing the risk of wind throw. By changing the priority of these goals there might be a much different end result. See the following example: Strategy 1 1. Goal: Increase canopy cover Design: Plant as many broad canopy trees as can t along streets and in parks. Conduct routine pruning to promote strong branching and single leader. 2. Goal: Reduce risk of trees uprooting during storm events Design: Use construction methods that allow for root growth where space is constricted. Install support systems in high risk trees. Conduct routine reduction pruning of trees prone to wind throw. Strategy 2 1. Goal: Reduce risk of trees uprooting during storm events Design: In areas with limited rooting space only plant small trees or shrubs. Conduct routine reduction pruning of all trees in proximity to high value targets. 2. Goal: Increase canopy cover over urban areas Design: Plant tree with the largest canopy given the available rooting space. Both of these strategies are legitimate, but they will produce a much di erent result when implemented. In the rst strategy there will be a high percentage of large shade trees that will provide cover and ecosystem services. But, there is a potential for con ict as trees with extensive root zones may be planted in close proximity to infrastructure

PAGE 17

17 resulting in higher maintenance and construction costs. In the second strategy the canopy cover will be reduced and there will be less con ict with infrastructure. But, there will be an increased cost for pruning and maintenance. Schematic Design: e schematic design is not a detailed planting plan that speci es the location and species of each tree. Instead, the schematic design models a mature forest in enough detail so that the character and structure of the forest can be communicated graphically and the inventory produced from the design can be used to create a reasonable estimate of bene ts and costs. e detail of the design will largely be determined by the method of analysis, particularly if the analysis is done using software such as i-Tree Streets. For every strategy a plan will need to be designed in order to meet the goals of that strategy. For example; to meet the goal of increasing canopy cover over roads one might place large broadleaf trees 50 ft. on center along roads in residential zones, 100 ft. on center in industrial zones and small trees 40 ft. on center in commercial zones. Regardless of the goal the design should be based upon a working knowledge of the growth habit, required rooting space and the performance of the type of tree being used. Design Analysis: is analysis is critical to the report as it is the vehicle that communicates the predicted impact the design will have upon the community. At a minimum the analysis should contain a cost/bene t analysis, canopy cover estimation and a graphic depicting character and aesthetics. Summary Comparison: e analysis of the alternate strategies should be condensed into a single analysis that easily conveys the information in a side by side comparison. is allows the information to be quickly consumed by the layman and allows for informed input by the public and decision makers regarding what they may or may not prefer. Feedback: e summary comparison allows decision makers and the public to intelligently weigh their options and to see the mechanics of how their forest functions. eir input should be gathered for consideration. Evaluation: Based upon the feedback by the public and decision makers the design alternatives can be assessed for what works, and what doesnt. e design can then be reworked and analyzed until a satisfactory solution is found. is then forms the nal framework that will serve as the basis for goal setting and the management plan.

PAGE 18

18 Fig. 1-2Revised Process Model

PAGE 19

19

PAGE 20

20Applying the Revised Planning Process to Street Trees in the Historic District of Fernandina Beach, FL

PAGE 21

21 is report implements the visioning process for street trees in the historic district of Fernandina Beach, FL using data gathered in an inventory conducted from July to September of 2009. 7,000 trees were examined along rights of way and in public parks and facilities. e inventory includes all trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 5 inches or greater and a minimum height of 6 ft. Fernandina Beach is located on a barrier island in the Atlantic Ocean just south of the Georgia border. e historic district is located on the west side of the City along the intracoastal waterway. e district has an urban core dominated by retail and institutional use. e surrounding area Introduction is predominately single family homes. A large part of the citys economy is derived from tourism in the historic district, especially in the commercial core. is case study applies the revised planning model to the point that it is ready for presentation to the public and decision makers to receive feedback. e forest was analyzed based upon existing conditions. ree strategies were developed along with a corresponding schematic planting plan. iTree Streets was used to analyze structure and function. e rst strategy maximizes canopy cover, the second creates a wind resistant forest and the third maximizes economic opportunities.Fig. 2-1 Above: Regional context of site location. photo courtesy of Google Earth Fig. 2-2 Right: Boundary of historic district Historic District

PAGE 22

22Designing for Analysis e schematic designs were formatted speci cally for analysis using i-Tree Streets. e species and sizes were generalized into categories to aid in comparison and to allow for exibility during the management planning and implementation phases of the process. Species: i-Tree Streets divides species into four categories: broadleaf evergreen, broadleaf deciduous, conifer and palm. ese categories are further divided into large, medium and small. ere is some variability in the bene ts and costs for speci c species within a given category. e bene ts were calculated using the generic species selection within i-Tree that represents a species that falls near the average of all species in a category. Size: e dbh of the trees are grouped into 8 categories: 0-6ÂŽ, 6-12ÂŽ, 12-18ÂŽ, 18-24ÂŽ, 24-30ÂŽ, 30-36ÂŽ, 36-42ÂŽ, >42ÂŽ. e number of trees in each category was based upon a size pro le of a representative species derived from the 2009 inventory. For example, all of the trees that fall into the broadleaf, evergreen large category will have the same distribution of sizes as the existing live oak. Bene ts and Costs: e attached tables are summaries of the i-Tree calculations for annual bene ts and costs associated with a single tree in a public area in a coastal plain community. e data indicates that bene ts are strongly associated with size. A large broadleaf tree such as live oak (Quercus virginiana) will average $120 in bene ts per year over 40 years, whereas a medium broadleaf such as southern magnolia (Magnolia grandi ora) will produce an average of $37 per year over 40 years. Costs are more closely associated with tree type than with size. e largest cost over the life time of a tree is pruning and both large and medium broadleaf trees will require aerial pruning as they approach their mature size. Conifers and small trees tend to require much less in the way of maintenance and associated cost. Fernandina Beach had no records indicating their current breakdown of maintenance costs. Estimated costs were calculated from surveys with municipal foresters in Jacksonville, FL, Savannah, GA and Charleston, SC. For the case study a at cost was applied to each tree based upon the 40 year average. (McPherson, et al., 2006) e Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide that contains the published research behind i-Tree Streets did not include data on palm trees, but the program does calculate the bene ts. Costs were unknown so the costs for small broad leaf trees were used instead. ese may be under-estimated as palms are commonly pruned annually or biannually.

PAGE 23

23 Costs & bene ts of various tree species over a 40 year periodFig. 2-3 produced using data from Coatal Plain Community Tree Guide (Mcpherson, et al, 2006)

PAGE 24

24

PAGE 25

25Analysis: e Existing Forest

PAGE 26

26 Fig.2-4

PAGE 27

27 Fig. 2-5

PAGE 28

28 e existing forest is planted with landscape trees typical for the climate with sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) as the most common tree making up 40% of the total trees, crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) 10%, canary island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) 9% and live oak 7%. Species location is strongly related to land use with smaller trees and palms most common in the commercial core and canopy trees in the residential areas. e commercial core is largely made of impervious surfaces with frequent tree wells measuring approximately 3.5x3.5 and occasional large tree islands. e tree wells are most frequently planted with sabal palm (Sabal palmetto), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) and occasionally with east palatka holly (Ilex x attenuata East Palatka) e tree wells have limited rooting space and medium broadleaf trees such as the east palatka struggle to survive. e islands are most frequently planted with live oak (Quercus virginiana) and bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana). e trees in islands are generally doing well and provide much of the character and canopy cover for the commercial core. e planting zone in the residential district consists of areas both with and without sidewalks and there is a signi cant presence of overhead utilities. e sidewalks do not seem to impede root growth as trees in areas without sidewalks are in similar condition to trees in areas with sidewalks. e majority of the canopy cover for the area is created by large canopy trees located on private land. e largest portion of the total tree count, 60%, is composed of palm trees and small broadleafs. But they contribute very little to the over all canopy accounting for only 21% of the total leaf area and 33% of total canopy cover. Conversely, large deciduous and evergreen broadleafs make up 16% of the tree count, 59% of the total leaf area and 44% of the total canopy cover. Fernandina Beach Existing Forest Structural Analysis Species Number of Trees % of Total TreesLeaf Area (ft2) % of Total Leaf Area Canopy Cover (ft2) % of Total Canopy Cover Palm Evergreen Medium31540.44127,592.4012.3677,436.3814.66 Broadleaf Deciduous Small8510.9112,000.011.1626,089.274.94 Palm Evergreen Large678.6076,142.147.3872,504.6813.73 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium658.34100,678.679.7550,611.309.58 Broadleaf Deciduous Large638.09326,606.5831.64112,948.4221.38 Broadleaf Evergreen Large607.70286,708.6727.77120,423.3622.80 Palm Evergreen Small354.499,037.790.886,344.121.20 Broadleaf Evergreen Small324.116,957.490.677,515.561.42 Broadleaf Deciduous Medium212.7048,566.714.7030,661.785.80 Conifer Evergreen Large202.5727,903.432.7016,091.383.05 Conifer Evergreen Medium162.0510,147.530.987,607.421.44 Other trees00.000.000.000.000.00 Total779100.001,032,341.43100.00528,233.66100.00 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other trees Conifer Evergreen Medium Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Small Palm Evergreen Small Broadleaf Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Evergreen Medium 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (%)DBH ClassRelative Age Distribution (%) Palm Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Small Palm Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Small Broadleaf Evergreen Small Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Conifer Evergreen Large Citywide total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Total Trees% of Total Leaf Area % of Total Canopy Cover Other trees Conifer Evergreen Medium Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Small Palm Evergreen Small Broadleaf Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Small Palm Evergreen Medium Designing for AnalysisFig. 2-6 Structural analysis of existing forest

PAGE 29

29 Fernandina Beach Existing Forest Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species SpeciesEnergyCO2 Air Quality Storm water Aesthetic/ OtherTotal ($) % of Total $ Palm Evergreen Medium1,509.87146.6247.051,856.73703.404,263.6711.03 Broadleaf Deciduous Small515.4764.2278.42345.93260.561,264.603.27 Palm Evergreen Large1,255.41110.65133.271,417.871,009.973,927.1610.16 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium887.17156.5349.821,327.441,686.074,107.0210.62 Broadleaf Deciduous Large1,827.50269.49295.842,780.155,348.3810,521.3627.22 Broadleaf Evergreen Large1,796.43341.96 172.233,470.233,772.159,208.5423.82 Palm Evergreen Small120.0210.144.83141.870.20277.060.72 Broadleaf Evergreen Small138.2234.1926.23139.23277.96615.831.59 Broadleaf Deciduous Medium524.2880.4286.36585.38819.822,096.275.42 Conifer Evergreen Large295.2657.98 18.00391.73983.961,710.944.43 Conifer Evergreen Medium140.9838.5624.26165.49295.86665.141.72 Other street trees0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Citywide total9,010.601,310.76555.8312,622.0415,158.3438,657.57100.00 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 Total Annual Benefits by Category Aesthetic/Other Storm water Air Quality CO2 Energy Fernandina Beach ExistingCosts by Tree Category Species Number of Trees Tree & PlantingPruning Remove & Dispose Infrastructure RepairClean up Admin, Inspection, OtherIrrigation Avg. Annual Cost/TreeTotal % of Total Trees % of Total Cost Palm Evergreen Medium3151,181.251,647.45519.75327.60154.35264.60192.1513.624,287.1540.44%35.42% Broadleaf Deciduous Small85318.75444.55140.2588.4041.6571.4051.8513.621,156.8510.91%9.56% Palm Evergreen Large67251.25350.41110.5569.6832.8356.2840.8713.62911.878.60%7.53% Broadleaf Evergreen Medium65243.75243.75339.95107.2567.6031.8554.6017.891,088.758.34%8.99% Broadleaf Deciduous Large63236.25647.01223.65140.4965.52112.1438.4323.241,463.498.09%12.09% Broadleaf Evergreen Large60225.00616.20213.00133.8062.40106.8036.6023.241,393.807.70%11.51% Palm Evergreen Small35131.25183.0557.7536.4017.1529.4021.3513.62476.354.49%3.94% Broadleaf Evergreen Small32120.00167.3652.8033.2815.6826.8819.5213.62435.524.11%3.60% Broadleaf Deciduous Medium2178.75168.8447.6729.8213.8623.9412.8117.89375.692.70%3.10% Conifer Evergreen Large2075.0063.4056.0035.2016.4028.2012.2014.31286.402.57%2.37% Conifer Evergreen Medium1660.0050.7244.8028.1613.1222.569.7614.31229.122.05%1.89% Other trees00.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.310.000.00%0.00% Total7792,921.254,582.741,806.171,030.08500.56774.05490.14 12,104.99 100100 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 Annual Cost by Category Fig. 2-7 Above: Annual cost analysis of existing forest Fig. 2-8 Right: Annual bene Þ t analysis of existing forest e existing forest is currently providing an annual bene t of $38, 657 and incurring an annual cost of $12,104 for a net annual bene t of $26,552. By far the largest bene t is in aesthetic/ other as trees provide an increase in property values. e large evergreen and deciduous broadleafs provide the largest bene t in every category accounting for 40% of all the bene ts. e bene ts received from storm water are of particular importance to this area as heavy rainfall and ooding are frequent problems. Costs are relatively low due to the small number of large trees to prune. But pruning is still the largest expenditure at 37.8% of the estimated annual budget. e Existing Forest: Costs & Bene ts

PAGE 30

30

PAGE 31

31Alternative Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover

PAGE 32

32 Fig. 2-9

PAGE 33

33 Fig. 2-10

PAGE 34

34 e primary goal of this plan is to produce as much canopy cover and leaf area as possible. Bene ts are directly related to these two factors so this plan should nd the upper limit of what is possible in regards to bene ts. e tree with the largest possible canopy was chosen for any given rooting space. In the retail core there was minimal increase in canopy cover as the tree wells and islands were already planted with the largest possible stock given the limited rooting space. In the residential areas there was a signi cant change as there were abundant planting spaces with ample rooting space. Along all of the residential streets large deciduous and evergreen broadleaf trees were planted 50 feet on center. is spacing allowed the canopy of each tree to grow to its largest extent. Evergreen trees were given preference over deciduous trees as they transpire year round. However, for large trees there is only one evergreen species that grows in this area, live oak. To allow for diversity planting of large evergreen broadleafs were limited to 11.4% of the overall tree count. is strategy results in a total of 71% of the total tree count being large broadleaf trees, However there are a large number of large deciduous broadleaf trees that can be chosen so diversity can be maintained while following this strategy. e overall tree count is nearly identical to the existing forest with 779 trees in the existing forest and 772 in this strategy. Canopy cover was increased by 200% and leaf areas by 250% over the existing forest. However, this design does not take overhead utility lines into account. In implementation smaller trees would have to be located in those areas, but the strategy of planting the largest possible tree is still feasible.Maximizing Canopy Cover: StructureFig. 2-11 Structural analysis Fernandina Beach Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Structural Analysis Species Number of Trees % of Total TreesLeaf Area (ft2) % of Total Leaf Area Canopy Cover (ft2) % of Total Canopy Cover Broadleaf Deciduous Large46059.592,062,937.1480.21752,835.5071.80 Broadleaf Evergreen Large8811.40309,921.3512.05148,292.0014.14 Palm Evergreen Medium678.6827,186.681.0616,488.321.57 Palm Evergreen Large658.4273,869.252.8771,293.576.80 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium354.5351,924.352.0225,788.482.46 Broadleaf Evergreen Small283.6313,568.720.5312,119.801.16 Conifer Evergreen Large162.0719,864.810.7712,664.741.21 Conifer Evergreen Medium101.308,790.410.346,281.310.60 Other trees30.393,965.510.152,746.580.26 Total772100.002,572,028.21100.001,048,510.29100.00 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other trees Conifer Evergreen Medium Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Small Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Medium 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (%)DBH ClassRelative Age Distribution (%) Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Small Conifer Evergreen Large Conifer Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Citywide total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Total Trees% of Total Leaf Area % of Total Canopy Cover Other trees Conifer Evergreen Medium Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Small Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Large

PAGE 35

35Fig. xxxxxxx is strategy results in an annual bene t of $95,892 and incurs an annual cost of $15,906 for a net annual bene t of $79,986. is is a 200% increase in net bene ts over the existing forest. e increase of bene ts is not even with energy increasing 90%, CO2 100%, air quality … 280%, storm water … 100% and aesthetic/other … 218%. Large evergreen and deciduous broadleafs account for 90% of all bene ts. Costs only increased by 31% with the largest increase being in pruning and administration/ inspection as the larger trees pose a greater risk and will require more maintenance and monitoring. Maximizing Canopy Cover: Costs & Bene ts Fernandina Beach Strategy 1: Maximum Canopy Cover Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species SpeciesEnergyCO2 Air Quality Storm water Aesthetic/ OtherTotal ($) % of Total $ Broadleaf Deciduous Large12,497.001,894.162,007.1118,078.8939,228.1573,705.3176.86 Broadleaf Evergreen Large2,327.55488.01 119.633,993.055,874.6812,563.6713.10 Palm Evergreen Medium322.1630.199.67395.5497.69855.240.89 Palm Evergreen Large1,235.29108.38131.991,387.00798.623,661.273.82 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium449.4976.2724.33680.41859.652,090.162.18 Broadleaf Evergreen Small225.3246.7942.39243.48325.21883.190.92 Conifer Evergreen Large233.4846.18 8.73296.06789.701,356.691.41 Conifer Evergreen Medium112.9833.6119.35139.78212.08517.800.54 Other street trees50.2710.088.0550.68140.06259.140.27 Citywide total17,453.542,733.672,114.5325,264.8948,325.8495,892.47100.00 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 Total Annual Benefits by Category Aesthetic/Other Storm water Air Quality CO2 Energy Fernandina Beach Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy CoverCosts by Tree Category Species Number of Trees Tree & PlantingPruning Remove & Dispose Infrastructure RepairClean up Admin, Inspection, OtherIrrigation Avg. Annual Cost/TreeTotal % of Total Trees % of Total Cost Broadleaf Deciduous Large4601,725.004,724.201,633.001,025.80478.40818.80280.6023.2410,685.8059.59%67.18% Broadleaf Evergreen Large88330.00903.76312.40196.2491.52156.6453.6823.242,044.2411.40%12.85% Palm Evergreen Medium67251.25350.41110.5569.6832.8356.2840.8713.62911.878.68%5.73% Palm Evergreen Large65243.75339.95107.2567.6031.8554.6039.6513.62884.658.42%5.56% Broadleaf Evergreen Medium35131.25281.4079.4549.7023.1039.9021.3517.89626.154.53%3.94% Broadleaf Evergreen Small28105.00146.4446.2029.1213.7223.5217.0813.62381.083.63%2.40% Conifer Evergreen Large1660.0050.7244.8028.1613.1222.569.7614.31229.122.07%1.44% Conifer Evergreen Medium1037.5031.7028.0017.608.2014.106.1014.31143.201.30%0.90% Other trees00.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.310.000.00%0.00% Total7722,883.756,828.582,361. 651,483.90692.741,186.40469.09 15,906.11 100%100% 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 7,000.00 Annual Cost by Category Fig. 2-12 Above: Annual cost analysis Fig. 2-13 Right: Annual bene Þ t analysis

PAGE 36

36 Maximizing Canopy Cover: DiscussionFig. 2-14 Sample strategy for a residential block Fig. 2-15 Sample strategy for a residential block is strategy requires the use of the largest appropriate tree for a given site. Constraints such as power lines, hardscape or rooting space limit the size of tree that should be planted on the site. In these situations a smaller tree can be planted or the site can be altered to remove the constraint. A common example is burying power lines to remove the risk of con ict with large trees. Solutions have been found for many of the most common constraints allowing for larger trees with greater bene ts to be planted. 1. Trees are widely spaced according to their predicted canopy spread. Trees will develop open branching canopies that will maximize the amount of canopy cover 2. A number of species develop large canopies. Variety is necessary to maintain diversity, but the growth characteristics and morphology of each species should be evaluated for its compatibility with the site. 1. Large canopy tree require large rooting space. Planting the tree on the far side of sidewalks allows the roots to grow unimpeded. 2. Where sidewalks and roots con ict an alternate paving material such as porous pavers can be used. 3. If power lines impede overhead growth it is best to simply plant a smaller tree. When a tree is too large the pruning around power lines is expensive and typically destroys the integrity of the tree 4. Where a large tree cannot be planted along the right-of-way, the city could partner with homeowners to plant canopy tree set back on private property.

PAGE 37

37Alternative Strategy 2: A Wind Resistant Canopy

PAGE 38

38 Fig. 2-16

PAGE 39

39 Fig. 2-17

PAGE 40

40 Hurricanes and high wind storms are frequent events on the Florida coast. is design is intended to limit the damage caused by storms, particularly up rooting and wind throw. e University of Florida IFAS Extension stresses two key factors in designing a wind resistant urban forest: (Gilman & Partin, 2007) 1. Select species according to available soil volume 2. Plant trees in groups rather than in isolation is design groups trees together in clusters of four or more and uses a variety of di erently sized trees to provide layers of canopy. Trees were clustered close to existing canopy on private lands to increase the e ect of grouping. In locations where trees are not in groups only small broadleafs and palms were used. ese trees are less likely to overturn. In the event that they do overturn they pose less of a risk to people and property. Where rooting space is limited, particularly in the commercial core, smaller trees were chosen. Tree wells were planted with palms or small broadleafs and tree islands with medium broadleafs.. is strategy resulted in the greatest diversity as a wide variety of tree types were used. ere were signi cantly more trees, 1,123, using this strategy than currently exist in the forest, 779. Canopy cover was increased by 96% and leaf area by 103% over the existing forest. A Wind Resistant Canopy: Structure Fernandina Beach Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Forest Structural Analysis Species Number of Trees % of Total TreesLeaf Area (ft2) % of Total Leaf Area Canopy Cover (ft2) % of Total Canopy Cover Broadleaf Evergreen Medium21318.97312,694.8914.90155,963.2215.08 Broadleaf Deciduous Large21118.79983,771.1746.87348,860.9033.73 Broadleaf Deciduous Medium17815.85327,973.2315.63210,267.5020.33 Broadleaf Deciduous Small13612.1123,505.801.1250,333.664.87 Broadleaf Evergreen Small13612.1110,667.890.5119,895.501.92 Palm Evergreen Medium675.9727,186.681.3016,488.321.59 Palm Evergreen Large655.7973,869.253.5271,293.576.89 Broadleaf Evergreen Large585.16269,354.9412.83116,419.6011.26 Conifer Evergreen Large484.2763,723.283.0440,093.933.88Other trees110.986,024.230.294,658.340.45 Total1,123100.002,098,771.36100.001,034,274.54100.00 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other trees Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Small Broadleaf Deciduous Small Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (%)DBH ClassRelative Age Distribution (%) Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Small Broadleaf Evergreen Small Palm Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Conifer Evergreen Large Conifer Evergreen Medium Citywide total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Total Trees% of Total Leaf Area % of Total Canopy Cover Other trees Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Small Broadleaf Deciduous Small Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Fig. 2-18 Structural analysis

PAGE 41

41 is strategy results in an annual bene t of $84,682 and incurs an annual cost of $19,429 for a net annual bene t of $65,252. is is a 145% increase in net bene ts over the existing forest. e increase of bene ts is uneven across categories, with energy increasing 95%, CO2 114%, air quality … 236%, sv … 87% and aesthetic/other … 155%. Costs increased by 60% due to the fact that there are an additional 344 trees that will require maintenance. is strategy could require additional pruning as trees are clustered closely together resulting in canopies that could con ict with each other.A Wind Resistant Canopy: Costs & Bene ts Fernandina Beach Strategy 2: Wind Resistant ForestCosts by Tree Category Species Number of Trees Tree & PlantingPruning Remove & Dispose Infrastructure RepairClean up Admin, Inspection, OtherIrrigation Avg. Annual Cost/TreeTotal % of Total Trees % of Total Cost Broadleaf Evergreen Medium213798.751,712.52483.51302.46140.58242.82129.9317.893,810.5718.97%19.61% Broadleaf Deciduous Large211791.252,166.97749.05470.53219.44375.58128.7123.244,901.5318.79%25.23% Broadleaf Deciduous Medium178667.501,431.12404.06252.76117.48202.92108.5817.893,184.4215.85%16.39% Broadleaf Deciduous Small136510.00711.28224.40141.4466.64114.2482.9613.621,850.9612.11%9.53% Broadleaf Evergreen Small136510.00711.28224.40141.4466.64114.2482.9613.621,850.9612.11%9.53% Palm Evergreen Medium67251.25350.41110.5569.6832.8356.2840.8713.62911.875.97%4.69% Palm Evergreen Large65243.75339.95107.2567.6031.8554.6039.6513.62884.655.79%4.55% Broadleaf Evergreen Large58217.50595.66205.90129.3460.32103.2435.3823.241,347.345.16%6.93% Conifer Evergreen Large48180.00152.16134.4084.4839.3667.6829.2814.31687.364.27%3.54% Other trees1141.2588.4424.9715.627.2612.546.7114.31196.790.98%1.01% Total1,1234,170.008,171.352, 643.521,659.73775.141,331.60678.3219,429.66 100%100% 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 7,000.00 8,000.00 9,000.00 Annual Cost by Category Fernandina Beach Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Forest Average Annual Benefits of Public Trees by Species SpeciesEnergyCO2 Air Quality Storm water Aesthetic/ OtherTotal ($) % of Total $ Broadleaf Evergreen Medium2,724.37471.68149.444,106.275,335.4312,787.1915.10 Broadleaf Deciduous Large5,744.27848.72925.068,484.2017,310.1233,312.3839.34 Broadleaf Deciduous Medium3,648.72624.47597.083,990.647,466.2716,327.1919.28 Broadleaf Deciduous Small991.93119.55150.89669.37359.022,290.752.71 Broadleaf Evergreen Small367.3898.5570.27306.80914.291,757.282.08 Palm Evergreen Medium322.1630.199.67395.5497.69855.241.01 Palm Evergreen Large1,235.29108.38131.991,387.00798.623,661.274.32 Broadleaf Evergreen Large1,758.58341.58 149.553,304.163,741.358,996.1210.62 Conifer Evergreen Large739.86146.26 29.76943.342,477.664,277.365.05 Other street trees86.9622.7815.0199.91192.67417.330.49 Citywide total17,619.512,812.161,870.1023,687.2238,693.1284,682.11100.00 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Total Annual Benefits by Category Aesthetic/Other Storm water Air Quality CO2 Energy Fig. 2-19 Above: Annual cost analysis Fig. 2-20 Right: Annual bene Þ t analysis

PAGE 42

42A Wind Resistant Canopy: DiscussionFor a tree to remain upright in a storm the strength of the root sytem holding the tree in place must be greater than the force of the wind pushing against the canopy. A good design develops strong root systems and disperses the force of the wind upon the canopy. ere 1. Grouping trees of together disperses the force of the wind upon any one tree. Layering with di erent heights of canopy prevents the wind from lling large canopies from below and lifting them out of the ground like umbrellas. 2. Sites that have limited rooting space or are isolated should be planted with smaller trees that are less prone to windthrow 3. Groupings can also be formed by planting trees near established canopy on private property. is can allow large trees to be planted on sites where there is insu cient room to plant an entire grouping within the right-of-way. are some basic strategies that can be utilized to achieve this. But the nal selection of planting sites and species should be based upon an understanding of the available rooting space, the surrounding canopy, probable winds and failure rates of tree species. Fig. 2-21 Sample strategy for a residential block

PAGE 43

43Alternative Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity

PAGE 44

44 Fig. 2-22

PAGE 45

45 Fig. 2-23

PAGE 46

46 is is the most subjective of the three alternatives as it is largely driven by visual preference and aesthetic quality. e goal is to promote economic opportunity by enhancing the atmosphere for consumers in the commercial core and improving the overall experience for tourists visiting the historic district. e design is based largely upon Kathleen Wolfs research on the consumer response to the urban forest. She found that certain characteristics elicit positive responses that can result in a willingness of customers to extend shopping time and pay 9%-12% more for retail goods (Wolf, 2005). e most preferred characteristics are: 1. Well tended big trees 2. Ordered, rhythmic design 3. Landscaping that creates a sense of identity e commercial core is designed with large trees planted on all tree islands with evenly spaced small broadleafs and palms along all of the streets. To achieve the design a number of tree wells would need to be installed, especially along the streets running North/ South. Plantings were mirrored on both sides of the street to enhance the sense of rhythym and order. dium broadleafs. e large broad leaf trees are spaced closely together at 40 ft on center to promote upward growth forming an allee. e medium broad leaf trees are evenly spaced to create rythym and order. is strategy requires careful selection of species and routine maintenance to achieve results. e overall tree count is 1035 trees, 263 more trees than the existing forest. Canopy cover was increased by 114% and leaf area by 131% over the existing forest. is design does not take overhead utility lines into account. In implementation smaller trees would have to be located in those areas. In these areas species selection will be critical to maintain an ordered appearance.Economic Opportunity: Structure Fernandina Beach Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Structural Analysis Species Number of Trees % of Total TreesLeaf Area (ft2) % of Total Leaf Area Canopy Cover (ft2) % of Total Canopy Cover Broadleaf Deciduous Large 23322.511,087,460.0745.41386,180.1734.11 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium16616.04245,621.8410.26122,516.5610.82 Broadleaf Deciduous Medium13312.85231,444.689.66148,519.7313.12 Broadleaf Evergreen Large13012.56530,771.1122.16239,796.0721.18 Conifer Evergreen Large989.47136,874.145.7283,622.067.39 Palm Evergreen Large969.28109,099.194.56105,034.139.28 Palm Evergreen Medium959.1838,548.281.6123,378.952.06 Broadleaf Evergreen Small373.572,871.880.125,375.220.47 Broadleaf Deciduous Small 363.486,145.400.2613,174.761.16 Conifer Evergreen Medium 111.066,024.230.254,658.340.41 Other trees00.000.000.000.000.00 Total1,035100.002,394,860.82100.001,132,256.00100.00 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other trees Conifer Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Small Broadleaf Evergreen Small Palm Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Medium 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (%)DBH ClassRelative Age Distribution of Tree Species (%) Palm Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Small Palm Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Palm Evergreen Small Broadleaf Evergreen Small Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Conifer Evergreen Large Citywide total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of Total Trees% of Total Leaf Area % of Total Canopy Cover Other trees Conifer Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Small Broadleaf Evergreen Small Palm Evergreen Medium Palm Evergreen Large Conifer Evergreen Large Broadleaf Evergreen Large Broadleaf Deciduous Medium Broadleaf Evergreen Medium Broadleaf Deciduous Large Fig. 2-24 Structural analysis

PAGE 47

47Economic Opportunity: Costs & Bene ts is strategy results in an annual bene t of $84,682 and incurrs an annual cost of $19,429 for a net annual bene t of $65,252. is is a 145% increase in net bene ts over the existing forest. e increase of bene ts is not even across categories with energy increasing 95%, CO2 114%, air quality … 236%, stormwater … 87% and aesthetic/ other … 155%. Costs increased by 60% over the existing forest. is strategy may incur higher costs and accrue higher bene ts than estimated with i-Tree Streets. e program does not account for the value of designing for consumer reponse or the additional cost of cultivating a well maintained appearance. Fernandina Beach Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species SpeciesEnergyCO2 Air Quality Storm water Aesthetic/ OtherTotal ($) % of Total $ Broadleaf Deciduous Large6,360.52939.911,024.199,385.9819,161.7736,872.3738.83 Broadleaf Evergreen Medium2,139.89370.74117.383,225.604,167.3710,020.9810.55 Broadleaf Deciduous Medium2,581.40446.63422.152,817.715,487.2711,755.1612.38 Broadleaf Evergreen Large3,686.34742.18 256.616,649.418,527.4519,348.7820.38 Conifer Evergreen Large1,533.40303.07 73.551,994.385,096.238,853.529.32 Palm Evergreen Large1,819.93159.62194.062,045.371,184.445,403.425.69 Palm Evergreen Medium456.8442.7913.71560.84136.771,210.941.28 Broadleaf Evergreen Small99.2526.6418.9982.80247.50475.180.50 Broadleaf Deciduous Small259.7031.5039.50175.1796.54602.410.63 Conifer Evergreen Medium86.9622.7815.0199.91192.67417.330.44 Other street trees0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Citywide total19,024.233,085.861,514.8327,037.1644,298.0094,960.09100.00 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 Total Annual Benefits by Category Aesthetic/Other Storm water Air Quality CO2 Energy Fernandina Beach Strategy 3: EconomicCosts by Tree Category Species Number of Trees Tree & PlantingPruning Remove & Dispose Infrastructure RepairClean up Admin, Inspection, OtherIrrigation Avg. Annual Cost/TreeTotal % of Total Trees % of Total Cost Broadleaf Deciduous Large233873.752,392.91827.15519.59242.32414.74142.1323.245,412.5922.51%28.58% Broadleaf Evergreen Medium166622.501,334.64376.82235.72109.56189.24101.2617.892,969.7416.04%15.68% Broadleaf Deciduous Medium133498.751,069.32301.91188.8687.78151.6281.1317.892,379.3712.85%12.57% Broadleaf Evergreen Large130487.501,335.10461.50289.90135.20231.4079.3023.243,019.9012.56%15.95% Conifer Evergreen Large98367.50310.66274.40172.4880.36138.1859.7814.311,403.369.47%7.41% Palm Evergreen Large96360.00502.08158.4099.8447.0480.6458.5613.621,306.569.28%6.90% Palm Evergreen Medium95356.25496.85156.7598.8046.5579.8057.9513.621,292.959.18%6.83% Broadleaf Evergreen Small37138.75193.5161.0538.4818.1331.0822.5713.62503.573.57%2.66% Broadleaf Deciduous Small36135.00188.2859.4037.4417.6430.2421.9613.62489.963.48%2.59% Conifer Evergreen Medium1141.2534.8730.8019.369.0215.516.7114.31157.521.06%0.83% Other trees00.000.000.000.000.000.000.0014.310.000.00%0.00% Total1,0353,881.257,858.222,708. 181,700.47793.601,362.45631.35 18,935.52 100%100% 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 7,000.00 8,000.00 Annual Cost by Category Fig. 2-25 Above: Annual cost analysis Fig. 2-26 Right: Annual bene Þ t analysis

PAGE 48

48Economic Opportunity: Discussion1. An allee is formed by planting large trees close together to force their growth habit up. As the branches reach for sunlight they will close over the road creating the look of the classic south. 2. e even spacing of the trees establishes rhythm and order to the design. e urban forest is a critical component to both the historic character and mild environment of the area and a major draw for tourism. Designing to enhance the tourist experience can result in a secondary economic bene t beyond those calculated in the i-Tree analysis. Implementing this strategy requires a design that develops an aesthetic which reinforces a sense-ofplace. e historic, cultural and environmental context of the city are important considerations. 1. Using a single species uni es the design end ensures consistent growth habit. Di erent streets or blocks may each be planted with a species, this can maintain diversity and assist in way nding. 2. In an allee wide branching trees may enclose the street entirely where upright trees leave room for sunlight. e species selection and maintenance practices should be designed to meet the desired visual e ect. 3. e growth of the trees can be in uenced by pruning the tree early on. Developing a single leader creates a strong tree and promotes upward growth to form the allee.Fig.2-27 Sample strategy for a residential block Fig.2-28 Sample strategy for a residential block

PAGE 49

49Summary Comparison

PAGE 50

50 Comparison: DesignAll three of these strategies would be appropriate for the historic district of Fernandina Beach. e strategies employ basic design principles based upon goals tailored to the Citys environment and economy. e implementation of any of these strategies would require taking these schematics to the next level of speci city; selecting species and identifying planting locations. It is easy to be consumed by the minutiae of design and referring back to these schematic designs can help preserve a focus on the overall goals.Fig. 2-29

PAGE 51

51 Comparison: Canopy CoverIt is important to examine the overall context of the urban forest. is planning exercise focuses only on the public street trees in the area, but a majority of the forest is on private lands. To maintain overall function its necessary to monitor the health and structure of the forest as a whole.Fig. 2-30

PAGE 52

52 Examining the three strategies side by side reveals key di erences in structure. For example, the relationship between the number of trees and canopy cover is not linear. Canopy cover is heavily dependant upon species selection. e existing forest and strategy 1 have nearly the same amount of trees, yet strategy 1 has two and a half times the amount of leaf area and twice the amount of canopy cover. But, following such a strategy limits the number of species that will t the given pro le.Comparison: StructureEach of these strategies has strengths and weaknesses and any one of them is valid. Understanding how these strategies will impact the composition of the forest will help the public and the City decide which strategy or combination of strategies they would like to follow. Forest Structure SummaryNumber of TreesLeaf Area (ft2) Canopy Cover (ft2) Existing Forest7791,032,341.43528,233.66608%638%658%213%324%8511%203%162%679%31540%354%00% Strategy 1: Ma x 7722,572,028.211,048,510.298811%46060%355%00%284%00%162%101%658%679%00%30% Strategy 2: Win d 1,1232,098,771.361,034,274.54586%21119%21319%17816%13612%13612%484%00%656%676%00%111% Strategy 3: Eco n 1,0352,394,860.821,132,256.0013012%23321%16615%13312%373%363%989%111%969%958%00%00% CELCEMPELPEMPESOTHER BELBDLBEMBDMBESBDS 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Existing ForestStrategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic OpportunityTotal Number of TreesAlternative StrategiesStructure of Forest by Category PES PEM PEL CEM CEL BDS BES BDM BEM BDL BEL 2 , 500 , 000.00 3,000,000.00 Structure of Forest by Canopy Cover and Leaf Area 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Existing ForestStrategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic OpportunityTotal Number of TreesAlternative StrategiesStructure of Forest by Category PES PEM PEL CEM CEL BDS BES BDM BEM BDL BEL Canopy Cover (ft2) Leaf Area (ft2) 0.00 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 Existing ForestStrategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic OpportunitySquare FeetAlternative StrategiesStructure of Forest by Canopy Cover and Leaf Area Fig. 2-29 Comparison of structural analysis

PAGE 53

53Comparison: Costs & Bene ts A n n u a l F o r e s t B e n e f i t s / C o s t s S u m m a r y CostBenefit Net benefits Existing Forest 12,104.9938,657.5726,552.58 Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover 15,906.1195,892.4779,986.36 Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy 19,429.6684,682.1165,252.45 Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity 18,935.5294,960.0976,024.57 A n n u a l F o r e s t B e n e f i t s S u m m a r y EnergyCO2Air QualityStorm water Aesthetic/ OtherTotal Existing Forest9,010.601,310.76555.8312,622.0415,158.3438,657.57 Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover17,453.542,733.672,114.5325,264.8948,325.8495,892.47 Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy17,619.512,812.161,870. 1023,687.2238,693.1284,682.11 Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity19,024.233,085.861, 514.8327,037.1644,298.0094,960.09 20000020000400006000080000100000 Existing Forest Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Cost Benefit 0.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 60,000.00 80,000.00 100,000.00 Existing Forest Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic Aesthetic/ Other Storm water Air Quality CO2 Energy A n n u a l F o r e s t C o s t s S u m m a r y Tree & PlantingPruning Remove & Dispose Infrastructure RepairClean up Admin, Inspection, OtherIrrigationTotal Existing Forest2,921.254,582.741,806.171,030.08500.56774.05490.1412,104.99 Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover2,883.756,828.582,361.651,483.90692.741,186.40469.0915,906.11 Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy4,170.008,171.352,643.521, 659.73775.141,331.60678.3219,429.66 Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity3,881.257,858.222,708.18 1,700.47793.601,362.45631.3518,935.52 20000020000400006000080000100000 Existing Forest Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Cost Benefit 0.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 60,000.00 80,000.00 100,000.00 Existing Forest Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Aesthetic/ Other Storm water Air Quality CO2 Energy 0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 Existing Forest Strategy 1: Maximize Canopy Cover Strategy 2: Wind Resistant Canopy Strategy 3: Economic Opportunity Irrigation Admin, Inspection, Other Clean up Infrastructure Repair Remove & Dispose Pruning Tree & Planting e ability to quantify the bene ts and costs of the forest is one of the most important innovations in urban forestry. ese numbers can communicate the logic of investing in the urban forest and understanding it as an asset and not a liability. ere is not as much variance between the costs and bene ts as might be expected with only a 19% di erence between the highest net bene ts found in strategy 1 and the lowest net bene ts found in strategy 2. is analysis is limited by i-Tree Streets ability to predict costs and bene ts and can only apply averages. For example, developing a wind resistant forest can result in massive saving if a hurricane does hit. Or developing for economic opportunity may result in an increase in property values. ese considerations should be included in the conversation as they provide an excellent basis for the conversation about how the city wants to manage and invest in their forest.Fig. 2-32 Comparison of structural analysis

PAGE 54

54 ree overall goals were identi ed during the inventory and analysis of Fernandina Beachs urban forest. 1. Maximize the bene t of ecosystem services. 2. Reduce the damage incurred to the forest during a high wind storm. 3. Enhance the cultural and environmental aspects of the forest that encourage tourism and retail spending e strategies outlined in this paper were created by taking each of the overall goals in turn and using each one as a primary driver for form and structure. However, the primary goal was not considered in isolation. Aiming too narrowly at any one goal is folly. For example, a forest that is entirely resistant to wind would have no trees at all. A forest that truly maximizes canopy cover would have oak trees in tree wells where they would soon perish. In deciding which strategy is best it seems that a hybrid approach is most appropriate. Relying on one goal is too limited to develop a sensible strategy, and one strategy is too limited to develop a sensible management plan. e historic district of Fernandina Beach is relatively small in area, but there is enough diversity that the communities needs will di er from area to area e commercial core is the hub of tourist and retail activity. ere is signi cant pedestrian tra c along the core and it is the faceŽ of Fernandina Beach. e most appropriate strategy for this are is to maximize economic opportunity by developing an orderly, well manicured landscape that re ects the character of the city and provides a pleasant climate and experience for visitors. In the residential areas where there is ample rooting space it would be appropriate to maximize the function of the forest by increasing canopy cover. is should be balanced with the knowledge that hurricanes will impact this area. Planting groups of trees can achieve both wind resistance and increase canopy cover. In situations where a tree is isolated a small tree can be planted or a large tree such as bald cypress that has a history of surviving hurricanes could also be planted. e nal strategy should consider the environmental and economic impacts outlined in the analysis and balance them with the speci c needs of the site. e strategies outlined in this report serve as guides that help to maintain a consistent vision. Implementation will require creative solutions and the application of alternative methods to achieve a vision in areas where options are limited due to existing conditions. Comparison: Discussion

PAGE 55

551. Groupings of trees both expand canopy cover and provide wind resistance. Planting these groupings around existing trees on private land will further distribute the wind load. 2. Planting a variety of species increases diversity and reduces the risk of major loss due to disease or pest damage. 3. Where its not possible to plant a canopy tree a site will receive more sun. is is an opportunity to plant groupings of small trees, shrubs and perennials. e level of ecosystem services will be relatively low but the visual impact will be high. 4. Intersections require open sight lines and it may be inappropriate to plant groupings of trees. A large canopy tree can planted in isolation if the species should has a history of survival in hurricanes. 1. Instead of using individual tree wells planting strips can be used that allows for increased root growth. Trees will live longer, require less irrigation and be less likely to up root. 2. Where there is su cient rooting space large trees can be planted for shade and to provide character. 3. e visibility of signage can be maintained with proper pruning that lifts the canopy to the desired height. 4. Plantings on both sides of a sidewalk softens the edges of an urban space and makes the space more inviting.Fig. 2-33 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a residential block Fig. 2-34 Sample of a hybrid strategy for a commercial block

PAGE 56

56 e designs and analyses in this report are only estimations and schematics intended as an aid in developing broad goals and strategies. A number of site speci c details such as the locations of driveways, utilities and signage were not considered in the development of these plans. ere are bene ts of the urban forest that are di cult to quantify and are not analyzed by i-Tree Streets. ese bene ts include: habitat, noise reduction and psychological bene ts. While these do not gure directly into the analysis, they should be a part of the conversation when deciding upon a strategy. e analyses and graphics in this report were produced in Excel using data derived from i-Tree Streets reports. i-Tree has the capability of producing more detailed reports depending upon the detail of the data contained in the inventory. For the purpose of this report the detail was kept at a schematic level. is case study uses i-Tree Streets exclusively, but there are a number of programs available that can perform structural and functional analyses of the forest that might be better suited to a di erent project. e research and decision in software should be made early as it e ects the inventory process as well as the planning process.Limitations ConclusionTrees are di cult to relate to; they dont speak, they dont show emotion and when trees function it is invisible to the human eye. e natural reaction is to believe that trees dont do anything for us besides the obvious bene ts like visual appeal, providing shade or bearing fruit. In the past, management of the urban forest was often been seen as management of a liability. As our understanding of the bene ts of the forest grows, cities and managers are trying to nd ways to adapt their management and planning of the forest to take advantage of what the forest has to o er. e movement towards planning for bene t has been ongoing for several decades, but its only in recent years that analysis tools have been available that break these bene ts down so we can understand exactly how the forest functions. If we know how the forest functions we should be able to adapt that knowledge to our planning process and to target speci c bene ts and clearly de ned results. To do that we need to adapt our processes and techniques. e revised process proposed in this report will aid in developing a best concept and strategy but it is not a management plan. Taking this document into the management planning and implementation phase requires another level of detail.

PAGE 57

57 Some of the actions that might be necessary include: € Mapping of infrastructure such as utilities and sidewalks. € Mapping of environmental information such as soils and micro-climates € Identi cation and prioritization of planting sites € Reviewing the legal instruments around the forest including codes and ordinances. € Developing a risk management plan € Reviewing maintenance practices and sta training € Budgeting € Reviewing departmental organization Applying this process and taking it into the management planning and implementation phase requires a wide breadth of knowledge and can be overwhelming. Cities that do not sta specialists would bene t from a partnership with consulting professionals such as landscape architects, urban foresters and consulting arborists Landscape Architect : Typically, landscape architects are generalists with a broad scope of knowledge including; design, planning, construction techniques, species selection. ey are trained to develop a sense of place, enhance aesthetics and to create sustainable solutions in the outdoor environment. e broad scope of the profession allows for a holistic understanding of how the social, environmental and economic aspects of the forest interact. e visioning process in this report is adapted from the concept development process commonly employed by landscape architects. Professionals are quali ed by e American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). Knowledge of speci c tree care practices may be limited and there can be an overemphasis on aesthetics. Urban Forester & Consulting Arborists: Trained speci cally in the management of the urban forest. e urban forester has a thorough knowledge of planning, plant material, tree inventories, maintenance practices and preservation techniques. Professionals can be quali ed by e International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). ere may be a tendency to focus on plants rather than the overall vision. (Wolf, 2005) e e ort and expense of planning the urban forest is daunting, but the bene ts of a well planned and managed forest greatly exceed its cost. Reports such as this one can demonstrate the value of the planning process and the return a community can expect from their investment.

PAGE 58

58 Akbari, H., Davis, S., Huang, J., & Winnett, S. (1992). Cooling our Communities: A guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington D.C. Edwards, A. R. (2005). e Sustainability Revolution. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Gilman, E. F., & Partin, T. (2007, September). Urban Design For a Wind Resistant Forest. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from Trees and Hurricanes: http://hort.ifas.u .edu/treesandhurricanes/ Kaplan, S. (2004). Some Hidden bene ts of the Urban Forest. Selected Papers from conference jointly organized by IUFRO, EFI and the Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning in Copenhagen (pp. 221-232). Copenhagen: IUFRO. Maco, S. E., & McPherson, E. G. (2003). A Practical Approach to Assessing Structure, Function and Value of Street Tree Populations in Small Communities. Journal of Arboriculture , 84-97. Matheny, N. P., & Clark, J. R. (2008). Municipal Specialist Certi cation Study Guide. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture. McPherson, G. E., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., Gardner, S. L., Vargas, K. E., Maco, S. E., et al. (2006). Coastal Plain Community Guide. Berkeley: United States Department of Agriculture. Miller, R. W. (1988). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Englewood Cli s, NJ: Prentice-Hall inc. USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). about i-Tree. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from i-Tree: http://www.itreetools. org/about/about.shtm USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). Reference Cities„ e Science Behind STRATUM. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from i-Tree Tools: http://www.itreetools.org/resource_learning_center/elements/Science_Behind_ STRATUM.pdf WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford Community Press. Wiersum, F. K. (1995). 200 Years of Sustainability in Forestry: Lessons from History. Environmental Management , 321-329. Wolf, K. L. (2005). Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response. Journal of Forestry , 396-400.Works Cited

PAGE 59

59Appendix 1: List of Species by Category as de ned in the Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide and in i-Tree Streets S c i e n t i f i c N a m e C o m m o n N a m e S c i e n t i f i c N a m e C o m m o n N a m e Eucalyptus salignaSydney blue gumCinnamomum camphoraCamphor tree Persea borboniaRedbayEucalyptus cinereaSilver dollar eucalyptus Quercus virginianaLive oakIlex opaca x attenuata 'Savannah'Savannah holly Broadleaf Evergreen Large OtherBroadleaf Evergreen Large OtherMagnolia grandifloraSouthern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem'Little gem southern magnolia S c i e n t i f i c N a m e C o m m o n N a m e Podocarpus macrophyllusYew podocarpus Acer rubrumRed maplePrunus carolinianaCarolina laurelcherry Acer saccharinumSilver mapleQuercus hemisphaericaDarlington oak Acer saccharumSugar mapleBroadleaf Evergreen Medium OtherBroadleaf Evergreen Medium Other Aesculus glabraOhio buckeye Carya speciesHickoryS S c i e n t i f i c N a m e C o m m o n N a m e Carya cordiformisBitternut hickoryAcer buergeranumTrident maple Carya glabraPignut hickoryAcer negundoBoxelder Carya illinoensisPecanAcer rubrum 'October glory'October glory red maple Carya tomentosaMockernut hickoryBetula nigraRiver birch Fraxinus americanaWhite ashBroussonetia papyriferaPaper mulberry Fraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen ashCatalpa bignonioidesSouthern catalpa Ginkgo bilobaGinkgoCarpinus carolinianaAmerican hornbeam Gleditsia triacanthosHoneylocustCladrastis kentukeaYellowwood Juglans nigraBlack walnutDiospyros virginianaCommon persimmon Liquidambar styracifluaSweetgumFirmiana simplexChinese parasoltree Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip treeKoelreuteria bipinnataChinese flame tree Nyssa sylvaticaBlack tupeloMelia azedarachChinaberry Platanus hybridaLondon planetreeMorus rubraRed mulberry Platanus acerifolia 'Bloodgood'London planetree 'Bloodgood'Pistacia chinensisChinese pistache Platanus occidentalisAmerican sycamorePyrus calleryanaCallery pear Populus albaWhite poplarPyrus calleryana 'Bradford'Bradford pear Populus deltoidesEastern cottonwoodPyrus communisCommon pear Prunus serotinaBlack cherryQuercus acutissimaSawtooth oak Quercus speciesOakQuercus laevisTurkey oak Quercus albaWhite oakRobinia pseudoacaciaBlack locust Quercus coccineaScarlet oakSalix speciesWillow Quercus falcataSouthern red oakSalix matsudana 'Tortuosa'Corkscrew willow Quercus laurifoliaLaurel oakSalix nigraBlack willow Quercus michauxiiSwamp chestnut oakSalix babylonicaWisconsin weeping willow Quercus nigraWater oakTilia cordataLittleleaf linden Quercus palustrisPin oakSapium sebiferumTallowtree Quercus phellosWillow oakUlmus alataWinged elm Quercus rubraNorthern red oakUlmus parvifoliaChinese elm Quercus shumardiiShumard oakUlmus parvifolia 'Drake'Drake Chinese elm Quercus stellataPost oakUlmus parvifolia 'Emer II'Emer II/Emerald Vase Chinese elm Quercus velutinaBlack oakUlmus pumilaSiberian elm Sassafras albidumSassafrasBroadleaf Deciduous Medium OtherBroadleaf Deciduous Medium Other Tilia americanaAmerican basswood Ulmus americanaAmerican elm Ulmus rubraSlippery elm Ulmus speciesElm Zelkova serrataJapanese zelkova Broadleaf Deciduous Large OtherBroadleaf Deciduous Large Other B r o a d l e a f E v e r g r e e n L a r g e B r o a d l e a f D e c i d u o u s L a r g e B r o a d l e a f E v e r g r e e n M e d i u m B r o a d l e a f D e c i d u o u s M e d i um

PAGE 60

60Appendix 2: Cost/bene t table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006) Benefits/tree RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ Cooling (kWh) Yard: west898.3222120.6130928.8538636.0143140.2846643.4948445.1647043.9135733.33Yard: south545.0514713.721620.1328326.4132530.3635833.4637735.238335.7626825.01Yard: east979.0323021.5231929.7839436.8243940.9746843.7248245.0246643.5536233.8Public393.661009.3314513.519217.9522320.8524923.2526424.6627625.818617.38Heating (kWh) Yard: west-25-0.3220.27810.971271.521551.861641.9716722182.611141.36Yard: south-181-2.16-550-6.58-740-8.87-857-10.26-912-10.93-941-11.27-946-11.33-774-9.27-738-8.83Yard: east-68-0.81-18-0.21400.48911.091231.481461.751601.912282.73881.05Public1451.733414.084675.595636.746167.376487.766617.916647.955136.14Net Energy (kWh) Yard: west8658.012,22920.873,17029.823,98337.534,46942.144,82145.465,00347.164,92046.523,68334.69Yard: south3602.889177.121,41511.261,97116.142,33919.442,64222.192,82323.873,05526.491,94016.18Yard: east8998.212,28621.33,22930.264,03337.94,51042.444,82845.474,98146.944,89246.283,70734.85Public5375.391,34013.411,91219.092,48524.692,84828.223,13731.013,30232.573,42733.762,37323.52Net CO2 (lb) Yard: west1761.324273.215954.467325.58176.138716.549006.758896.676765.07Yard: south1100.822591.943712.784763.575464.15944.466234.676534.894543.41Yard: east1811.364363.276044.537415.558236.178736.548976.738856.636805.1Public1280.963002.254163.125203.95864.46324.746574.936765.074893.67Air Pollution (lb) O3 uptake0.150.150.40.420.620.640.840.881.011.061.191.241.331.391.471.530.880.91NO2 uptake+avoided0.210.220.530.550.760.790.981.021.121.161.231.281.31.351.321.380.930.97SO2 uptake+avoided0.60.771.51.932.132.742.723.493.083.953.364.313.514.513.54.52.553.27PM10 uptake+avoided0.050.040.160.120.310.240.520.390.720.540.910.691.10.841.270.970.630.48VOCs avoided0.050.070.120.170.160.240.210.310.240.350.260.380.270.40.270.40.20.29BVOCs released0.06-0.09-0.28-0.41-0.82-1.21-1.95-2.89-3.55-5.26-5.61-8.32-8.15-12.08-11.15-16.53-3.95-5.85Avoided+net uptake0.981.152.432.783.173.443.323.22.621.811.33-0.42-0.64-3.6-3.32-7.761.240.08Hydrology (gal) Rainfall Interception8365.062,30913.973,64422.055,22631.626,46039.087,86247.579,02054.5710,23561.925,69934.48 Aesthetics and other benefits Yard 1.1922.4938.952.7764.2473.4780.685.7952.43 Public 1.3325.1243.4558.9471.7582.0690.0395.8258.56 Total benefits Yard: west 16.7363.3298.67130.62153.4172.61185.49193.13126.75 Yard: south 11.148.378.43107.3128.67147.26160.12171.34106.57 Yard: east 16.9763.8199.18131.04153.75172.63185.24192.87126.94 Public 13.8957.5391.14122.34145.26164.95178.5188.81120.3Costs ($/year/tree) Tree & planting Yard 40 5 Public 30 3.75 Pruning Yard 0.195.505.265.014.7715.3014.4813.657.63 Public 4.636.646.356.055.7620.0418.9617.8810.27 Remove and dispose Yard 3.983.584.795.826.727.518.248.905.62 Public 2.492.243.003.644.204.705.155.563.55 Pest & disease Yard 0.300.500.640.740.810.860.890.910.67 Public 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Infrastructure repair Yard 0.100.170.210.250.270.290.300.300.22 Public 1.021.672.142.472.712.882.993.052.23 Clean-Up Yard 0.050.080.100.110.130.130.140.140.10 Public 0.470.780.101.151.271.351.391.421.04 Admin/Inspect/Other Yard 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Public 0.811.341.711.982.172.312.392.441.78 Total costs Yard 44.629.8211.0011.9312.6924.1024.0423.9019.24 Public 39.4112.6614.1815.3016.1131.2730.8830.3423.24Total net benefits Yard: west 27.8953.5087.67118.68140.71148.51161.44169.23107.50 Yard: south 33.5238.4867.4495.37115.98123.17136.07147.4387.32 Yard: east 27.6553.9988.18119.11141.06148.53161.20168.96107.69 Public 25.5344.8676.96107.04129.15133.69147.63158.4797.07 Year 4040 Year Avg.Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative large broadleaf tree (Southern live oak, Quercus virginiana). The 40-year average is also shown.Year 5Year 10Year 15Year 20Year 25Year 30Year 35

PAGE 61

61Appendix 3: Cost/bene t table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006) Benefits/tree RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ Cooling (kWh) Yard: west141.33494.55948.813512.5916915.7719718.4121620.2123221.713812.92Yard: south80.77282.65565.2837.7710810.0613012.1214813.8416415.3918.46Yard: east181.65575.281029.5614213.2117416.220018.6921920.4123421.8314313.36Public70.67222.01383.58535.12696.48837.73958.851059.81595.53Heating (kWh) Yard: west-4-0.04-22-0.27-40-0.48-29-0.34-7-0.08180.21470.56720.8740.05Yard: south-8-0.1-85-1.02-230-2.75-350-4.19-447-5.35-512-6.13-527-6.31-537-6.43-337-4.03Yard: east-23-0.28-65-0.78-86-1.03-70-0.84-41-0.49-10-0.12250.3570.68-27-0.32Public290.35830.991441.732012.412502.992913.483203.833444.122082.49Net Energy (kWh) Yard: west1381.284654.289028.321,31912.251,68215.691,98918.622,21020.772,39622.561,38812.97Yard: south740.671991.633272.454823.586314.717855.989557.541,1028.885704.43Yard: east1531.375014.519388.531,34512.371,69415.721,99218.572,21120.722,39422.511,40413.04Public1011.022983.015285.317497.539439.471,11811.211,26812.691,39413.938008.02Net CO2 (lb) Yard: west220.17760.571471.112171.632802.13342.513762.824133.12341.75Yard: south140.1410.31720.541090.821451.081801.352161.622481.861290.96Yard: east250.19820.621531.152221.662822.123362.523772.834143.12371.77Public170.13520.39930.691351.011741.32101.582421.822712.031491.12Air Pollution (lb) O3 uptake0.030.030.090.090.160.170.240.250.330.340.410.430.490.520.580.60.290.3NO2 uptake+avoided0.040.040.120.120.210.220.310.320.390.410.470.490.530.550.590.610.330.35SO2 uptake+avoided0.10.130.330.430.630.80.891.151.121.441.321.71.471.891.62.060.931.2PM10 uptake+avoided0.010.010.050.040.130.10.250.190.360.270.470.360.580.440.590.450.310.23VOCs avoided0.010.010.030.040.050.070.070.10.090.130.10.150.110.170.120.180.070.11BVOCs released-0.06-0.1-0.21-0.31-0.46-0.69-0.88-1.3-1.37-2.03-1.94-2.88-2.6-3.86-2.6-3.86-1.27-1.88Avoided+net uptake0.120.120.40.410.720.680.890.710.920.570.830.240.59-0.290.880.040.670.31Hydrology (gal) Rainfall Interception2561.556593.981,1246.81,6469.962,17313.142,71916.453,28119.853,84223.251,96211.87 Aesthetics and other benefits Yard 12.4912.9713.4813.813.9613.9613.8113.5413.5 Public 13.9514.4915.0515.4215.5915.5915.4315.1215.08 Total benefits Yard: west 15.6122.2230.3838.3545.4651.7856.9662.4940.41 Yard: south 14.9419.323.9428.8733.4737.9842.5347.5731.08 Yard: east 15.7222.4830.6438.5145.551.7456.9262.4440.49 Public 16.7622.2728.5334.6340.0745.0749.4954.3836.4Costs ($/year/tree) Tree & planting Yard 40 5 Public 30 3.75 Pruning Yard 0.190.295.265.014.774.5214.4813.655.62 Public 4.633.326.356.055.765.4618.9617.888.03 Remove and dispose Yard 2.001.902.733.554.345.125.886.623.59 Public 1.251.191.712.222.713.203.674.142.27 Pest & disease Yard 0.150.260.360.450.520.590.640.680.43 Public 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Infrastructure repair Yard 0.050.090.120.150.170.200.180.230.14 Public 0.510.891.221.511.761.962.132.271.42 Clean-Up Yard 0.020.040.060.070.080.090.090.110.07 Public 0.240.410.570.700.820.920.101.060.66 Admin/Inspect/Other Yard 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Public 0.410.710.971.211.401.571.711.811.14 Total costs Yard 42.422.588.539.239.8910.5221.2621.2814.84 Public 37.036.5110.8211.6912.4513.1227.4727.1517.89Total net benefits Yard: west -26.8019.6421.8529.1235.5741.2635.7041.2225.56 Yard: south -27.4816.7215.4119.6423.5727.4621.2726.2916.23 Yard: east -26.6919.9022.1129.2835.6141.2235.6641.1625.65 Public -20.2715.7617.7122.9427.6231.9522.0227.2318.51Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative medium broadleaf tree (Southern magnolia, Magnolia grandiflora). The 40-year average is also shown.Year 5Year 10Year 15Year 20Year 25Year 30Year 35Year 4040 Year Avg.

PAGE 62

62 Benefits/tree RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ Cooling (kWh) Yard: west222.1948.8116014.9321319.9224923.2827725.8829727.731229.1720318.97Yard: south121.09575.321069.9115214.2318617.3921520.0623622.0425423.7115214.22Yard: east242.25968.9916014.920919.4924422.8127425.629327.3530728.6420118.76Public70.64323.03615.7898.3111210.4613412.4815114.1316715.62948.8Heating (kWh) Yard: west-23-0.28-36-0.43220.261031.231651.982202.642583.082873.441251.49Yard: south-66-0.79-306-3.67-468-5.6-481-5.76-459-5.5-416-4.98-374-4.47-331-3.97-363-4.34Yard: east-36-0.44-48-0.57260.311191.421872.242452.932833.393123.741361.63Public290.351211.452192.633113.723744.484265.14595.484815.753023.62Net Energy (kWh) Yard: west2011.829088.391,62015.192,23621.152,65825.262,99128.513,22330.783,41132.612,15620.46Yard: south500.32641.665934.311,0428.471,40311.891,73115.081,98617.562,20719.741,1609.87Yard: east2051.829158.421,62215.212,20620.912,63025.062,98628.533,21230.743,37932.382,14420.38Public980.994464.498308.331,20012.031,49514.951,76217.581,97119.612,15421.381,24412.42Net CO2 (lb) Yard: west320.241491.122712.033822.874623.465273.955754.326184.633772.83Yard: south120.09660.51401.052301.733022.263672.754183.144653.492501.88Yard: east330.251501.132712.033782.844573.435263.945734.36134.63752.81Public170.13830.621601.192371.782992.243552.6640034423.312491.87Air Pollution (lb) O3 uptake0.030.030.130.130.250.270.40.410.530.550.660.690.780.810.90.940.460.48NO2 uptake+avoided0.050.050.20.210.360.380.510.530.620.650.720.750.80.830.870.90.520.54SO2 uptake+avoided0.140.180.60.771.051.341.431.841.712.21.962.512.132.732.282.921.411.81PM10 uptake+avoided0.010.010.080.060.180.140.320.240.460.350.60.450.730.560.860.650.410.31VOCs avoided0.010.020.050.070.080.120.110.160.130.20.150.220.160.240.170.260.110.16BVOCs released-0.01-0.02-0.02-0.02-0.4-0.6-1.5-2.22-3.26-4.83-5.68-8.41-8.76-12.98-12.5-18.53-4.01-5.95Avoided+net uptake0.230.271.041.221.521.641.270.970.2-0.88-1.59-3.78-4.15-7.8-7.42-12.85-1.11-2.65Hydrology (gal) Rainfall Interception860.525073.071,1857.172,09812.73,04818.444,11224.885,17731.326,31338.192,81617.04 Aesthetics and other benefits Yard 1.113.1121.0326.4830.0932.3433.5734.0323.97 Public 1.2314.6523.4929.5733.6136.1237.538.0126.77 Total benefits Yard: west 3.9526.9147.0664.1776.3785.992.1996.6161.64 Yard: south 2.2819.5535.250.3461.8171.2677.7982.5950.1 Yard: east 3.9526.9547.0963.8976.1485.9192.1496.3461.55 Public 3.1424.0441.8257.0468.3577.4683.6388.0455.44Costs ($/year/tree) Tree & planting Yard 40 5 Public 30 3.75 Pruning Yard 0.190.290.270.260.250.240.220.210.25 Public 4.633.323.173.032.882.732.582.443.17 Remove and dispose Yard 3.982.263.414.495.506.457.358.204.45 Public 2.491.412.132.813.444.034.595.132.80 Pest & disease Yard 0.300.310.450.570.660.740.800.840.53 Public 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Infrastructure repair Yard 0.100.100.150.190.220.250.270.280.18 Public 1.021.051.521.912.222.472.672.811.76 Clean-Up Yard 0.050.050.070.090.100.120.120.130.08 Public 0.470.490.710.891.041.151.241.310.82 Admin/Inspect/Other Yard 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Public 0.810.411.221.531.781.982.132.251.41 Total costs Yard 44.623.014.365.606.747.798.769.6610.48 Public 39.416.688.7510.1611.3612.3713.2213.9314.31Total net benefits Yard: west -40.6723.8942.7158.5769.6378.1183.4386.9451.17 Yard: south -42.3416.5430.8444.7455.0763.4869.0372.9339.63 Yard: east -40.6723.9442.7358.2969.4078.1383.3886.6751.07 Public -36.2817.3633.0746.8957.0065.0870.4174.1141.13Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative conifer (loblolly pine, Pinus taeda).The 40-year average is also shown.Year 5Year 10Year 15Year 20Year 25Year 30Year 35Year 4040 Year Avg. Appendix 4: Cost/bene t table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006)

PAGE 63

63Appendix 5: Cost/bene t table excerpted from the Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide (McPherson, et al., 2006) Benefits/tree RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ RU $ Cooling (kWh) Yard: west322.96635.9837.731009.3810910.211610.8211911.0812111.25938.67Yard: south181.67363.38494.56605.62666.14706.53726.69736.8555.17Yard: east363.37716.62928.6111110.3912011.2312611.8112912.0313012.151029.52Public161.54323.02433.99524.85565.26595.54615.65615.72484.45Heating (kWh) Yard: west360.43660.79861.031051.251141.371221.461251.491271.52981.17Yard: south310.37440.53480.58510.62510.61480.58460.55430.52450.54Yard: east230.28470.56660.79830.99921.11001.21041.251071.28780.93Public660.791231.481571.881882.252022.422122.542152.582172.61732.07Net Energy (kWh) Yard: west3533.396976.689158.771,10910.641,20611.561,28012.271,31112.581,33212.771,0259.83Yard: south2102.044073.915375.146536.237086.757477.117637.247727.336005.72Yard: east3843.647557.189879.391,19511.381,29412.331,364131,39213.271,40813.441,09710.45Public2312.334474.55845.877077.17657.688058.088218.238308.326496.51Net CO2 (lb) Yard: west580.441110.831421.071701.281831.371921.441951.461971.471601.17Yard: south390.29720.54910.681090.811160.871200.91210.911220.91990.74Yard: east630.471190.91521.141821.371961.472041.532061.552081.561661.25Public410.31760.57960.721130.851210.911250.941260.951260.951030.77Air Pollution (lb) O3 uptake0.050.050.10.110.140.140.170.180.20.210.220.230.240.250.260.270.170.18NO2 uptake+avoided0.080.080.150.160.20.210.240.250.260.280.280.290.290.30.290.310.220.23SO2 uptake+avoided0.220.280.430.550.560.720.690.880.740.960.791.010.811.030.821.050.630.81PM10 uptake+avoided0.020.020.060.050.110.090.170.130.180.130.180.140.180.140.180.140.140.1VOCs avoided0.020.030.030.050.040.070.050.080.060.090.060.090.060.090.060.10.050.07BVOCs released000000000000000000Avoided+net uptake0.380.450.780.911.061.231.331.531.451.661.541.771.581.821.621.861.221.4Hydrology (gal) Rainfall Interception2091.264182.535693.447204.368264.999315.631,0146.131,0976.637234.37 Aesthetics and other benefits Yard 2.531.891.541.291.110.960.850.751.36 Public 2.832.111.721.441.241.080.940.831.52 Total benefits Yard: west 8.0712.8516.0419.0920.722.0822.8423.4918.15 Yard: south 6.589.7912.0314.2215.3916.3716.9617.4813.6 Yard: east 8.3613.4116.7419.9221.5622.923.6224.2418.84 Public 7.1810.6212.9715.2816.4817.4918.0818.614.59Costs ($/year/tree) Tree & planting Yard 40 5 Public 30 3.75 Pruning Yard 0.190.295.265.014.774.524.284.043.49 Public 4.633.326.356.055.765.465.174.885.23 Remove and dispose Yard 2.241.832.332.733.073.363.633.862.61 Public 1.401.141.451.701.922.102.272.411.65 Pest & disease Yard 0.170.260.310.350.370.390.390.400.31 Public 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Infrastructure repair Yard 0.060.090.100.120.120.130.130.130.10 Public 0.570.851.041.161.241.291.321.321.04 Clean-Up Yard 0.030.040.050.050.060.060.060.060.05 Public 0.270.400.480.540.580.600.610.620.49 Admin/Inspect/Other Yard 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 Public 0.460.680.830.930.991.031.051.060.84 Total costs Yard 42.682.508.048.268.398.468.498.4911.56 Public 37.326.4010.1510.3910.4910.4910.4210.2913.62Total net benefits Yard: west 34.6110.368.0010.8312.3213.6214.3515.016.58 Yard: south 36.117.293.995.977.007.918.468.992.04 Yard: east 34.3210.918.7011.6613.1714.4415.1315.757.28 Public 30.144.222.824.895.997.007.668.310.97Annual benefits, costs and net benefits at 5-year intervals for a representative small broadleaf tree (dogwood, Cornus florida). The 40-year average is also shown.Year 5Year 10Year 15Year 20Year 25Year 30Year 35Year 4040 Year Avg.