Urban update part II  Urban Reporting Team update  Austin report  Urban reporting in the future  What’s up in Wisconsin?  New Tools  iTree Landscape  My City’s Trees

Potential Guidelines for Urban Reporting Annual Reports  Automated “report” would be generated without any customization. Initially core tables generated in publishable form and would evolve into automatically generated tables and figures with standard text  Future could include use of a dynamic table making program like Tableau  Begin production after 50% of data is collected  In accelerated cities/states, first annual report release TBD

Potential Guidelines for Urban Reporting Comprehensive 5-year report  Initial report after a full cycle of data is complete – including more custom analysis  Comprehensive follow up report after 100% remeasurement  Standard template is being developed, but will evolve over time until we have realized:  the full analytical power of combining iTree and core FIA variables  explored urban to rural forest analysis  developed the ability to monitor change over time  The baseline and remeasurement reports will be the only promised urban-only reports – after, urban reporting will be FIA 5-year state reports. This will fulfill the 5-year reporting requirement and will facilitate urban to rural comparisons and demonstrate that urban forest reporting is a fully integrated “core” program.

Potential Guidelines for Urban Reporting Regional/National Reporting:  No formal timeline but national collaboration will be encouraged to produce regional and national urban reports using urban FIA data.

What’s up in Wisconsin?

Ten-year Change in Value to Communities of all Public and Private Trees Area:729,000 ac933,000 ac No. of plots: # of Trees (meas.): # of Trees (est.):27 million43 million Replacement cost: $10.9 billion$19.3 billion Carbon Storage: $41 million$285 million Carbon Seq./yr:$2.9 million$15 million Pollution Rem. /yr: $36.3 million$27.1 million Energy Savings:$25 million$86 million

2012 Species Diversity 2002: 56 Different Species Maple – 23%; Ash – 20% 2012: 65 Different Species Maple – 16.7%; Ash – 7.6%

Change Analysis 2002 to 2012  91 plots were remeasured, but only 67 plots were used in change analysis  No significant change in total number of trees  Over the 10 year period, significant changes in number of trees for 5 species: Silver maple (n=9) White ash (n=10) Kwansan cherry (n=3) Red mulberry (n=5) Sugar maple (n=7)

Ash Mortality (FIA) in Wisconsin

So… We need a lot more urban plots!

General framework The “three legged stool”

“The first leg”  Plot-based, continuous inventory and analysis on all ownerships to characterize the urban forest and its benefits  This will feed i-Tree Eco and i-Tree Landscape.  5x intensity on 1.25 million acres (roughly 1,300 plots)

“The second leg” : Wisconsin UTC Classification

Existing NLCD UTC Classification

Wisconsin UTC Classification

“The third leg”  Aggregation of existing municipal tree inventories to advise municipalities  These datasets are very useful in certain ways, but also have drawbacks  Other data sources may also become available  Currently assessing commercially available software

Study Area

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

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

Answer: $200,000 This DNR-developed template in now freely available to communities or to private consultants to use to assist other communities.

i-Tree Landscape Canopy

i-TL Census layers

i-TL Ecosystem Services

i-TL Planting Prioritization

i-TL Planting Priority

i-TL Report Generator