DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, Minneapolis’ Urban Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, Minneapolis’ Urban Forest United States Department of Agriculture Assessing Urban Forest Forest Service Effects and Values Northeastern Research Station Resource Bulletin NE-166 Minneapolis’ Urban Forest Abstract An analysis of trees in Minneapolis, MN, reveals that the city has about 979,000 trees with canopies that cover 26.4 percent of the area. The most common tree species are green ash, American elm, and boxelder. The urban forest currently stores about 250,000 tons of carbon valued at $4.6 million. In addition, these trees remove about 8,900 tons of carbon per year ($164,000 per year) and trees and shrubs combined remove about 384 tons of air pollution per year ($1.9 million per year). The structural, or compensatory, value is estimated at $756 million. Information on the structure and functions of the urban forest can be used to improve and augment support for urban forest management programs and to integrate urban forests within plans to improve environmental quality in the Minneapolis area. The Authors DAVID J. NOWAK is a research forester and project leader, ROBERT E. HOEHN III, is a biological sciences technician, DANIEL E. CRANE is an information technology specialist, JACK C. STEVENS is a forester, and JEFFREY T. WALTON is a research forester with the Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station at Syracuse, NY. JERRY BOND is a consulting urban forester and GREG INA is a manager of geographic information systems/ information technology with the Davey Resource Group at Kent, OH. Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 May 2006 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne Executive Summary Trees in cities can contribute signifi cantly to human health and environmental quality. Unfortunately, little is known about the urban forest resource and what it contributes to the local and regional society and economy. To better understand the urban forest resource and its numerous values, the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, developed the Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model. Results from this model are used to advance the understanding of the urban forest resource, improve urban Urban forests forest policies, planning and management, provide data for potential inclusion of trees provide numerous within environmental regulations, and determine how trees affect the environment and benefi ts to society, consequently enhance human health and environmental quality in urban areas. yet relatively little Forest structure is a measure of various physical attributes of the vegetation, such as is known about this tree species composition, number of trees, tree density, tree health, leaf area, biomass, important resource. and species diversity. Forest functions, which are determined by forest structure, include a wide range of environmental and ecosystem services such as air pollution In 2004, the UFORE removal and cooler air temperatures. Forest values are an estimate of the economic model was used to worth of the various forest functions. survey and analyze Minneapolis’ urban To help determine the vegetation structure, functions, and values of the urban forest forest. in Minneapolis, a vegetation assessment was conducted during the summer of 2004. For this assessment, one-tenth acre fi eld plots were sampled and analyzed using the The calculated UFORE model. This report summarizes results and values of: environmental • Forest structure • Carbon storage benefi ts of the • Risk of insect pests and diseases • Annual carbon removal (sequestration) Minneapolis • Air pollution removal • Changes in building energy use urban forest More detailed information can be found at: www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Data/data.htm. are signifi cant, yet many Minneapolis Urban Forest Summary environmental and Feature Measure social benefi ts Number of trees 979,000 still remain to be Tree cover 26.4% quantifi ed. Most common species green ash, American elm, boxelder Percentage of trees 47.3% < 6-inches diameter Pollution removal 384 tons/year ($1.9 million/year) Carbon storage 250,000 tons ($4.6 million) Carbon sequestration 8,900 tons/year ($164,000/year) Building energy reduction $216,000/year Avoided carbon emissions $16,000/year Structural values $756 million Ton – short ton (U.S.) (2,000 lbs) 1 Urban Forest Effects Model and Field Measurements Though urban forests have many functions and values, currently only a few of these attributes can be assessed. To help assess the city’s urban forest, data from 110 fi eld plots located throughout the city were analyzed using the Forest Service’s Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model.1 UFORE is designed to use standardized fi eld data from randomly located plots and Benefi ts ascribed to local hourly air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure urban trees include: and its numerous effects, including: • Air pollution • Urban forest structure (e.g., species composition, tree density, tree health, leaf removal area, leaf and tree biomass, species diversity, etc.). • Amount of pollution removed hourly by the urban forest and its associated • Air temperature percent air quality improvement throughout a year. Pollution removal is reduction calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and • Reduced building particulate matter (<10 microns). energy use • Total carbon stored and net carbon annually sequestered by the urban forest. • Effects of trees on energy use in buildings and consequent effects on carbon • Absorption dioxide emissions from power plants. of ultraviolet radiation • Compensatory value of the forest, as well as the value for air pollution removal and carbon storage and sequestration. • Improved water • Potential impact of infestations by Asian longhorned beetles, emerald ash quality borers, gypsy moth, and Dutch elm disease. • Reduced noise For more information go to http://www.ufore.org • Improved human In the fi eld, one-tenth acre plots were randomly located within a grid pattern at a comfort density of approximately one plot every 340 acres. In Minneapolis, service districts were used to divide the analysis into smaller • Increased zones. The plots were divided among the property value following service districts: River District • Improved (49 plots), Lakes District (31 plots), and physiological & Minnehaha District (30 plots). psychological well-being • Aesthetics • Community cohesion 2 Field data were collected by Davey Resource Group during the leaf-on season to properly assess tree canopies. Within each plot, data included land use, ground and tree cover, shrub characteristics, and individual tree attributes of species, stem diameter at breast height (d.b.h.; measured at 4.5 ft), tree height, height to base of live crown, crown width, percentage crown canopy missing and dieback, and distance and direction to residential buildings.2 To calculate current carbon storage, biomass for each tree was calculated using equations from the literature and measured tree data. Open-grown, maintained trees tend to have less biomass than predicted by forest-derived biomass equations.3 To adjust for this difference, biomass results for open-grown urban trees are multiplied by 0.8.3 No adjustment is made for trees found in natural stand conditions. Tree dry- Field Survey Data weight biomass was converted to stored carbon by multiplying by 0.5. Plot Information To estimate the gross amount of carbon sequestered annually, average diameter growth • Land use type from the appropriate genera and diameter class and tree condition was added to the • Percent tree cover existing tree diameter (year x) to estimate tree diameter and carbon storage in year x+1. • Percent shrub cover Air pollution removal estimates are derived from calculated hourly tree-canopy • Percent plantable resistances for ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides based on a hybrid of big-leaf • Percent ground and multi-layer canopy deposition models.4,5 As the removal of carbon monoxide cover types and particulate matter by vegetation is not directly • Shrub species / related to transpiration, removal rates (deposition dimensions velocities) for these pollutants were based on average measured values from the literature6,7 that Tree parameters were adjusted depending on leaf phenology and • Species leaf area. Particulate removal incorporated a 50 • Stem diameter percent resuspension rate of particles back to the • Total height atmosphere.8 • Height to crown base Seasonal effects of trees on energy use in residential • Crown width building was calculated based on procedures described the literature9 using distance and direction • Percent foliage of trees from residential structures, tree height and missing tree condition data. • Percent dieback • Crown light Compensatory values were based on valuation exposure procedures of the Council of Tree and Landscape • Distance and Appraisers, which uses tree species, diameter, condition and location information.10 direction to buildings from To learn more about UFORE methods11 visit: trees http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Data/data.htm or www.ufore.org 3 Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest The urban forest of Minneapolis has an estimated 979,000 trees and a tree cover of 26.4 percent. Trees with diameters less than 6 inches account for 47.3 percent of the population. The three most common species are green ash (21.6 percent), American elm (17.1 percent), and boxelder (9.1 percent). The 10 most common species account for 75 percent of all trees; their relative abundance is illustrated below. There are an green ash estimated 979,000 other species trees in Minneapolis with canopies that cover 26.4 percent of the city. Austrian pine American elm silver maple The 10 most blue spruce boxelder common species Norway maple northern white cedar account for 75 northern percent of the total hackberry white mulberry number of trees. Tree density is The highest density of trees occurs in the Lakes District (31.6 trees/acre), followed by highest in the Lakes the Minnehaha District (29.0 trees/acre) and the River District (19.8 trees/acre).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests
    United States Department of SSustainingustaining AAmerica’smerica’s Agriculture Forest Service UUrbanrban TTreesrees andand ForestsForests Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry General Technical DDavidavid J.J. NNowak,owak, SusanSusan M.M. Stein,Stein, PaulaPaula B.B. Randler,Randler, EricEric J.J. GreenGreenfi eeld,ld, Report NRS-62 SSaraara JJ.. CComas,omas, MMaryary AA.. CCarr,arr, aandnd RRalphalph J.J. AligAlig June 2010 A Forests on the Edge Report ABSTRACT Nowak, David J.; Stein, Susan M.; Randler, Paula B.; Greenfi eld, Eric J.; Comas, Sara J.; Carr, Mary A.; Alig, Ralph J. 2010. Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p. Close to 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas and depends on the essential ecological, economic, and social benefi ts provided by urban trees and forests. However, the distribution of urban tree cover and the benefi ts of urban forests vary across the United States, as do the challenges of sustaining this important resource. As urban areas expand across the country, the importance of the benefi ts that urban forests provide, as well as the challenges to their conservation and maintenance, will increase. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status and benefi ts of America’s urban forests, compare differences in urban forest canopy cover among regions, and discuss challenges facing urban forests and their implications for urban forest management. Key Words: Urban forest, urbanization, land Lisa DeJong The Plain Dealer, Photo: AP management, ecosystem services Urban forests offer aesthetic values and critical services.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Manual
    URBAN FORESTRY MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Purpose _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Objectives __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Definition of Terms _____________________________________________________________________________ 3-6 Standard of Care __________________________________________________________________________________ 6 Tree Care Management ________________________________________________________________________ 6-7 Tree Care Procedures _________________________________________________________________________ 8-17 Arboretum & Botanic Garden _______________________________________________________________ 17-18 Utility, Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Repairs ________________________________________________ 19-20 New Development and Construction ______________________________________________________ 21-25 Tools and Staffing ___________________________________________________________________________ 26-27 Jurisdiction/Governing Authority __________________________________________________________ 27-29 Tree Donation Program _____________________________________________________________________ 30-31 Glendora’s Protected Trees _____________________________________________________________________ 32 List of Approved and Undesirable Trees ___________________________________________________ 33-35 FAQ’s __________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Partners in Progress
    Partners in Progress CALIFORNIA Final Report 1 Table of Contents California ReLeaf....................................................3 Selection by the US Forest Service......................4 ARRA Sub-Grant Recipients California Urban Forests Council..........................5 The City of Chico....................................................6 Community Services & Employment Training.....7 Daly City.................................................................8 Friends of Oakland Parks......................................9 Friends of the Urban Forest................................10 Goleta Valley Beautiful.........................................11 Hollywood/LA Beautification Team....................12 Koreatown Youth and Community Center.........13 The Los Angeles Conservation Corps.................14 North East Tree....................................................15 Our City Forest.....................................................16 The City of Porterville..........................................17 Sacramento Tree Foundation..............................18 Tree Fresno...........................................................19 The Urban Corps of San Diego County...............20 Urban Releaf.........................................................21 2 alifornia ReLeaf works statewide to promote Calliances among community-based groups, individuals, industry, and government agencies, encouraging each to contribute to the livability of our cities and the protection of our environment by planting and caring for trees. California
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forest Assessments Resource Guide
    Trees in cities, a main component of a city’s urban forest, contribute significantly to human health and environmental quality. Urban forest ecosystem assessments are a key tool to help quantify the benefits that trees and urban forests provide, advancing our understanding of these valuable resources. Over the years, a variety of assessment tools have been developed to help us better understand the benefits that urban forests provide and to quantify them into measurable metrics. The results they provide are extremely useful in helping to improve urban forest policies on all levels, inform planning and management, track environmental changes over time and determine how trees affect the environment, which consequently enhances human health. American Forests, with grant support from the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, developed this resource guide to provide a framework for practitioners interested in doing urban forest ecosystem assessments. This guide is divided into three main sections designed to walk you through the process of selecting the best urban forest assessment tool for your needs and project. In this guide, you will find: Urban Forest Management, which explains urban forest management and the tools used for effective management How to Choose an Urban Forests Ecosystem Assessment Tool, which details the series of questions you need to answer before selecting a tool Urban Forest Ecosystem Assessment Tools, which offers descriptions and usage tips for the most common and popular assessment tools available Urban Forest Management Many of the best urban forest programs in the country have created and regularly use an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) to define the scope and methodology for accomplishing urban forestry goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, San Francisco’S Urban Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Assessing Urban Forest Forest Service Eff ects and Values Northern Research Station Resource Bulletin NRS-8 San Francisco’s Urban Forest Abstract An analysis of trees in San Francisco, CA reveals that this city has about 669,000 trees with canopies that cover 11.9 percent of the area. The most common tree species are blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress. The urban forest currently stores about 196,000 tons of carbon valued at $3.6 million. In addition, these trees remove about 5,200 tons of carbon per year ($95,000 per year) and about 260 tons of air pollution per year ($1.3 million per year). The structural, or compensatory, value is estimated at $1.7 billion. Information on the structure and functions of the urban forest can be used to improve and augment support for urban forest management programs and to integrate urban forests within plans to improve environmental quality in the San Francisco area. The Authors DAVID J. NOWAK is a research forester and project leader, ROBERT E. HOEHN III, is a biological sciences technician, DANIEL E. CRANE is an information technology specialist, JACK C. STEVENS is a forester, and JEFFREY T. WALTON is a research forester with the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station at Syracuse, NY. Acknowledgments We are grateful for the contributions of Alexis Harte, UFORE project coordinator; Leslie Bandy, survey coordination; Karin Avila, Sarah Cobey, Maria D’agostino, Rachel Freund, Meleana Judd, Lorraine Maldague, Jennifer Mar, and Kelly Palomera, surveyors. Published by: For additional copies: USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 February 2007 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Executive Summary Trees in cities can contribute signifi cantly to human health and environmental quality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept
    The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is a common story line in many of today’s wildfire events. The WUI concept was formally introduced in 1987 Forest Service Research budget documents but was not acknowledged as a major component for federal fire management until the 2000 National Fire Plan. Although the 1987 introduction was meant to increase research focus on demographic factors influencing fire and other resource management, its California roots can be traced to post-World War II civil defense concerns about fire and water. The author offers a personal perspective on why the WUI concept was promoted by the Forest Service at an inauspicious time for fire research. The Emergence of the Wildland- Urban Interface Concept n January 27, 1987, President Ronald Reagan gave his sixth State of the Union address. Reagan’s speech was not well received.1 Forest Service O Research—and Fire Research in particular—had suffered through six years of the Republican president’s budget request reductions. Although these proposed reductions were partially offset by targeted (i.e., “ear- aged 51,805 fires and 2,021,846 acres burned and supported the mark”) restorations by the Democrat-controlled Congress, Forest argument that the “fire problem was solved.”2 This assumption Service research funding continually eroded. Fire activity in the would be reinforced by fire statistics that showed no discernible previous four years of the Reagan presidency (1983–86) had aver- upward trend. With the exception of the Yellowstone Fires in BY WILLIAM T. SOMMERS 12 FOREST HISTORY TODAY | FALL 2008 F. E. DUNHAM, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Management Plan
    [URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN] A plan to sustainably, holistically and efficiently manage Bozeman’s urban forest to realize the full expanse of benefits urban trees can provide 1 Acknowledgements: Mitch Overton: Director of Parks and Recreation Bozeman Bozeman Tree Advisory Board The Bozeman Citizenry Jamie Kirby: Montana DNRC This document was funded by an urban forestry program development grant from the State of Montana - Department of Natural Resources & Conservation – Urban & Community Forestry Program Gallatin Tree Care, February 2016 Bozeman Urban Forestry Management Plan 2 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 History and People .................................................................................................................................... 6 Process and Plan Development ................................................................................................................. 7 Climate and Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7 Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 8 Value of Urban Forest ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections
    J. For. 116(2):164–177 RESEARCH ARTICLE doi: 10.1093/jofore/fvx004 Copyright © 2018 Society of American Foresters urban & community forestry US Urban Forest Statistics, Values, and Projections David J. Nowak and Eric J. Greenfield U.S. urban land increased from 2.6% (57.9 million acres) in 2000 to 3.0% (68.0 million acres) in 2010. States value of services provided by urban forests with the greatest amount of urban growth were in the South/Southeast (TX, FL, NC, GA and SC). Between 2010 across the nation. Research on urban forests and 2060, urban land is projected to increase another 95.5 million acres to 163.1 million acres (8.6%) with 18 over the past several decades has advanced our states projected to have an increase of over 2 million acres. Overall, there are an estimated 5.5 billion trees (39.4% understanding of this resource and its impact tree cover) in urban areas nationally that contain 127 million acres of leaf area and 44 million tons of dry-weight on society. These impacts include many eco- leaf biomass. Annually, these trees produce a total of $18.3 billion in value related to air pollution removal ($5.4 system services and costs associated with veg- billion), reduced building energy use ($5.4 billion), carbon sequestration ($4.8 billion) and avoided pollutant emis- etation in close proximity to people, many of sions ($2.7 billion). States with greatest annual urban forest values were: Florida ($1.9 billion), California ($1.4 which remain to be quantified. These services billion), Pennsylvania ($1.1 billion), New York ($1.0 billion) and Ohio ($971 million).
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Program, Five-Year Plan
    URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM FIVE YEAR PLAN ADOPTED JANUARY 2017 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MAYOR KEVIN L. FAULCONER CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL Funding for this project has • District 1: Barbara Bry been provided by the California • District 2: Lori Zapf Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund • District 3: Chris Ward through the California Department • District 4: Myrtle Cole of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Urban and Community Forestry • District 5: Mark Kersey Program. • District 6: Chris Cate • District 7: Scott Sherman • District 8: David Alvarez • District 9: Georgette Gómez COMMUNITY FORESTRY ADVISORY BOARD • Anne Fege – Chair • Chris Drayer – District 3 • Stephen Lamprides – District 4 • Rachele Melious – District 5 • Vince Mikulanis – District 7 • Troy Murphee – District 9 • Devon Boutte – Landscape Architect • Robin Rivet – Certified Arborist • Jake Sibley – Non-Profit Organization INLAND URBAN FORESTRY GROUP CITY OF SAN DIEGO STAFF • David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Mayor’s Office • Mike Hansen, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief of Policy, Mayor’s Office • Jeff Murphy, Director, Planning Department • Tom Tomlinson, Assistant Director, Planning Department • Alyssa Muto, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Jeremy Barrick, Urban Forestry Program Manager, Planning Department • Melissa Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lara Gates, Community Development Specialist IV, Planning Department • Nancy Graham, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lesley Henegar, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Sergio
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forest Ecology
    62 Rowntree: Concepts in Urban Forest Ecology URBAN FOREST ECOLOGY: CONCEPTUAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE by Rowan A. Rowntree In this special issue of the Journal of Arboriculture, the field of urban forest ecology is substantially advanced by a set of studies conducted in Sacramento, California, the capital of the largest, most urbanized, and one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S. Sixteen years ago in the introduction to the first textbook on urban forestry, Grey and Deneke (1978) recommended that cities should soon employ "the concept of integrated urban forest ecosystem management." In the years since this suggestion, most cities barely have been able to keep up with pruning and removal, let alone manage their resource as an ecosystem. It is even more difficult to embrace an ecological approach when it is perceived—as it is by many—that urban forestry lacks intellectual roots in ecology. Yet there is almost half a century of thoughtful, scholarly, scientific writings that are the natural antecedents to contemporary urban forest ecology. This introduction to the special issue illustrates the evolution of the ecological view in urban forestry and discusses several useful concepts that have emerged. Abstract. The ecological view in urban forestry evolved on the environment, man might learn to change from diverse roots beginning over 100 years ago and is the face of he earth in rational, constructive fash- currently expressed in formal programs of research and ion" (Thomas 1956a, p. xxix). Indeed, in 1847, practice. Among the most useful concepts in urban forest ecology are structure, function, diversity, dominance, he praised Vermont farmers for filling "with light mosaic-gradients, and ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2008 Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA Kyle Matthew Stetler The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Stetler, Kyle Matthew, "Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values of the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA" (2008). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1256. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1256 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAPITALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES AND WILDFIRE IN PRIVATE HOME VALUES OF THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE OF NORTHWEST MONTANA, USA By Kyle Matthew Stetler B.A. Economics, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2006 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Forestry The University of Montana Missoula, Montana Spring 2008 Approved By: Dr. David A. Strobel, Dean Graduate School Dr. Tyron J. Venn, Chair Department of Forest Management Dr. Doug Dalenberg Department of Economics Dr.Woodam Chung Department of Forest Management Stetler, Kyle Matthew, M.Sc., May 2008 Forestry The Capitalization of Environmental Amenities and Wildfire in Private Home Values in the Wildland Urban Interface of Northwest Montana, USA Committee Chair: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Re: Ecosystem Analysis for the Grouse Mountain Area
    City of North Vancouver URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Technical Report DIAMOND HEAD CONSULTING LTD. Prepared for: Prepared by: City of North Vancouver Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. 141 West 14th Street 342 West 8th Avenue North Vancouver BC V7M-1H9 Vancouver BC V5Y-3X2 January 2007 City North Vancouver Urban Forest Management Plan – Technical Report i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Methodology................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 Natural Areas Management Objectives................................................................... 3 4.0 Overview........................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Terrain............................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................................................ 4 4.3 Stand Types.................................................................................................................... 7 4.3.1 Deciduous Forests............................................................................................................ 8 4.3.2 Mature Mixed Coniferous/Deciduous Forests................................................................. 8 4.3.3 Mature Coniferous Forests
    [Show full text]