DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategic Forest Resource Plan.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategic Forest Resource Plan.Indd MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOREST SERVICE MARYLAND’S STRATEGIC FOREST RESOURCE PLAN 2006 Ensuring a Sustainable Forest Future 1 State of Maryland Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor Michael S. Steele, Lt. Governor Department of Natural Resources C. Ronald Franks, Secretary Forest Service Steven W. Koehn, Director / State Forester www.dnr.state.md.us/forests Toll Free in Maryland 1-877-620-8DNR, ext. 8531 Out of State 1-410-260-8531 Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue, E-1 Annapolis, MD 21401 Publication #: 02-5122006-131 Commission Members Mr. David M. Sutherland, Chair Senator John C. Astle, Ms. Elizabeth D. Hill Mr. Midgett S. Parker Jr. Esquire Mr. Anthony DiPaolo Mr. Russell B. Brinsfield, Ph.D. Mr. Nathaniel E. Williams Mr. J. Philip Gottwals Mr. David E. Opel Ms. Lynda Eisenberg Delegate Karen S. Montgomery Mr. John W. Foster, III Mr. Steven W. Koehn Composed by Patrick E. Meckley The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with a disability. 2 MARYLAND’S STRATEGIC FOREST RESOURCE PLAN 2006 ENSURING A SUSTAINABLE FOREST FUTURE Prepared by the Maryland DNR – Forest Service in cooperation and with the concurrence of the Governor’s Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry. THE MARYLAND STRATEGIC FOREST RESOURCE PLAN Forests are essential for our future well being. They make clean water, clean air, wood products, wildlife & fish habitat, and scenic beauty. This document delineates a common vision for Maryland’s forest resourc- es and lays out the framework for achieving that vision through the use of goals and objectives. The plan incorporates the range of trends and issues affecting Maryland’s forests and their ecological, economic, and social implications. The Maryland Forest Service celebrates its Centennial Anniversary in 2006 by “Celebrating Our Past, Creating Our Future.” We have come a long way since our inception and more than ever before the welfare of Marylanders depends, in large part, on the protection and management of our private and public forests. This plan is a call to our partners and stakeholders interested in addressing the challenges Maryland’s forests face today and will likely encounter in the future. This plan is intended to address the charge of the Governor’s Commission by articulating strategies for the development of a 21st century public-private partnership oriented conservation vision for Maryland. Previous Plans This plan updates two previous Statewide Forest Plans, the first was published in 1988 and the second in 2000. Previous plans established a tradition of leadership and careful management of Maryland’s forest resources by public and private forestland owners. This plan is intended to comply with and complement national policy and programs on sustainable forests for the United States. Planning Process The plan process was coordinated with the Governor’s Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service. Over the course of a six month period various experts representing conservation organizations, the forest products industry, State technical assistance groups, financial incentive programs, forestry related tax programs, and land use planners briefed the Commission. This input was instrumental in de- veloping the plan. The committee compiled, analyzed and discussed how best to apply the information they gathered to set a course to insure sustainable forest resources for Maryland’s future. The Commis- sion members themselves represent a wealth of experience and expertise including land conservation easement acquisition, elected officials/legislators, primary forest product operator, sawmill entrepreneur, land use planning, private landowner interest, agricultural academia, industrial forester and legal inter- ests. 3 FOREST ASSESSMENT Forests cover 41 percent of Maryland, or 2.6 million acres. This amount of forest cover is remarkable in a state that has seen tremendous population growth and economic development in recent years. There are three reasons for this high percentage of forested land. First, most of the population has been concentrated in and around Baltimore and Washington D.C., and a few other cities, leaving much of the state fairly rural. Second, there has been a sizable decrease in the amount of land used for farming. Land in farms is now half of what it was in 1950, a loss of 2.1 million acres. Although much of the lost farmland has been developed, some of it has been abandoned and has reverted to forest land through natural regeneration and tree planting. These new forests have offset much of the losses in forest land due to development. Third, Maryland forests have been conserved and protected by various public programs such as Program Open Space, the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), the Forest Conservation and Management Agreement Program (FCMA), and the Smart Growth and Rural Legacy Programs. If future growth is managed wisely, some of the negative impacts of urban sprawl will be minimized. Yet, despite these efforts, declines in forestland area have occurred and are likely to contin- ue in the future, as development pressures increase on forest as well as farmland. In Maryland, forest stands in which most of the stocking is in large trees suitable for sawlogs have increased in acreage since the last forest inventory of the State. These stands, which today grow on two-thirds of the timberland have many attributes that benefit wildlife: an understory with herbaceous plants and shrubs that provides food and cover, bole cavities and bark flaps for nesting and feeding sites, respectively, and large dead trees, both standing and on the forest floor. Also, people enjoy activ- ities such as hiking and camping in stands dominated by large trees because they find them attractive and aesthetically pleasing. In Maryland, about 20 percent of the forest stands are of poletimber size. Trees in these young stands are not sufficiently mature to produce large amounts of nuts and seeds, and often form dense overstories that inhibit the growth of understory vegetation. Stands classified as sap- ling-seedling and nonstocked decreased from 20 percent of timberland in 1976 to 12 percent in 1999. Typically found in such stands are early successional, pioneer tree species as well as a variety of herbaceous and shrub plants that need full sunlight to survive. These stands pro- Red fox, Vernon Burns, USFWS vide unique nesting and feeding opportunities for wildlife. Besides offering diverse habitat for wildlife and providing a steady flow of wood products, forests that contain all stand-size classes might be more resistant to devastating outbreaks of insects and diseases. Maryland’s forests now contain more large trees with increased volume. Average tree volume per acre more than doubled from 964 cubic feet in 1950 to 2,194 cubic feet in 1999. During the most recent inventory period, growing-stock volume increased by 7 percent, with the portion suitable for sawlogs increasing by 14 percent to 16.2 billion board feet. Also during this period, the average number of trees per acre that are 5 inches or more in diam- eter (at 4-1/2 feet above the ground) has remained unchanged at 159, though average diameter has in- creased from 9.3 to 9.6 inches. Yellow-poplar leads in volume followed closely by red maple. 4 MARYLAND FORESTS AT THE CENTENNIAL This assessment provides the status of Maryland’s forest resources from ecological, economic, and social perspectives. The information imparted in this report represents the foundation upon which the statewide forest planning process was constructed. Beyond documenting the initial data collection and analysis stage of the forest planning process, the Maryland Forest Service as well as the Commission members identified trends and issues that would likely need to be addressed to support sustainable forestry in Maryland for the future. Identifying And Prioritizing Trends, Challenges And Issues That Forests And Forestry Will Face As a second step towards developing the statewide forest plan, input from citi- zens, businesses, government agencies and non-governmental organizations identified and prioritized the most important trends and issues Maryland’s forests and forestry will likely encounter over the next century. Developing Objectives And Actions To Address Each Trend And Issue Objectives were developed for each trend and issue to provide a benchmark for future efforts. The objectives are specific to the trends and issues, yet broad enough to capture the variety of interdisciplinary actions needed to meet the objective. Cutover photo circa 1906 and regrowth photo circa 2000 on Potomac Garrett State Forest.. 5 CONTENTS OF THE STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCE PLAN The plan includes a common vision for Maryland’s forests based on goals and assumptions for state- wide sustainable forestry. Each trend and issue addresses relevant ecological, economic, and social implications and provides a strategic objective. Electronic publishing allows the plan to be a dynamic and living document. Periodic updates to the assessment, planning, and implementation plans for sustainable forestry are long-standing traditions. The plan can be found on the Maryland DNR Forestry Web site www.dnr.md.gov/forests. Vision of the Statewide Forest Resource Plan Vision Our vision is a Maryland that honors the inter-connectedness of life by striving in all of its actions to safe- guard and steward its natural resources now and for future generations. Mission To restore, manage, and protect Maryland’s trees, forests, and forested ecosystems to sustain our natural resources and connect people to the land. \The Maryland Forest Service is committed to working in partnership to protect and sustain- ably manage Maryland’s public and private forest lands for the citizens of Maryland.
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 Tree Risk Management: a Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation
    Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area 1992 Folwell Ave. State and Private Forestry St. Paul, MN 55108 NA-TP-03-03 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation Coordinating Author Jill D. Pokorny Plant Pathologist USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry 1992 Folwell Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 NA-TP-03-03 i Acknowledgments Illustrator Kathy Widin Tom T. Dunlap Beth Petroske Julie Martinez President President Graphic Designer (former) Minneapolis, MN Plant Health Associates Canopy Tree Care Minnesota Department of Stillwater, MN Minneapolis, MN Natural Resources Production Editor Barbara McGuinness John Schwandt Tom Eiber Olin Phillips USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service Information Specialist Fire Section Manager Northeastern Research Coer d’Alene, ID Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of Station Natural Resources Natural Resources Drew Todd State Urban Forestry Ed Hayes Mark Platta Reviewers: Coordinator Plant Health Specialist Plant Health Specialist The following people Ohio Department of Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of generously provided Natural Resources Natural Resources Natural Resources suggestions and reviewed drafts of the manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Program FIVE YEAR PLAN
    URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM FIVE YEAR PLAN DRAFT 2016 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • Mayor Kevin L. Falconer • State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) • Community Forestry Advisory Board • Inland Urban Forestry Group • 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 • Nancy Bragado, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Alyssa Muto, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Anne Fege, Chair, Community Forestry Advisory Board • Melissa Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Jeremy Barrick, Urban Forestry Program Manager, Planning Department • Sergio Arias, Horticulturist, Transportation and Storm Water Department • Lara Gates, Community Development Specialist IV, Planning Department • Nancy Graham, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Kyle J. Stevens, Intern, Planning Department 4 FIVE YEAR PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...............................................................................................................7 Definition and Scope of Urban Forestry.............................................................................9 Current Structure of San Diego Urban Forest Management.......................................11 Background.........................................................................................................................12 Climate Action Plan Implementation................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry
    Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(3): May 2020 185 Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2020. 46(3):185–196 ARBORICULTURE URBAN FORESTRY Scientific Journal of the International& Society of Arboriculture A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry By Emily S. Huff, Michelle L. Johnson, Lara A. Roman, Nancy F. Sonti, Clara C. Pregitzer, Lindsay K. Campbell, and Heather McMillen Abstract. Urban forests provide many benefits to residents and may also improve cities’ resilience, the overall capacity to recover from anthro- pogenic and natural disturbances. Resilience is often considered from an ecological, social, or social-ecological perspective. In this literature review, we synthesize past studies (n = 31) to explore resilience in urban forests and green spaces and to understand how social or ecological perspectives have been considered. We found studies that combine resilience and urban forests have been increasing over time. Definitions of both resilience and urban forests are highly variable, but generally the studies increasingly focus on a social-ecological systems approach. The most common theoretical framework applied to understanding urban forests and resilience is a risk and vulnerability assessment approach. Studies were spread across geographies, with some concentration near major research stations and universities with scientists who specialize in resilience and urban green spaces. As more attention is focused on the role of green infrastructure in contributing to urban resilience, we encourage the adoption of consistent definitions, theories, and indicators. Keywords. Adaptive Capacity; Resilience; Social-Ecological Systems; Urban Forestry; Vulnerability. INTRODUCTION negative effects, like compacted soils that could reduce Resilience is an emerging policy goal for cities world- the sustainability of the forest and reduce the potential wide, as cities struggle to recover from both chronic opportunities for forests and trees to provide benefits.
    [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]
  • Urban Agroforestry
    Second Wednesdays | 1:00 – 2:15 pm ET www.fs.fed.us/research/urban-webinars USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. COMMUNITY FOOD FORESTS: FRUITFUL AND FIRE-SMART Catherine Bukowski Ann Audrey Researcher & Consultant Chair Virginia Tech & Linking Edible Arizona Forests (LEAF) communityfoodforests.com Network [email protected] [email protected] Community Food Forests Catherine Bukowski, PhD Candidate, Virginia Tech [email protected] Committee: John Munsell- Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation & Forest Management Extension Specialist Paul Kelsch- Department of Landscape Architecture Kim Niewolny- Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Jim Chamberlain- Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service Community Food Forest Research Sites Visited During 2014-2015 Sites are mapped over EPA Level II Ecoregions of North America. Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems are typically similar- they are useful for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across organizations. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions 2013 As of 2018, over 75 urban food forestry projects have been found through online searches or word of mouth. What is a community food forest? A place where people come together to collaboratively grow food using an ecologically designed system based on structural and functional patterns found in forest ecosystems. Community Food Forest Public food commons Multifunctional green infrastructure Beacon Food Forest, Seattle, WA (2009) AGROFORESTRY- A land use management system that intentionally integrates trees with agricultural crops and/or livestock to create economically viable and environmentally sustainable food production. PERMACULTURE- Philosophy + and Design Approach based on whole-systems thinking and ecological patterns and observations.
    [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 Forests & Urban Tree
    URBAN FORESTS & URBAN TREE USE OPPORTUNITIES ON LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCALES DR. STEVE BRATKOVICH KATHRYN FERNHOLZ DR. JEFF HOWE MATT FRANK DR. ED PEPKE DR. JIM BOWYER 12 NOVEMBER 2014 Dovetail Partners Page 2 11/11/2014 Urban Forests and Urban Tree Use Opportunities on Local, State, National, and International Scales Introduction Traditionally, the core responsibilities of an urban and Urban Forestry and Community community forester revolved around tree planting, tree Forestry removal, and tree maintenance. These responsibilities have expanded over the last few decades to include This report focuses on urban forestry management considerations such as water flow and water (urban forest management) as it is quality, air pollution mitigation, air temperature practiced in urban areas as defined by the Bureau of the Census. These modification, carbon sequestration, human health, invasive areas include (1) urbanized areas plants, wildlife management, and tree (wood) utilization. with populations of 50,000 or more, (2) places that contain some In October 2010, Dovetail Partners published a report on urbanized areas within their the evolving nature of urban forestry as a “discipline that boundaries, or (3) places with at least 2,500 people and located outside of mirrors many of the considerations and complexities of urbanized areas. 1 traditional forest management”. This current report (2014) focuses on urban tree use (wood utilization) as one Community forestry is a phrase that of the many opportunities being explored in innovative can mean one thing in Mexico or ways by urban and community (municipal) foresters and Nepal, and different things in the United States. For example, in the arborists.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry
    Urban forestry Lecture notes Editors: Ludek Praus Barbora Vojáčková FOREWORD Dear reader, the version of Urban Forestry lecture notes you are going to read is the first try of our team to offer the students some information about topic that is new and unexplored in Czech Republic. Due to the support of project INOBIO we were able to collect some information and put it together. But, of course, nothing is bright and easy. This first version is based on just few sources now available at our University and on our experiences mainly from area of arbori- culture (which is only part of urban forestry). Take this text as a first step that will be polished and improved during the time as the information will come to us. If you are interested in progress we will made, please visit the web page of INOBIO project (http://inobio.ldf.mendelu.cz/cz) for the last version of the text. On behalf of authors Ludek Praus 2 3 CONCEPT OF URBAN FORESTRY Urban forestry1 is very fast developing area of interest. As the interaction between “urban” and surrounding forests growths, the need to manage these interactions (and collisions) led to the creation of this discipline. Origins of urban forestry are in North America during the 1960s. Accord- ing to Konijnendijk (2012) the concept has been introduced by Jorgensen at the University of Toronto, Canada, in 1965. Urban forestry covered manage- ment of city trees, single tree care and management, but also tree manage- ment in the entire area affected by the urban population.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Urban Tree Canopy Plan
    District of Columbia Urban Tree Canopy Plan Draft Urban Tree Canopy Plan January 2013 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 I. Historical Background of Trees in the District of Columbia .................................................. 6 II. The Benefits of Urban Tree Canopy ....................................................................................... 8 Trees Improve Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 8 Trees Improve Water Quality ................................................................................................. 9 Trees Save Energy ................................................................................................................ 10 Trees are Good for Roads ..................................................................................................... 10 Trees are Good for the Economy .......................................................................................... 10 Trees Create Jobs .................................................................................................................. 11 Trees are Good for Our Health and Communities ................................................................ 11 III. Present State of the District’s
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Forest Strategy Stakeholder Comments April-May 2010
    Statewide Forest Strategy Stakeholder Comments April-May 2010 The following stakeholder comments were considered and incorporated with other stakeholder input as detailed on http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/5438.htm Written comments from Statewide Forest Strategy Input & Survey These comments have not been edited. Trudy Dunaway Brown private landowner Acquire more land to connect forest corridors. Ban clear cutting. Jon Seymour Conservation group Concentrate zoning to limit expansion and reward reuse of already developed land. New development should retain ALL timber located on the property that is NOT directly affected by the development itself. Less green lawn -- much more woods and prairie Need to prioritize the war on invasives which will have different priority lists in different parts of the State. Barbara Cummings Government Connect regionally state held multi-agency properties with forested hike/bike trails. Include riparian corridors in plan to connect state-owned properties w/hike/bike trails. Develop a state-wide gathering of ash seeds, with appropriate storage provided someplace. Increase federally funded incentives for forest management like Lindsey Purcell University Conservation of woodlands or woodlots designated as urban natural resource areas. Improve forest areas in urban watershed areas as they relate to CSO's. Enhance and expand awareness of the benefits of trees and woodlots in urban areas. Dex Conaway Other Continuity and contiguity in forest ecosystems is essential for species migration of all types. Climate change poses a huge threat to these species in due time will most likely require them to migrate northward to a cooler climate they are most acclimated to. Therefore, it be imperative we allow freedom of movement for these species.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Outline
    th 9605 NE 24 Street • Clyde Hill, Washington 98004 425-453-7800 • Fax: 425-462-1936 • www.clydehill.org THE CITY OF CLYDE HILL’S URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM Clyde Hill is a community with two very distinctive characteristics: landscapes and views. Many people in the community enjoy picturesque vistas. Because the City is located in a region well suited for plant growth, residents cherish their landscaping and have the opportunity to see plants develop rapidly. Landscape related issues have become community problems as Clyde Hill matures and the effects of continued urbanization increase. A goal of the City is to find a balance between urban demands, such as views, and urban forest benefits, such as a beautifully landscaped neighborhood, by providing an Urban Forestry Program that will promote an accurate knowledge of appropriate plant materials and proper plant care. This on-going source of good information will reduce long-term conflicts of views and trees that in turn, will enhance the character and land values of the entire community. To help strike an appropriate balance between urban growth issues and the maintenance of urban landscapes, the City adopted a unique View Ordinance in 1991 (revised in 2015), as one of three steps taken to develop an urban forestry program. To achieve stability between urban demands, such as views, and urban forest benefits, such as a beautifully landscaped neighborhood, knowledge of appropriate plant materials and proper plant care are necessary. The City, the State Department of Natural Resources and the University of Washington have worked together to develop an Urban Forestry Educational Program as a second step to address these types of issues in Clyde Hill.
    [Show full text]