Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 5975-06-2024A Resolution NO. 5975-06-2024 ADOPTING THE FORT WORTH URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN AND INCORPORATING INTO THE COMPREHENSPVE PLAN WHEREAS the City of Fort Worth is the 12'h largest city, and one of the fastest growing large cities, in the United States, losing up to 2,500 acres of natural open space every year; and WHEREAS the Texas Trees Foundation and the City of Fort Worth have partnered on this plan to inform next steps in implementing the protection of Fort Worth's natural landscape and urban tree canopy; and WHEREAS the Texas Trees Foundation with the help of an 18-member Steering Committee comprised of co-chairs Mayor Pro-Tem Gyna Bivens and Council Member Alan Blaylock, City and community leaders, and subject matter experts developed Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan 2023 (UFMP) as a guide for Fort Worth's efforts to manage, preserve, and grow the tree canopy proactively and equitably amid ongoing growth and development; and WHEREAS development of UFMP was guided by extensive public input received through meetings with the Steering Committee, City staff engagement, six industry -related focus groups, a bi-lingual online survey, interviews, social media postings, and public engagement events gathering opinions from 2,300 community members and 55 participating organizations; and WHEREAS UFMP identifies four goals for Fort Worth's urban forest and ten recommendations and associated action steps to help achieve these goals; and WHEREAS on December 13, 2023, the Fort Worth Park and Recreation Board was briefed on the UFMP and on January 18, 2024, the Fort Worth UrbanDesignCommission was briefed on the UFMP; and WHEREAS on January 24, 2024, both the City Plan Commission and Park and Recreation Board endorsed the UFMP and recommended that the City Council adopt the plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, THAT: 1. The Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan 2024, attached as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted as a guide for future decisions related to the management of Fort Worth's urban forest; and 2. The City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporate the Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan 2024 by reference. Adopted this 25' day of June, 2024. ATTEST: By: U Jannette S. Goodall, City Secretary iiPP l IL �yS•414 }e f 12, xmpw- - A M1:SSAG1 I ZOM TFNAS'I R F I S 1 ()UNPATI0N As the oldest and longest -running Tree City U SA in Texas. the City of Fort Worth has a long, history of advocae% lix its rtrban rtnrest. In the tradition o rstcwardsh ip orlhis green infrastructure 1110 have taken the next step, through a partnership with the Texas Trees FonndianUn. to advance their comm itnnent wfdt the new City of Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plat. The Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan creates a shared vision aid is a roadmap for urban fi,r"t m tnaLeN it) preserve, manage, and prow die C iiy's forest resourc-es more effc tm elx a nii cquitably When property mviaged, urban treesprovide aniyriadA'boi Sits, including stormwatcrmitigation, heatreduction,lmwrair quality, attd improved health, wellness, and qti ality of life for everyone, This com- prehensive master plan is essential to ensure the tree resource is available to meet current and future needs of Fort Worth residents and visitors. While many people appreciate the aesthetic value of trees, research has shown that the benefits trees provide make thetn necessities rather than niceties. We commend the City of Fort Worth for their continued Comm itment to n tat; i q their city greener, cleaner, healthier, and cooler by investing in their ttrban tree canopy, and are appreciative and grate rul to dwse that helped supptm IN, ctfort. Janette Monear 1'restden(A-1 a, I'exas'rrecs Foundation A MESSAGE FROM THE CITY OF FORT WORTH Fort Worth is the fastest -growing city in America and is also currently half - developed. We have an opportunity, responsibility, and urgency right now to protect natural areas and plan for generations to come. Leaving tiffs City better than we found it starts now, and the Urban Forest Master Plan is a vital piece of that effort. The Urban Forest Master Plan also builds onto our history. Fort Worth has long shown its commitment to maintaining our green infrastructure, from being the oldest and longest -running Tree City USA in Texas since 1978, to the designation of a wildlife sanctuary in 1964 that later became the Fort Worth Nature Center & Refuge, to the launch of the Good Natured Fort Worth Green Space Initiative that I introduced just this year. The creation of a Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan builds on this important work and will inform our next steps in implementing the protection of our natural landscape and urban canopy for residents today and far into the future. Mayor Mattie Parker City of Fort Worth Executive Summary 2 Why Fort Worth's Urban Forest Matters 4 Fort Worth Values its Trees 8 Challenges Facing Fort Worth's Urban Forest 9 A Plan For Action: An Integrated Approach 14 Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Pian Goals 16 Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan Recommendations Section 1: Introduction 22 Purpose of an Urban Forest Master Plan 24 Trees Working For You and Our Environment 34 History of Urban Forest in Fort Worth TABLE OF 37 Challenges Facing Fort Worth and its Urban Forest CONTENTS Section 2: State of the Urban Forest 44 What Do We Have? 50 Fort Worth's Urban Forest: A Tap -Down Approach 70 The Bottom -Up Approach: Fort Worth's Trees 93 The Care and Management of Trees in Fort Worth 97 Urban Forest Management Status and Considerations 108 Program Staffing III City Regulations, Policies, and Plans 121 Canopy Goals, Planting, and Survival 130 Community Engagement and Partnerships 134 Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest Section 3: Understanding Fort Worth's Priorities 141 Community and Stakeholder Input 146 Key Findings of the UFMP Survey and Meetings Section 4: Achieving the Shared Vision for Fort Worth's Urban Forest I52 The Path Forward Together t 54 Recommendations and Action Steps Section 5: Assessing Progress 178 How Are We Doing? Appendices and References 188 Appendix A Maps 203 Appendix B: Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest 208 Appendix C: Implementation Plan Timetable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY � R irrt"r.Irlrrl : � � . �r:Yer aa�y,'II F�i1M�111 i11 �1.lYt.alsli�f}br .���een:t: : •or 2 t 's Sumner in North Texas can be unbearably hot, with daytime air temperatures in August frequently hovering around 105 degrees. Unshaded concrete can be 50 degrees hotter than the recorded air temperature. The air temperature combined with the radiant heat from the pavement creates an environment that is not only uncomfortable, but it also poses health risks for people and animals. Future climate predictions indicate that inhospitable summer temperatures are expected to continue, but there are ways to beat the heat and make time spent outdoors more enjoyable. A city's trees (collectively known as the urban forest) provide much - needed shade and are the most effective mechanism to cool urban areas and make In addition to providing relief from summer heat, trees provide urban areas with multiple otheressential benefits. They reduce flooding and erosion by capturing rainfall and decreasing stormwater runoff. Trees also help clean the air by removing contaminants and particulate matter. Along roadways, trees improve safety by calming traffic and providing a barrier between pedestrians and automobiles. Additionally, trees make commercial areas more attractive to shoppers, diners and other visitors and provide food and shelter for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife. The urban forest is a key component of Fort Worth's infrastructure. However, unlike roads or utilities, which are depreciating assets, the value of a well -managed urban forest increases over time. Investing in the urban forest is one of the most cost-effective ways a city can improve the quality of life and benefit economically. Trees are important in Fart Worth. The City operates its own tree farm and has maintained Tree City USA designation since 1978. Trees are preserved and planted in approximately 300 parks and public spaces across the City, including a 3600- acre nature preserve in northwest Fort Worth. The City has established an Open Space Conservation Program, adopted a greenspace initiative, and implemented City ordinances designed to protect and grow the urban forest. However, additional measures are needed to address the challenges currently facing the city's trees. The Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) presents an opportunity for the City to build on its history of prioritizing the urban forest. Implementing this plan supports the Tree City USA program objectives and Fort Worth's vision to become the most livable city in Texas. Fort Worth is a recognized leader in urban forestry as the oldest and longest -running Tree City USA city in Texas. The City achieved this designation in 1978, just two years after the Arbor Day Foundation launched the program. As a Tree City USA city, Fort Worth maintains: 4 A municipal deparhnent overseeing community tree management A public tree ordinance regulating planting, maintenance and removals 4 A tree program budget of at least $2 per capita 40 An Arbor Day observance and proclamation (P TREE CITY USX 8 w r w �. ■° Figure 1. illustration of the higher temperatures that occur in densely developed portions of cities. Urban forests across the country face common stressors including urban heat, poor air quality, soil limitations, weather extremes, pressure from development, and invasive plants, pests, and diseases. These challenges are often intensified by conflicting priorities and a shortage of resources. As the 13th largest and one of the fastest growing cities in the country, Fort Worth is feeling the impact on its trees. Like many cities, the tree canopy cover in Fort Worth is not equitably distributed across the City. As a result, some neighborhoods experience higher surface and ambient temperatures, poorer air quality, and more frequent flooding than neighborhoods with greater tree canopy cover. Additionally, the lack of access to trees and greenspace impacts residents' physical and mental health, sense of community, and overall well-being. In the face of rising temperatures and ongoing development, preservation and planting of healthy trees on public and private land is essential to maintaining and enhancing quality of life. A unified strategy is needed to ensure protection of mature trees and wooded areas, maintenance of existing trees, and equitable planting of new trees for the future. Additionally, Fort Worth has a unique opportunity to protect portions of native Cross Timbers Forest located on the east and west sides of the City. Protection of this critical habitat will further bolster the City's efforts to promote biodiversity and enhance the local native tree population. ing effoTts such as d 1egional planrt a is Master me ity UFMI' complements existing arl an paver Strat g tyteTxittitY pro�am'The worthComPiehensivePlan Con$ervation le city the Fob open Spate of becoming the most livable and the Fort W orti� o s vision eing t," oldest and Pl aligns N i�Fort W remarkable legacy of b iJF munhy in Texas• in `f exas and builds on �Sx coin free City Mp and est xwilk", to developn1e" t of esi City long group of residents, eathasbeenkey the most Community tnvolvem s pnor►urs. A diverse gr ectives an PTO' WSP this group establisbI inanity stakeholders P forest. Collectively, hoalthy, staff, the urban orating impott�t issues face and incorP Viol PreseNingexisting Gees ent, particularly in UFMp vironm in the City, s built e a strategies included into the d t tees recommendations an ordinate roles att a ximufn drought'reed We The plan,vill co d provide m deTser' areas • d priorities. e urban forest an un values an a e tlz Fort W orth• reflect theme vely man g, live and work in d responsibilities to effects ental, an term benefits to the PeOP euvironm t social, heat, impr�e song Plan addresses imp°rt reduce urb`m d Forest Master ublic bealth IVe energy, an Fortwortb's Urban designed to enhaarCe p ease public safety. G0 d proposed ie issues.lt IC, s eftts, to endations an econom royide economic ben The ten recotlam airqualwy,P effectively• City itstubanforest. manage storm`Nater more Vlore designed to garde the d PTO ing ser'+ action steps w strenehening, ar' in ntanagmg' grO`ving, to Greenspace is Key to the Quality of Life in Urban Areas The Urban Forest Master Plan complements Fort Worth's Open Space Conservation Program (OSCP) in bringing the benefits of nature and greenspace to the City. The OSCP acquires land containing existing waterways, forests, woodlands, and prairies, protecting it for current and future generations. The UFMP focuses on tree pres- ervation and planting within portions of the City that are currently developed or proposed for development. These programs work together to make Fort Worth cleaner, greener, cooler, and healthier. N Fort Worth's long-range, visionary plan includes an ambitious but achievable goal to increase the city's canopy coverage from 19% to 30% by 2050, This correlates to approximately 76,200 trees planted each year, in addition to replacement of trees lost to development, pests, or other causes. Alongside tree planting, tree preservation is critical to meeting the City's canopy goal. Parks, open space, and other undeveloped lands represent approximately half of the land area of the City and and its extra -territorial jurisdiction (ETJ)* — an incredible asset in a major American city. However, Fort Worth loses 2,500 acres of open space to development each year. Thoughtful, balanced development policies are necessary to support smart growth while retaining the city's natural heritage. Success hinges on the commitment and cooperation of City departments, private landowners and developers, and the broader community to a shared vision for a cool, green, and healthy Fort Worth. The UFMP will help Fort Worth to manage its urban forest so that it is sustainable, Fair and inclusive access to tree benefits that strives to eliminate racial, ethnic, and income disparities Sustainable Resilient A "resilient" urban forest refers to one that can thrive in the face of change 13 resiliant, and equitably distributed across the City, Definitions of these terms and the role of the UFMP are detailed in Figure 2. The Urban Forest Master Plan Will Help Fort Worth to: Plan for a sustainable and resilient urban forest by developing strategies and policies that align with intemationally-established best management practices. Manage tree maintenance, care, and tree planting activities more effectively by improving data, technology, communication, decision -making, and collaboration. Grow the urban forest inan equitable and sustainable manner to ensure that Fort Worth N" W10access to trees and the benefits they provide. Engage and connect with the community about the important role that they play in the growth, preservationjilljWf Fort'Worth's trees. Figure 2. Urban forest * The ETJ is an area outside the City limits where the City has some regulatory authority and the ability to arX 'o'f AQOdnder which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations (EPA) 4 4 4 4 40 UFMP 14 Continue to manage the urban forest as an asset using industry standards and best practices and adequate resources for sustainable management. Preserve and expand the urban forest to address tree equity, resiliency, urban heat, air quality, human health, and other challenges facing Fort Worth. Strengthen urban forest programs through coordination, integration, professionalism, and funding to meet the needs of a growing city and urban forest. Invigorate equitable engagement for a community -wide commitment to care for and grow Fort Worth's urban forest. 17 Conduct a comprehensive inventory of public trees in rights -of -way, parks, and other public property. Understanding the composition of Fort Worth's urban forest is key to proactive management. The City needs a more current inventory, as the most recent data available is from 2011. Develop and implement changes to tree regulations, standards, and best practices to support Fort Worth's tree canopy and sustainability goals. Fort Worth's Urban Forestry Ordnance has not been updated since 2009. City staff and community stakeholders have expressed the need to revise the ordinance to better meet the needs of a fast-growing city and protect mature trees in the Cross "Timbers Forest. Expand and strengthen cooperation among departments to ensure adequate staffing, training, and integration of urban forest considerations into City plans, programs, and policies. Improved coordination will help to address staffing deficits in the short-term and provide long-term support and buy -in for urban forest goals. Strengthen existing relationships and support new partnerships with neighborhoods and community organizations throughout the City. Bioadbased community support and involvement are essential to achieving equitable distribution of tree canopy to improve the quality of life in Fort Worth. Coordinate, create, and implement a public communication, education, and engagement plan focused on Fort Worth's urban forest. An effective public communications program will keep the community informed and encourage Fort Worth residents and businesses to participate in reaching canopy cover goals. 6 Develop and implement a strategy to maintain sustainable funding and resources to achieve desired levels of service for urban forest programs and management. Increased funding is essential to advance each of the other recommendations and to support the City's efforts to grow its urban forest by 76,200 trees annually. Support and expand plans for maintenance, risk management, and resiliency of public trees. For many people, public trees may be the only source of shade and greenspace within walking distance. 8 Create plans for tree planting, preservation, and maintenance to grow a resilient and equitable urban forest with 30% canopy cover, Fort Worth's current tree canopy coverage is approximately 19%. This plan provides a strategy to achieve 30%tree canopy by 2050. 9 Develop protocols for monitoring the urban forest to identify and address pests and other threats throughout the City. Early detection of forest challenges, such as pests and diseases, will allow Fort Worth to take action to minimize damage to the urban forest. 10 Strengthen, expand, and increase awareness of programs and strategies that utilize or repurpose urban wood waste generated from pubic tree operations. Wood utilization programs keep wood debris out of landfills while meeting the needs of local residents, businesses, and other organizations. SECTION I INTRODUCTION In 2022, the Texas Trees Foundation and the City of Fort Worth Fpzestl��tejF�ot s 3tbJ �a0z"ll -10 / dad w �ee�4p�u de c sr�g eauita��e�' forest• j comcm UFO 4 oo'a l asus 22 0 0 While nature may seem far from the urban environment, the trees across Fort Worth contribute valuable benefits to the urban ecosystem. Research increasingly shows the significant impact trees have on the lives of City residents. Fort Worth's urban forest improves air and water quality, cools the environment, lowers energy costs, and supports biodiversiry and wildlife habitat. A healthy urban forest also supports human health and well-being, offering intangible benefits like stress reduction and opportunities for active lifestyles and social connections. Caring for and prioritizing the urban forest is an important part of maintaining a sustainable and vibrant city. However, urban forest management must also support other goals, including economic development, transportation, urban design, and the goals of property owners. The Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan serves as a guide to proactively manage, care for, protect, and expand the City's tree canopy while navigating these competing pressures. The development of the Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Flan was based on answering four key questions: 1 What Do We Have? 2 What Do We Want? 3 How Do We Get There? 4 How Are We Doing? This structure, termed 'adaptive management," is commonly used for resource planning and management and provides a useful conceptual framework for managing Fort Worth's urban forest resource (Miller, 19B8). Figure 3. the Urban Forest Masler Dian proem / improve the Quality of Life Trees make cities more livable by decreasing summer tempera- tures and improving well-being. Greater contact with natural environments correlates with lower levels of stress, improved performance, and fewer sick days. Residents in areas with more greenery are three times more likely to be physically active and less likely to be overweight than residents living in areas with little greenery. Reduce Air and Surface Temperatures O Tree canopy lowers temperatures by shading buildings, asphalt, and concrete. Trees deflect radiation from the sun and release moisture into the air, reducing surface temperatures by as much as 36 degrees. Lower temperatures diminish fumes from heated asphalt and mitigate the urban heat island effect. Impro�IIr\ Trees p Air Quality r�fl� 1J Trees produce oxygen and clean the air by removing pollutants that would otherwise contribute to human health problems, such as asthma and other respiratory diseases. Protect Wildlife and Ecosystems Preserving and planting trees provides valuable habitat for wild- life, supports pollinator species, and provides favorable conditions for beneficial soil microorganisms. Save Energy and Lower Energy Costs for Buildings As natural screens, trees insulate homes and businesses from extreme weather, keeping buildings cooler and reducing air conditioning bills. Shade trees planted on a sunny exposure can provide savings of up to 509/6 in the summer. In winter, evergreen trees provide a protective barrier against cold winds. lax Conserve Water and Soil A tree's root system draws water into the soil, and its canopy slows rainfall, reducing runoff and erosion while removing contami- nants. In contrast, impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots allow water to run off unfiltered and at the likelihood o� flooaia� �d h vales, u`ca1 big caw 0 eut4 ofthe�cban E\em dudes dinthe vai, etiste�Repa veme�Wear,tra� paaition$� p�'Tectuli reduce P th e 'Forest coPemvalua'aes, Sources we listed A ogthe ut publcc the pier+ fzvy*and i dement creased cPOA eetior of gefezen� �e��. Teaiiz►ical 26 r O n Trees come in various forms —shade trees, flowering trees, trees with edible fruit and nuts, and trees with vibrant fall color. All contribute benefits and services to the urban ecosystem. Many environmental benefits of trees in urban areas are identifiable and measurable, while other benefits are experienced, such as the calming feeling of walking a quiet tree -covered trail. The following provides a summary of the social and human health benefits of trees and greenspaces. Social and Human Health Benefits of Trees Fort Worth's park and street trees create a sense of community, offering opportunities for people to come together and engage in various activities. Additionally, Fort Worth's urban forest provides a respite from the hustle and bustle of city life, offering peaceful retreats where individuals can relax, unwind, and enjoy nature. Research summarized in the following paragraphs shows the presence of trees and greenery in urban areas reduces stress, improves mental well-being, and encourages physical activity, all of which contribute to healthier and happier communities. More- over, Fort Worth's urban forest creates opportunities for environmental education and volunteering, inspiring residents to learn about nature, participate in tree planting initiatives, and engage in environmental stewardship. Studies have shown that trees and vegetation in parks and other common spaces are associated with an increased sense of safety and stronger social ties among neighbors. Encounters with nature in cities also lead to enhanced positive attitudes, decreased stress levels, improved attention spans, and better performance on cognitive memory ....... ...« nv..if ', nl Innn, M.dLSYM�I = -LC11- Figure 4. Human health and social benefits of trees. 27 Research shows that community residents are three times as likely to be physically active when living in areas with more trees and greenspace. They are also more likely to report good health. This is particularly evident among vulnerable populations, such as older and low-income residents. Opportunities to experience urban nature — whether it's a view of a tree through a window or actually being outside — are key to the mental well- being of city resi- dents. People are happier, experience a greater sense of well-being, and have reduced stress levels when they live in areas with more green- space nearby or on a tree canopied neighbor- hood street (White, et a1., 2013). Access to nature has been shown to positive- ly impact human health, resulting in increased longevity, reduced rates of cancer, heart disease, anxiety, and depression, lower stress hormones, and improved immune function. A study in 2016 of 108,000 people found a 12% lower rate of nonaccidental mortality among those with the most greenery in a 250-meter radius around their homes (James.. et al., 2016). In addition, hospital patients placed in rooms with views of nature experienced shorter stays in the hf faced other buildings (Mihandoust et al., 2 Tree cover near schools connects children tc performance. Children with challenges 20-minute walk in an urban park or tree walks in other urban settings without tree Overall, Fort Worth's urban forests play a well-being, human health, and communi livable and enjoyable city. 1w� t. ►. 'ik ) ,. s S q� y t bl] G V� � cd (d is �" F � ° 3 U O a� o a, y cam, r u is u ,� zs w a. ai nz rr y�inn Cd @. d6 !fit uJ+! F 1 W 7a E C Cd Q +� J Cif L axi rn c o �--1 G� 0.. Q p ° -" u o 0 30 0 P Environmental Benefits of Trees Urban trees provide quantifiable environmental benefits in terms of stormwater management, air and surface water quality, and carbon storage. The City of Fort Worth can use this data to educate community members, develop strategies to address inequities, and incorporate trees in infrastructure design. A tree canopy assessment conducted by PlanIT Geo in 2020 determined that 19% of the City (75,740 acres) was shaded by tree canopy. The following benefits were calculated based on the leaf area of the canopy. Fort Worth's tree canopy removes over 6.6 million pounds (3300 tons) of pollutants from the air annually, equating to a savings or S33.9 million in terms of reduced air filtration needs, improved health, lowered asthma rates, and other factors based on U.S. Forest Service research (USDA Forest Service i-Tree Canopy). Fort Worth's urban forest prevents over 1 5 billion gallons of stormwater runoff annually. which is equivalent to nearly 2,300 Olympic -sized swimming pooks. The reduction in runoff translates to savings of approximately $10.8 million annually based on regional research on the costs for stormwater management systems (USDA Forest Service i-Tree Canopy). The canopy and biomass of trees across the City capture over 327,000 tons orcarbon dioxide annually (Stencil, 2015), resulting in a savings of $15.2 million. To put those numbers into perspective, that is equivalent to carbon dioxide emissions of nearly 65,000 vehicles per year (22 miles per gallon driving 11,000 miles per year). W- F" &000�1 0 CARBON AIR STORMWATER SERVICES QUALITY SERVICES 654.5 million 6.6 million 1.5 billion pounds of pounds of gallons carbon pollutants of dioxide removed stormwater sequestered from the air diverted Annua! Annual Value Value S 15.2M 510.aM yYnvalbene�� of Fo�� a�'s vr� C2000cpvec. 32 Fort Worth is geographically diverse, containing portions of the eastern and western Cross Timbers Forests, native prairies, and the Trinity River. These ecosystems contain endangered and endemic plant and animal species that form an integral part of Fort Worth's natural landscape. The'Candy Hills Natural Area originally contained 160 acres of natural prairie overtooking the city skyline. In 2020 the City added Broadcast Hill, an adjacent 50-acre tract. This purchase was the City's first acquisition through the Open Space Conservation Program. 33 35 0 0 History of Urban Forestry in Fort Worth Fort Worth has promoted sound urban forestry practices since 1873, when the City charter declared it illegal to hitch a horse to a tree. The City hired its first arbarist in 1926 and began growing trees in various parks near Lake Worth in the late 1920s, Growing operations were consolidated at the current location in the late 1970s and early 1980s following the City's purchase of the 71-acre Rolling Hills property in 1971. Fort Worth achieved the Arbor Day Foundation designation of Tree City USA in 1978, becoming the first and longest —running Tree City USA in Texas. In the early 1990's Fort Worth received a U.S. Forest Service grant for development of Comprehensive Urban Forest Plan. The City partnered with Davey Tree Service to complete the plan in 1995. During this time, Fort Worth was in the process of developing its first landscape ordinance. Due to the political climate and controversy surrounding the landscape ordinance, the City decided not to pursue formal adoption of the Urban Forest Plan at that time. However, the Parks and Community Services Department (currently PARR) utilized the findings related to tree planting and public education efforts for development of internal politics and procedures. In the 2000s, the City expanded its efforts to protect critical areas and native habitat. In response to community outcry over tree clearing in the Cross Timbers Forest of East Fort Worth, the City implemented interim regulations in 2004 while beginning work on a tree preservation ordinance. In 2007, Fort Worth passed an urban forestry ordinance to protect existing trees and ensure new trees were planted concurrently with land development. This ordinance was updated in 2009. The City implemented pre -grading inspections of tree protection in 2016 following a permit violation in the Cross Timbers Forest. In 2021, the penalty section of the ordinance was amended to strengthen the City's ability to levy civil penalties for violations. With development pressure increasing, the City is striving to strike a balance between preservation and development in the remaining Cross Timbers Forest. In 2015. an attempt to amend the urban forestry ordinance failed due to a lack of consensus. Since that time, the City has met with diverse stakeholder groups in An eValaation �e desired bra p,�ectuncatg"ePod ce to �w1eye theUFNi the ordinancluded iO p�e��atinn far re�isrng est�lordina e,is oft'e currer,tucbar+for Extreme Weather Weather patterns in north central Texas typically include hot, dry summers and mild winters. However, in recent years the region has experienced high and low temperature extremes, seasonal flooding, extended periods of winter precipitation, and severe drought. Drought and Heat - In 2011 Texas experienced the worst drought ever recorded with only 25.88 inches of rainfall, compared to normal precipitation of36.14 inches. It was also the hottest year on record with 71 days at or above 100 degrees F (National Weather Service, 2023), The Texas A&M Forest Service estimated that the drought killed over 300 million rural trees and over 5 million urban trees (Henry, 2012) Continuing the trend of hot, dry summers, 2022 was the fourth hottest on record for North Texas with the second longest period without rainfall. The summer of 2023 was the third hottest and fourth driest summer on record for North Texas (CBS News, 2023). Drought Monitoring Abnormal Moderate Severe Extreme Exceptional 2022 Fort Worth El Paso Austin Houston .. Fr ���« � � �+� F ' � Rom" � � _ Y • `�"�, c � ✓ ` 1. r 38 w 0 Cold and lee Recent extreme weather events include winter storms and record cold temperatures. In February 2021, winter storm Uri brought 139 consecutive hours below freezing and the second coldest temperature on record of-2 degrees F. In December 2022, a hard freeze brought 1 l-degree temperatures, endangering trees not yet in their dormant state. The following month, a record snowfall consisting primarily of ice and sleet caused damage to trees due to the weight and thickness of the ice. ~�1 Photo taken during Winter Storm Uri. Source: Fort Worth Star Telegram. Pests and Disease Changing conditions can create environments that are favorable for the spread of pests and diseases. For example, warmer temperatures and increased precipitation can create ideal conditions for pests, such as the emerald ash borer, which has decimated ash tree populations in many areas, and diseases such as Dutch elm disease, which can kill large numbers of elm trees. Oak wilt, which is devastating oaks in North Central Texas (Texas A&M Forest Service. 2022), can proliferate in cool moist conditions that occur during winter and early spring, particularly when in combination with open wounds on trees due to storms or human activity. 39 W 0 0 Development is Outpacing Tree Planting Fort Worth's growth is recognition of an outstanding city that welcomes families and businesses. Between 2010 and 2021, more than 194,000 people moved to Fort Worth, resulting in population growth of 25%. Fort Worth's population is expected to reach 1,000,000 by 2028 (City of Fort Worth, 2022). Development and infrastructure projects such as roadway and housing expansions are needed to support the existing population and projected growth. However, impervious surfaces currently cover more of Fort Worth than tree canopy. The 2020 tree canopy assessment found that 19% of the City and its extra -territorial jurisdic- tion (ET!) is shaded by tree canopy, while 21% is covered by parking lots, roadways, buildings, and other hardscapes. This equals 12,500 more acres of heat inducive land cover compared to tree canopy. Meanwhile, an additional 2,500 acres of open space are converted to development every year. These are just a few of the challenges that threaten the urban forest. Challenges are discussed in more detail in Section 2 under Urban Forest Vulnerabilities. 40 It is critical for Fort Worth's environment, economy, and community well-being that the City act now to sustainably manage the urban forest. The City has a Comprehensive Plan for how Fort Worth will grow and change with development. Undeveloped areas contain native trees and vegetation, fertile soils, vital water resources, natural prairie, wetlands, and the remaining remnants of the Cross Timbers Forest. Protection and conservation of these critical areas is up to the citizens and the choices made by the City. Fort Worth's Urban Forest Master Plan provides the roadmap with goals and supporting recommendations to manage, grow, preserve, and strengthen the urban forest through invigorated partnerships that align with City and community priorities. Section 2 of this plan is an overview of the current state of Fort Worth's urban forest and will serve as a baseline to measure future progress. Section 3 is an overview of Fort Worth's priorities for the urban forest which were identified through community and stakeholder input. The Plan's goals, recommendations, and recommended action steps are presented in Section 4 and supported by the monitoring plan in Section 5. Let's begin by exploring Fort Worth's urban forest. I r„ «^ .�•� ' • ..� sue; .+ ! _' e�ri. �-•— , The City of Fort Worth covers approximately 350 square miles, and includes portions of Tarrant, Penton, Johnson, Parker, and Wise counties. It is located within the Cross Timbers and Prairies Ecological Region of Texas (Texas Parks and Wildlife). Fort Worth encompasses portions of three subregions — the East Cross Timbers, Fort Worth Prairie, and West Cross Timbers. Although mapped as distinct regions based on predominant characteristics, Fort Worth's native ecology is an intricate mosaic ofwoodiand, grassland, and riparian/tloodplain. 19-Year Avg (37in) 70 u 50 40 30 m 20 10 F 00 O O O O O O N N Year Fire 7. Fort W orih annual precipitlon, Source: National ,Tleather Service 46 Soils and Land Cover Native soils in the East and West Cross Timbers consist of sand or sandy loam overlying a thick layer of sandstone. Native vegetation is dominated by post oak and blackjack oak. Other common species include cedar, elm, ash, eastern redeedar, osage orange, mesquite, and other oak species. Many mature post and blackjack oaks in the Cross Timbers are estimated to be 200 to 400 years old (University of Arkansas Tree Ring Laboratory, 2023). However, these hardy, slow -growing trees are very susceptible to construction damage and are not readily available commercially. As development of Cross Timbers forestland continues, these trees that play a key role in the native ecosystem are replaced with other tree species. In the Fort Worth Prairie, native soils are relatively shallow clay overlying layers of limestone. Native vegetation consists of various species of taligrass, depending upon the depth of the soil. Historically, much of this region was used for grazing, although areas with sufficient soil depth were cultivated. It is estimated that Fort Worth is losing 2800 acres of native prairie annually to development (City of Fort Worth, 2019), The Native Prairies Association of Texas classifies the tallgrass prairie as the most endangered ecosystem in North America. It is important to note that urbanization and associated development have significantly altered both soils and vegetation across all three regions. Additionally, the Trinity River and its tributaries bisect much of Fort Worth, creating deep alluvial soils and associated vegetation. 1W 0 -C�j Ecological Regions Eastern Cross Timbers Fort Worth Prairie Western Cross Timbers City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Other Cities/ Jurisdictions 47 ions in FortsNorthdcecting soils and land Dover. F�gu�e $Map of the ccologLc Ceg 48 Riparian Areas At 710 miles, the Trinity River is the 7th longest river in Texas, and the third largest by average flow volume. Two of the river's four branches, the West Fork and the Clear Fork, flow through Fort Worth. Numerous tributaries to these branches flow through Fort Worth providing habitat for riparian species. The City is committed to managing the river as a valuable asset to the community and actively maintains parks and oversees development projects along the Trinity River. Parks and Open Space Fort Worth maintains an extensive municipal park system that includes the Fort Worth Nature Center, a 3,600-acre preserve in northwest Fort Worth, and Gateway Park, a 792-acre park on the east side of the City. In total, the Park and Recreation Department maintains close to 300 parks (12,893 acres) and public spaces citywide and numerous neighborhood parks. In 2020, the City established the Open Space Conservation Program to identi- fy and protect the City's most important natural areas. Acquisitions include 40 acres of future parkland near Lake Benbrook, 50 acres of natural prairie, and 24 acres of eastern Cross Timbers Forest, In 2023, Fort Worth established the Good Natured Fort Worth Greenspace Initiative to grow and improve the City's park system and preserve additional greenspace. Subsurface Resources Fort Worth contains a portion of the Barnett Shale natural gas reserve. The reserve is located approximately 1.5 miles below ground across a 15-county area. There are currently approximately 600 drilling sites and 1,900 gas wells within the City. Revenue from gas drilling on City -owned property supports Fort Worth's municipal tree farm and associated tree planting and distribution programs. EagF� AMxincah: Surface Water Lakes a �' Rivers & Creeks City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary a._ 0 Other Cities ! Jurisdictions 49 Figure 9. Map of the primary water bodies in FortW off• 50 Fort Worth's urban forest consists of all trees across public and private land. The City of Fort Worth is directly responsible for managing the trees within street rights -of -way, public parks, and other City -owned properties. Of the 190/0 canopy cover citywide, over 80% of it is on private land. Similarly, the possible planting space for new trees (existing land cover consisting of grass and soil) is primarily on private property with only about a quarter of it on public land. The distribution exemplifies the need to bolster community partnerships and programs to preserve and expand the urban forest resource on private and public property. 19% Tree Canopy Urban Tree Canopy 59% Grass and Soil 21% Impervious L% Water t > 5 Possible Planting Area Description and Distribution of Fort Worth's Tree Canopy Understanding the distribution, amount, location, and health of Fort Worth's urban tree canopy (UTC) is one of the most useful methods for managing the urban forest at a citywide scale for sustainability, equity, and resiliency goals. The overhead tree canopy is responsible for most of the benefits of urban trees. The canopy is described and measured as the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from above. By knowing how much canopy cover there is citywide and within various planning and community boundaries, benefits such as heat reduction, air quality improvement, and stormwater mitigation can be calculated to in- form management decisions. 2020 Tree Canopy Assessment no,a imag.ry) Tree canopy >aa Grass Impervious Water Bare soil 0 Other Cities 1 Jurisdictions City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Figure 11. land cover map of Fw Wwth and az�`3 ia�°a Fes` a�1 �� �aa�ssas •�assass� sas��a o°S <,gaai Q2w S,a,j la �ssg .Zvosod �axd s�o��a,�vx1 zaNeffi, 52 Defining the Study Area In 2020, the Texas Trees Foundation conducted a high -resolution canopy assess- ment based on 2018 imagery. The amount of canopy in acres and percentages was calculated for the area within Fort Worth City Limits and for the City's Extrater- ritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The ETJ is an area outside the City limits where the city has the authority to regulate some activities and to annex land. Texas Local Government Code defines the size of the ETJ boundaries according to a city's population. For Fort Worth, the ETJ can be up to five miles beyond the city lim- its. In 2018, the City's ETJ contained approximately 300 square miles of land. The canopy assessment study area includes both full -purpose and limited -purpose annexation areas. All City ordinances, taxes, and services apply to full -purpose annexation areas. Under limited -purpose annexation, Fort Worth enforces planning, zoning, and health and safety ordinances, but the property owners do not pay City property taxes, and the City does not provide police or fire protection, roadway maintenance, or other services. Most summaries and planning strategies for the UFMP are based on canopy cover data for the City limits and the ETJ. The data was evaluated and analyzed across various boundaries including City planning sectors, future land use, and U.S. Census Block Groups, 53 y Area '-ity Limits: Full Purpose -4 Limits: Limited Purpose 3xtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Other `ities / Jurisdictions Tree Canopy Cover ❑ City Limits Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Tree Canopy ►. ❑ Other Cities 1 Jurisdictions �r r� L Q Flgure 12. Maps of the study area shD Wng annexation type and Vee canopy o— 54 Land Cover Type and Potential Planting Area 20% 5% 19% 19% City Limits: City Limits: Extraterritorial Overall Full Purpose Limited Purpose Jurisdiction Study Area Figure 13. Tree canopy cover percentages for the study area. Source: Fort Worth 2020 UTC (TTF) Currently, 19%of the study area is covered by tree canopy distributed across public and private property. Stated another way, of the 399,558 total land acres, 75,740 acres are shaded by tree canopy when viewed from above. This is equivalent to the area of over 57,000 NFL —sized football fields. The assessment also identified areas where trees could be planted to create additional tree canopy. A total of 52% (206,875 acres) of the study area is either grass, low—lying shrubs, or turf. An additional 6% is made up of soil (23,998 acres). Of the 230,872 acres of permeable surface acre, 92,948 acres are classified as "unsuitable for urban tree canopy". Examples of unsuitable areas include recre- ational sport Gelds, golf greens, and airports. This leaves 35% (137,925 acres) of the study area as Total Possible Planting Area (PPA). The remaining 23% of the study area consists of 21 % (88,282 acres) pavement or other impervious areas and 2%(7,991 acres) water. The following summarizes findings from the 2020 canopy assessment: 55 O W 56 P i< Canopy Cover and Planting Area by City Planning Sectors Fort Worth is divided into 16 planning sectors, with an average tree canopy U N cover of 22%. The TCU/Westcliff sector has the greatest proportion of canopy (39%), The Far West sector contains the greatest acreage of canopy with 13,574 acres (20%canopy cover). Far Southwest contains the greatest proportion of total possible planting area (grass and soil surface area) with 78%or 47,846 acres. Downtown has the highest proportion of impermeable/unsuitable area with 71%. These metrics are a starting point for identifying future planting sites, although further evaluations are needed to verify conditions and identify preferable locations. 6 Western Hills / Ridglea 39% Z2% 39% a3% Z9% 48% 2Z% 35% 43°l° 3 Northeast 19% 35% 46% aO% 66% 14°fo 1 tiFar Southwest 16Ttar South 2 Far NPrthwest I Far North 33% 36% 3.1%0 8 Downtown ? Arlington Heights Planning Sectors Canopy % <10% Q - 15% 15-2T16 _ 26 - 35% _ 35 -100% City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Other Cities 1 Jurisdictions ' AL 57 0 0 u Existing Tree Canopy potential planting so � Area "{o Unsuitable far ree Planting DA, Figure 14. Tree canopy metrics by city planning sector. bats Source: Fort Worth UTC MF) re 15. Msp of city planning Sectors by trec canopy cover ranpc. Dm Source: Fort Worth UTC Figu (TTF) 58 Fort Worth's Urban Tree Canopy Compared to Other Cities Tree Canopy by Census Block Group A comparison study was conducted to determine how the City's tree canopy Figure 18 shows tree canopy distribution by census block groups. Differences in y cover compares to that of other local cities and select peer cities across the U.S. canopy cover are due to a combination of factors including native ecology, historic Peer cities were chosen based on their size, location, urban forest programs, and current land use, weather events, and tree planting and maintenance conducted by availability of data, and other factors to represent a diverse cross-section of the landowner, including City investment in parks and street trees. comparison cities. This study can help the City communicate the extent of the urban forest and promote opportunities to preserve and increase canopy. At 191/16, Fort Worth's tree canopy is below the average for local cities (27%) and U.S. cities (26%) (Figures 16 and 17, respectively). Fort Worth Arlington Grand Prairie 34% Gr`'p'Av 28 f' 32`%, Average Canopy % by Census Block Group North Rich'AWOVK 18% Tree 34% Cover <10% 27% f 10-15% r 15 - 20% 25% _ 20-35% _ 35-100% City and Extraterritorial 23% Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary 31°6 Colleyville 34% to Z7X 0 Other Cities l,iurisdictions Haltom City 2b " u t Benbrook 26% Y Haslet 8 Hurst 277o r Bedford 26% y Dallas 32% Figure 16. Tree canopy cover in Tarrant County, TX communities plus Dallas, TX. Source: Tarrant County UTC ('M) _1--� Tree Atlanta, GA 19% Cover 40% Austin, TX E Charlotte, NC 47*4 f Chicago, IL 18%. Colorado Springs, CO Columbus, OH 22% Average Denver, CO Fort Worth, TX Fremont, CA 59 Houston, TX 18"/ Los Angeles, CA 25% Louisville, KY 37% Minneapolis, MN 30"X. New Orleans, LA 231% Phoenix, AZ 13% Pittsburgh, PA 40% Tacoma, WA 20%, Vancouver, WA 1W Figure 17, Comparison of tree canopy cover in Fort Worth and in select U.S. cities. Source: Tarrant County UTC (TTF) Figure 18. Tree canopy cover percentages by U.S. Census Block Group, Source: Tarrant County UTC (TTF) 60 0 Average Summer Surface'remperate by Census Block Group o Figure 19 shows summer temperature variation among census block groups. Comparison with Figure 18 illustrates the correlation between low canopy cover and higher surface temperatures. Average Summer Surface Temperatures (;:ah_t m) 84-94 degrees 94-95 degrees ale risdictions Tree Canopy and Temperature The City and its warm sunny weather are inviting to tourists, residents, and business owners. But the high temperatures experienced during a summer heat wave can prove dangerous and even life -threatening. These temperatures vary dramatically throughout the City. A major reason for these differences lies in the amount of shade in the form of tree canopy. Figure 19 shows the average summer surface temperature in Fort Worth rang- es between 84 and 102 degrees Fahrenheit. A comparison of temperature with tree canopy cover shown in Figure IS reveals that the Far North sector has only 9% tree cover and the highest average surface temperature, between 97 and 102 degrees. Tree Equity and Distribution As shown by the census block group maps, tree cover is not evenly distributed across the City. Analyses and local assessments indicate that a city's wealthier areas zoned for single-family homes typically attract more city services, like wide sidewalks and trees (Drescher, 2019). A study conducted in 2021 in 37 U.S. cities showed that historically redlined neighborhoods, comprised of racial and ethnic minorities, have on average half the tree canopy cover when compared to neighborhoods comprised of U.S.-born white populations (Locke et al., 2021). Additionally, as time progresses, this disparity becomes a direct threat to public health. For example, in I I "texas cities, neighborhoods with higher proportions of redlining had significantly more heat -related emergency depart- ment visits (Li et al., 2022). In 2021, American Forests, the nation's oldest national conservation organiza- tion, released its Tree Equity Score (TES) tool, defined as "a calculation that evaluates equitable distribution of tree cover in the United States." The TES tool measures tree equity across 150,000 U.S. neighborhoods and 486 municipali- ties in urban areas. Each community's TES indicates whether there are enough trees for everyone to experience the health, economic, and environmental benefits that trees provide. The scores are based an how tree canopy and sur- face temperature align with income, employment, race, age, and health factors. A score of 100 means that a neighborhood or community has achieved tree equity, and its residents have access to tree benefits. 61 Figure 19. Average summer surface temperatures by U.S. Census Block Groups. Source: Tree Equity Score Tool, American Forests 62 0 Tree Equity Score (TES) Results Fort Worth's overall TES is 89 out of a possible 100, Compared to 15 other cities a in Tarrant County and the City of Dallas, Fort Worth ranks Sth in terms of tree equity. The average TES for all 16 cities is 88. Compared to 17 select peer U.S. cities, Fort Worth ranks 6th in tree equity based on an average score of 85. Selection criteria for peer cities include size, location, urban forest programs, and availability of data. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the local and national TES comparisons. The Tree Equity Scores combined with the overall canopy comparison indicate that Fort Worth ranks lower than the average comparison city on amount of tree canopy, but higher than the average local city on equitable distribution. TES data was utilized in this plan to help identify potential areas to prioritize future tree plantings. Of the 524 Census Block Groups (CBGs) in Fort Worth, 30% (1 S6 CBGs) are below the City's overall score of 89. Of these block groups, tree canopy was the lowest in neighborhoods with 40°/u-60% people of color (96 CBGs). Comparing tree canopy to poverty levels, the neighborhoods with less than 20%people in poverty had the lowest tree canopy (131 CBGs) followed by neighborhoods with 609/o,-80% people in poverty (110 CBGs). Fort Worth residents, community leaders, and tree advocates can use the tree equity score to address environmental and public health disparities. The infor- mationcan be utilized to attract new resources and funding, make technical decisions, guide implementation of the Urban Forest Master Plan, and track progress toward achieving tree equity citywide. 64 Tree Equity Scores (TES) by U.S. Census Block Groups �Seura'. AIleO� Fp�7 < 64 TES Comparison of Tree Equity Scores in Tarrant County and the City of Dallas (Average Tree Equity by .ensus R y 64-79 TES Tree Equity Score is 88 out of 100) M89 TES 90.99 TES 100 TES 76 83 84 85 85 86 87 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 93 93 City and Extraterritorial ! Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary F—I Other Cites IJurisdictions ��o s Q�` p *° ym �b ow om rr °� . � o ti� � Q� ^��obZ•� 4.°��ao"®cOp�Fcb� IP Figure 21, Comparison of Tree Equity Scores of Tarrant County cities and the City of Dallas, TX (2023). Source: Tree Equity Score Tool, American Forests Comparison of Tree Equity Scores in Select Peer Cities (Average Tree Equity) 72 76 77 78 80 81 82 83 86 86 87 88 89 91 92 92 84 98 G4 �Y' GO GO•(4- °c�. �cs �e, �yc. �iy� �`ys y�� �w• Fs� NO J`qr Jm� °fir- ��a• �4Nq. `$�S�,• ,� G° Figure 22. Comparison of Tree Equity Scores for select peer U.S. cities (2023). Source: Tree Equity Score Tool, American Forests 282 65 7 G a N � 70 �s y,s $ ONO ❑� - o (.i O - E m 19 Csl�Gtnpq� it [fywlp0� � Emylpymertt �/��C\V��/�� 64-79 Z 0-63 sarffine hmp Mba Rap Ape 67 �m 90-99 100 80-89 Tree Equity Score Ratings Figure 24. Map displaying tree equity scores (top) and distribution of Figure 23. Inputs for Fort Worth's Tree Equity Score (2023). Source: Census Block Groups by score range (bottom). Source: Tree Equity Tree Equity Score Tool, American Forests. Score Tool, American Forests 66 In addition to differences based on socioeconomic status, canopy cover variations may be due to other factors, such as natural land cover and current or previous land use. For y example, the Eastside and Southeast planning sectors contain portions of the eastern Cross Timbers Forest. These undeveloped areas have high amounts of tree canopy cover in Considerations for Prioritizing Tree Plantings proportion to their land area, while others like the Far North planning sector have much lower tree canopy cover. Southwest Fort Worth contains a higher percentage of natural prairie, resulting in less tree canopy cover on undeveloped areas. Focusing tree planting, preservation, and care in areas with low tree canopy is one way to increase Fort Worth's overall canopy cover. However, using areas of low canopy cover as the only criteria for deciding where these activities occur will not necessarily ensure that tree benefits are maximized, Understanding the extent and distribution of tree canopy relative to economic, demographic, environmental, and health factors can identify areas of greatest need. To support this goal, tree canopy data was analyzed to develop potential priority planting areas based on the following factors: Ownership Type: Canopy and plantable space on public and private land. Data Source: Fort Worth's 2020 UTC Assessment (TTF) Impervious Area and Heat: Areas with the most impervious area and above average surface temperatures. Data Source(s): Fort Worth's 2020 UTC Assessment (TTF), and Tree Equity Score Tool (American Forests) Impervious Area and Flooding: Areas with the most impervious area and located within 100 feet of waterbodies. Data Source: Fort Worth's 2020 UTC 4 Assessment (TTF) Detnngraphics: Areas with high proportions of minority and lower income populations, and areas with the highest health risk index. Data Source(s): Fort Worth's 2020 UTC Assessment (TTF), Tree Equity Score Too] (American Forests), Centers for Disease Prevention Data surrounding each ofthese factors was analyzed to develop a ranked priority planting map. The data was further evaluated to include high pri- ority areas identified by community members during public engagement sessions. Figure 25 illustrates the resulting combined priority planting map. 67 N dt Le lu oy IF -A I f W;V JEW ty$eS section and in theputs of establisb'T' an Appendix A e CMMIs god ets should maps ptovidea ReQott support ' and its p tre'Lecbn'ca1 Zbe pn of the Techntable mban forest" -The dined in Element `� oc Bate sttateB�c �letn mote e* ries, fu�et be conducted to sitategies nainta>'g am ese pt'on canteen d developing and refine th sessmentsand city`wtde tree canopy tRep rt rleighbotl►o°d cb�engeS B9 tPttotit'zing an Plans d,at addtes cc ptatin&S cat' be scaled to actrieve i)ic, wa'evea, at CO, goals. 70 O Trees as Infrastructure 0 What comes to mind when you hear the word infrastructure? Roads, bridges, power h lines, and storm drains are common answers, but urban trees fit into this category as well. Like other city infrastructure, urban trees require management and maintenance to succeed. The City of Fort Worth needs a baseline understand- ing of the composition, structure, condition, and maintenance needs of the trees that make up the urban forest to identify strategies for sustainable management. Types of Trees and Ownership While the urban forest encompasses all landscapes and trees within Fort Worth's boundaries, this assessment focuses on trees and opportunities in urban areas of the City. Trees within parklands, public rights -of -way, and city property are referred to as public trees and are under the purview of the Forestry Section of the Park and Recreation Department (PARR). Public trees located on lands purchased by the City's Open Space Conservation Program are maintained by the Forestry Section. The City's Stormwater Management Program manages trees located within drainage easements. Private trees are those located on residential, commercial, industrial, educational, and other privately owned property. This includes trees planted or preserved as part of private development projects. Private trees are regulated by the Urban Forestry Section of the Development Services Department (DSD). Figure 26 illustrates city departments' jurisdiction over public and private trees. PARD Forestry (Park and Recreation Department) DSD Urban Forestry (Development Services Department) DSD Urban Forestry PARD Forestry Private Trees Public Street Trees PARR Forestry Public Space Trees Figure 26. Illustration of the types and ownership of trees comprising the urban forest. Public Street Trees Private Residential Trees ►A1 Figure 27, Examples of the types of trees and ownership in Fort Worth, 72 0 0 U 40 Tree Species Composition and Structure: The composition and number of public trees was estimated based on a 6.6% sample inventory of street trees performed in 2011. Inventory data indicates there were an estimated 260,954 public street trees in 201.1. The City's Forestry Section estimates there are currently over 300,000 street trees. OP Urban Forest Vulnerabilities: Fort Worth's trees face challenges from various sources including human activity, weather patterns, and pests and diseases. Data sources include the U.S. Forest Service Climate Change Tree Atlas, which models habitat vulner- ability for the south-central U.S. region and research from the Texas A&M Forest Service, which highlights tree pests and disease. 73 74 0 Fort Worth's landscape is a mixture of remnant (pre -settlement) trees and planted ` w trees. Regional data indicates that trees in urban areas of the City have higher tree species diversity than the surrounding native landscapes. Parks, natural areas, and other open spaces tend to have a higher proportion of remnant native vegetation, whereas planted trees (both native and non-native) dominate developed areas. This is particularly evident when comparing converted to existing prairie land. Public Tree Counts FortWortb does not have a comprehensive inventory of public trees. The most recent data available is a i sample inventory of street trees that was completed in 2011 using the U.S. Forest Service's i-Tree tool. Results ofthis study indicate a street tree population of 260,R64 in 2011. The sample inventory provides insights on the extent, composition, structure, and maintenance needs of public street trees, However, the accuracy is limited by the time that has elapsed since the study was done. Severe weather events, including prolonged droughts and winter freezes, have negatively impacted the street tree population. However, street trees are frequently incorporated in new development and redevelopment projects throughout the City. Based on these factors, it is estimated that there are currently approximately 300,000 public street trees in Fort Worth, Table I on the next page summarizes the available information regarding public trees. Implementation of the UFMP will help to provide additional information on the number and locations ofpublic trees. Additional details are available in Element 4 (Data Analyses) ofthe Plan's Technical Report. Types of Tree Count Public Trees Estimates* Public Street Trees 1 300,000 Public Park Trees I Unkno«tn Public Property Trees I Unknown ne puonc suaer vee esnmare is naseo on a 4o I i sampe invemoryrepresenting e.nT. or me Tee PC%Wt of The studyestimated the street tree population at 260,964 trees with a standard empr of-f- 38,353, indicating the population may have been between 222,611 and 299,317trees. Based —the City s planing efforts since 20I1, the current street tree population is esbmated to be approximately 3N,000 trees, It is recommended the City conduct an inventory of publictrees m obtain axurate values. Table 1. Summary of the estimated number of public trees in Fan Worth. 76 Urban Forest Composition Tables 2 and 3 provide a summary of the estimated composition of Fort Worth's public street tree population based on the 2011 sample inventory. Due to the time that has elapsed, it is recommended the City conduct an updated sample inventory using i-"free Eco or data from the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis program. This will provide a more accurate picture of the citywide urban forest composition. It is also recommended the City complete a comprehensive pub- lic tree inventory, beginning with street trees. The summaries provided in the following tables give insight on the composition of public trees along streets in the public rights -of -way. Based on the 2011 sample, there are 54 unique tree genera. The tree genera Celdis (sugarberry), Quercus (oak), and Ulmus (elm) are the most common. The ten most common tree species account for 76% of the street trees with sugarberry, cedar elm, and Shumard oak as the most common street trees. The variety of tree species in an urban forest is known as species diversity. Having a greater diversity of tree species increases the amount and type of benefits produced. It also helps to protect the urban forest from pests, diseases, and extreme weather events. A commonly accepted diversity goal is for no single tree species to account for more than 10% of the population, no genus more than 20%, and no family more than 30% (Santamour, 1990). This rule may be applied at the city, neighborhood, and block level. However, local conditions and the diversity of species recommended for a given area may limit diversity to some extent. Based on the street tree analysis, the genus Cel is exceeds the 20% threshold. Sugarberry and cedar elm exceed the 10% threshold for species diversity. Celtis Sugarberry 34% 89,337 Quercus Oak 15% 38,076 Ulmus Elm 14% 30,047 Lagerstroema Crape Myrtle 5% 14,093 Fraximis Ash 4% 10,041 Carya Hickory, Pecan 3% 6,926 Sapindus Soapberry 3% 6,684 Pyrus Pear 2% 5,353 Morns Mulberry 2% 3,992 Bumelia Chitmmwood 1 Table 2. Public street tree genera haseLl on 201 1 sample inventory Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 34% 89,337 Cedar Elm Ulmus crassifola 11 % 27,884 Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii 6% 14,879 Common Lagerstroema spp 5% 14,093 Crapemyrtle Live Oak Quercus virginiana 5% 13,276 Green Ash Fraxinus 4% 9,799 pennsylvanica American Elm Ulmes americana 3% 7,863 Pecan Carya illinoinensis 3% 6.925 Post Oak Quercus stellata 3% 0,805 Western SopbeM Sa Indus drummondi 3% 6,684 Other Tree $ ecies (78 tree species) 241/10 63,419 s� / ed a�2p11 S�yple;nventa�7' • street �e� � Gamman �a� Cp�l�a11 �bbG Z�bie 3. 78 The following provides an illustration of the most common street trees in Fort Worth. x SUGARBERRY Collis Ine"w9alo CEDAR ELM vImus crassifoha CRAPE MYRTLE Lag OMtroh-9 mia Spp. LIVE OAK Quercus shumardii Figure 29. Benefits of four common street trees in Fort Worth. Tree sizes are for illustration purposes and may not be representative of existing street trees. Source: i-Tree, USDA Forest Service. Live oak image provided courtesy of Texas A&M Forest Service. 79 80 Urban Forest Structure The distribution of tree sizes and relative age classes influences the structure of the urban forest, as well as the present and future costs. Relative age is based on a generalization of a tree's size, since trees have various growth rates and form. While Fort Worth does not have current data on the structure of the urban forest, the 2011 sample inventory provides insights into the structure of the public tree population. Street Trees An unevenly aged population of street trees offers a continued flow of benefits and a more uniform workflow. This allows managers to accurately allocate annual maintenance schedules and budgets. A healthy population of young trees ensures continued tree canopy as the more mature trees arrive at the end of their lifespans. To optimize value and benefits, street tree composition should include a high per- centage of large canopy trees which provide greater ecosystem benefits. However, available space often plays a determining role in species selection. To prevent future conflicts, small species should be used in spaces that will not accominodate future growth of large shade trees. S4% 40% 24%.25% 1315X 01 6%.' 36% %. 1% 4x%. 0-61, 6-12" 12-18" 18-24" 24-30" '30" YOUNG ESTABLISHED MATURING MATURE ■ City Distribution ■ Ideal Distribution Figure 29. Comparison of the size distribution of Fort Worth's street trees to the ideal distribution in 2011 (Richards, 1983). 81 The "ideal distribution" (Richards, 1983 and 1993) is used to compare Fort Worth's public tree structure to industry — recommended standards. Figure 29 shows the recommended distribution relative to the existing street tree canopy in 2011. This comparison indicates that the distribution of size classes in Fort Worth is in ac- cordance with the ideal distribution. The majority of Fort Worth's trees are young, smaller —sized trees compared to large maturing trees. This may be a result of the City's tree planting efforts. An ongoing public tree inventory system will enable the City to monitor this distribution and adjust management approaches over time. Neighborhood Trees A recent recommendation for neighborhood tree distribution is the 3-30-300 rule, which states that residents should be able to see at least three trees from their residence, each neighborhood should have 30% canopy cover, and each resident should be no more than 300 meters (329 yards) from a public green space Konijnendijk, 2022). This recommendation addresses tree equity and emphasizes ecosystem services. In combination with diversity goals, it can be used as a guide- line for evaluating tree and greenspace distribution within neighborhoods. As noted in the Introduction, Fort Worth's trees face multiple challenges from various sources, including urbanization, extreme weather, and pests and diseases Development and Land Use Change Relative to neighboring metroplex. cities, Fort Worth has a large percentage of undeveloped land. However, it is estimated that Fort Worth loses an average of 50 acres per week to development (Trust for Public Land, 2023). By encouraging more dense development along with associated greenspace, Fort Worth can reduce urban sprawl while meeting the needs of a growing population. Development often results in fragmentation of tree einopy, creating isolated populations that are less likely to cross-pollinate. This can reduce biological and genetic diversity of the ecosystem and change the species composition (Fahrig, 2003), It may also result in the loss of buffering potential, such as vegetative stabilization of stream banks. As sites become fragmented and the amount of ecosystem space is reduced, many plants and animals that rely on connected habitats may disappear from the region (Saunders et al., 1991). Altered Soils Urban trees must often survive in compacted soils that have been altered for the built environment. A good growing medium for trees contains approximately 50% pore space (which allows the root system access to the air and water it needs to survive) and a layer of organic matter. In contrast, construction soils typically have less than 25% pore space and organic matter combined. 94 Competition for Space Conflicts with hardscapes and utilities often occur when trees are not provided ad- equate space for root and canopy growth. In rights -of -way, trees may compete for space with signs and streetlights, underground utilities, and overhead electric and telephone lines. As trees outgrow available space, their roots can raise sidewalks as they search for water, air, and growing space. The resulting sidewalk repairs may require removal of the tree or application of alternative sidewalk solutions. The City has regulations and best management practices (BMPs) for addressing these situations. The prevention of future conflicts requires streetscape design that considers the mature size of trees being planted, as well as available technologies that allow trees to thrive in this environment. To prevent and address negative impacts from development, the City of Fort Worth coordinates efforts to ensure projects adhere to City requirements, such as tree canopy cover, stormwater management, public safety, and accessibility, The City's Urban Forestry Ordinance and permitting requirements on public property man- date tree preservation and planting as part of development of private and public property. It is important that these regulations and policies be updated and enforced to meet the changing needs of a fast-growing city. Figure 30, An example of a tree outgrowing its space and in conflict with utilities. Figure 31. Example of tree loss due to development. Note: the project complies with the City's Urban Forestry Ordinance, and the image serves as demonstration only, Urban Heat Like many urban areas, Fort Worth is experiencing the detrimental effects ofex- cessive summer heat. Urban heat is a phenomenon that describes the higher air and surface temperatures in urban areas compared to surrounding rural areas. The temperature difference is largely due to the prevalence of buildings, roads, and other elements of the built environment that absorb and retain heat. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases and reduced tree canopy serve to magnify these impacts. Without strategic intervention, urban heat threatens the well-being and health of the community, particularly vulnerable populations lacking the cooling shade of trees. With urban heat increasing, the concern of tree decline is at the forefront of plan- ning in urban areas. To understand Fort Worth's urban forest vulnerability to urban heat, analyses were conducted to measure and project potential impacts on its trees. These impacts include: 1� Increased stress on trees: Urban heat adds to stress that trees already face from other factors, such as air pollution, drought, and pests, making it more difficult for trees to survive and thrive. ri Reduced tree growth: Urban heat can slowdown tree growth, which can lead to a decline in the overall health of the urban forest. Increased tree mortality: Urban heat increases the risk of tree loss, which can lead to gaps in the urban forest. 40 Reduced air quality: Urban heat tends to hold pollutants in the atmo- sphere, worsening air quality. This places an additional burden on trees' air purifying capabilities, while also having a negative impact on human health and the environment. /i Changes in plant communities: Urban heat can lead to changes in the composition of plant communities, as some species are more tolerant of heat than others. This can lead to a loss of biodiversitv in the urban forest. 85 86 Extreme Weather Changing weather conditions pose a significant challenge to the health of Fort Worth's urban forest. Rising summer temperatures, droughts, flooding, and severe winter storms and cold spells have taken a toll on trees throughout the state. Changing weather patterns may impact the tree species that are able to thrive in Fort Worth, as some existing species may not be able to adapt to changing conditions. Changes in Plant Communities The USDA Forest Service Climate Change Tree Atlas utilizes models to measure the current and future distribution of 134 native tree species in the eastern United States based on projections of changing conditions. The Atlas provides predicted habitat changes for tree species growing in the south-central region of the United States, which includes Texas. However, Texas is on the western edge of this region and many of Texas' native species are not currently modeled in the Tree Atlas (Iverson, et al., 2019). Table 4 lists species that may be found growing in Fort Worth (though they may not be native) and their predicted vulnerability to habitat loss due to changing conditions. Based on the 2011 sample inventory, the study indicates that 36% or 94,660 street trees are potentially vulnerable to changing conditions. This table should be revised as information on the resilience, adaptation, and vulnerability of tree species becomes available. Species, Cedar Elm Ulmus crassifolia 11 % k . Habitat Live Oak Quercus virginiana 5 % Predicted Pecan Carya illlnomensis 3% to INCREASE American Elm Ulmus americans 3 % Gum Bumetia Sideroxylon lanuginosum 1 % Eastem Redceder Juniperus virginiana 1% t - Ashe Juniper Junipems ashei 0,02% Hackberry Celts occidentalis NA Water Oak Quercus nigra 0.01% .=X Species, Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4% Habitat Eastern Cottonwood Populusdelioides 1% Predicted Blackjack Oak Quercus marilandice Q4% NOT to 813ck Willow Salix nigra 0.3% Change Osage -Orange Maclura pomifera 0.3 % Boxeldar Acernegunrio 0.2% Winged Elm Ulmus alata NA Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra NA Sugarberry Ceitis laevigata 34% Common Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 0.5% ->-- Red Mulberry Morus rubra 0.5% Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa 0.5% Black Walnut Juglans nigra 0.4% Chinkapin Oak Quercus muehienbergii 0,2% White Ash Fraxinus americans 0.03% Table q. USDA Forest Service Climat,- - b.,r,pe Atlas Dallas -Fort Worth-Aftgma, Tx pediC ed tee species habitat rh- n em'iWm scenario). 4 Tree Pests and Diseases Pests and diseases add to the existing stresses faced by trees in an urban environment. Stressed trees are more vulnerable to insects and diseases, although some pests and diseases pose an equal threat to healthy trees. Changing conditions, such as temperature and precipitation, can create environments that are favorable for the spread of some pests and diseases. In Fort Worth, the primary pest and disease threats include the following: Figure 32. Example of leaf discoloration and tree decline due to oak wilt. Source: Texas A&M Forest Service Oak Wilt is a fungal pathogen (Bretriellafagacearum) that invades the vascular system of oak trees. It has been confirmed in 76 north, central, and west Texas counties including Tarrant County. While all oak trees are susceptible, live oak and red oak species are the most commonly affected trees. This disease attacks and kills healthy trees, as well as stressed trees and has been responsible for the deaths of trillions of trees in affected regions of Texas (Texas A&M Forest Service, March 2022). Figure 33. Emerald ash borer beetle. Source USDA APH1S The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is an invasive pest that is native to east Asia. Itwas first identified in the United States in 2002. Its presence in Fort Worth was confirmed in 2018. The insect attacks and kills healthy, as well as stressed trees, causing catastrophic loss to all ash (Fraxinus) species. Its impact on the structural integrity of host trees can cause these trees to become safety hazards. It is estimated that ash trees comprise approximately 5% of urban forests in Dallas/Fort Worth (Texas A&M Forest Service, May 2022). Dutch Elm Disease (DED) is caused by a fungus (Ophiostoma ulmi) that infects the vascular system of elm (Ulmus) trees. DED was found in Texas in the 1970s, and small outbreaks have occurred in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, Lufkin, and Waco (Appel ct at., 2021), The disease can impact a number of different elm species, but in Texas, it is most commonly found in American 89 40 0 Abiotic Factors Abiotic stresses are caused by changes in the environment, such as precipitation. N heat, and soil level, that alter or interfere with the tree's natural processes. These can be harder to diagnose, because it may take years for visible symptoms to appear. Biotic Factors Biotic stress is caused by a living organism, such as insects, fungi or bacteria. Most biotic pests have evolved in conjunction with a species oftree and have become specific to those trees. Source: Texas Trees Foundation. Abiotic �Wll Biotic factorMan affect tree health and accelerate decline. Figure 34. Illustration and definition of the types of tree stressors. Figure 35. Cotton root rot on a young pe- can tree. Source: Texas Pecan Growers Association Cotton Root Rot is caused by a fungus (Phymatotrichum omnivorum) that can attack more than 2,000 species of plants, including ornamental, fruit, nut, and shade trees. The fungus spreads through plants' root systems, but can survive in the soil for many years (Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service). Bacterial Lent Scorch (BUS) is a systemic disease caused by the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa that disrupts the transportation of water through the tree. It is commonly transmitted by insects with piercing mouthparts, impacting sycamore, sweetgum, American elm, and various maple, oak, and other tree species (Texas A&M Forest Service). With higher temperatures and drought, the impact of BLS on Fort Worth trees is likely to increase. Hypoxylon Canker is a common disease of many trees in Texas, such as oak, pecan, elm, sycamore, and yaupon. it typically infects stressed trees, causing white rot decay of the sapwood. It is expected that more of Fort W'orth's trees will be affected due to stress from projected biotic and abiotic conditions (Griffin, J., Texas A&M AgriLife Extension). 92 ai Volunteer opportunities for tree stewardship and education Tree giveaways with trees produced at the City's Tree Farm Events celebrating and educating attendees about FortWorth's urban forest Training and volunteer opportunities for the Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council's Citizen Forester Program The City of Fort Worth has a long history of support for its trees, having hired its first arborist almost 100 years ago. Today, multiple City departments impact var- ious aspects of the urban forest. However, the two main departments with tree care and management responsibilities are the Park and Recreation Department for public trees and the Development Services Department for private trees. City Departments Forestry Section I Park and Recreation Department (PARD) The Park and Recreation Department maintains approximately 300 parks and public spaces and provides recreational activities and educational programming for Fort Worth residents and visitors. The Operations Section oversees the daily operations of the City's parks, performs basic pruning, and assists with clearing storm damage from parks and other public facilities. The Planning and Opera- tions Division includes the Forestry Section, which is responsible for the care and maintenance of public trees, including regulation of planting, pruning, or removal of trees on public property. Planting and maintaining trees in support t< The Forestry Section operates the 71-acre municipal Tree Farm, where trees are of Neighborhood Services' Neighborhood grown from locally harvested seed. These trees are planted on public property Improvement Program and schools through the Tree Crrant Program or provided directly to residents through the Neighborhood Tree Planting Program. Tree farm operations are funded primarily through gas lease revenues and grants. Mitigation projects, 'A such as planting trees in parks, are supported by tree removal fees and fines. The Forestry Section provides education and training for the Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council's Citizen Forester Program. Staff also train volunteers fortree planting, data collection, and ongoing care and maintenance of the tree farm. Additional services include hosting outreach events, such as the annual Arbor Day celebration, providing free trees at Mayfem, and conducting various tree planting projects. 93 0 z 0 U 94 om the ith a44ircatSs fr t �,nfet- resay gectian DepeLtoo", �T(DSD)'No' Pre.devel du �nteviews 13*'A FOnent setv'Qes QeP� D51� eve\op ent SeevV" ledon ent aO of a� vevelopm h ptO'ect camPtaposed develoPmd sues certifiG�s p wing st entif<! o uetne s °nd cts inspections, ent enf°Ys ences to �d it aPPlicanDn �tdperro entSe�1CesDep� ate propect~3 owplatuPavvy. oftineDeveloPn' tree removal meta-Staffwo ° gection tcb tcg'�\ayes :w develop enforced ce s e e UtbartFat stsY Otd\Hance, w 2Ad pWting oe �e ordinan tction supP°rt th the 1}rb�' Fot tree pteseNat'son e to ens+a 'Vote Se Texas dates d deparaa nts �eUrban F vable city tit' ent w' her the de oPntena� W octh p nons * tor.smd nhe'y enonm \nn of thvo-as taI rr issioa to nn "Al anzIrvelad deve n Revie}v 17ivis deepptomofmg01WIX �'Ie of the Z°p�ei aivls�os�s within td"t'r r� secttoo is P cut• 'fhe ° t S4pPoet' lnfras The Urban FotOIL ices qep� onegevelapmen d Communications• �e Deve\oPment Sere t Coord:» m Develev U 4nspectfons,an cot �' plans Eyetole 95 0 x z armtent to onsbla for overseeing ep amen resP ofpodation. d Pab\ic •Masks ep d operations tie divisions' ublie°rksD nsistsof aster odQtionan andp maintenance' entco dStorm Transp o�lion TIt��d'ns''oPndn`'vatcrivstrItctotio, `onn,'eDith aPrmta' Nlr`as dficot, y•� Cds;g, ortation the-4aueisattnet oovate �dera relateStard interfa ag ent Strecia ese division rm`7'�mt m Manageme°t' sto say ccgdir�g praPerty de Cam4llanGe enforces cegu\ations to nment �ua\tty 4rJ iao� C° ndaets insPeettonsEnd eanrnenta t 'ften oV, �nvito t went ble city•be and c�d10ZV `yitb 1e° Gat'ce Dep clean+Vivayatet m4lian` DeP Code Come , s status as a Lions for sta lth end u' e atntainFart' �caon insPecons for stream h ` S4� P'trav ation and rn etfonr's and insPeQ S inducts P°bVic edu itonng+ Sewer ystern cleanup+ ian P ttuattghliiter mq° ata� St°� ais Quaunlcip Sep Beautifu\ pt° ent CITY +M the ss�p.�art�o mproV a � ��ailitY Flolects 'so"yawithvol,IDteerst°tion,an to works eOL testota tea.�Cl`1ng+ 5� 96 Neighborhood Improvement Program I Neighborhood Services Department The Neighborhood Services Department focuses on building better neighbor- hoods and improving the quality of life for residents. The Neighborhood Im- provement Program (NIP) is a pilot program which identifies neighborhoods in most need of assistance and facilitates projects to meet their needs. Projects often include tree plantings in street rights -of -way or neighborhood parks. The Forestry Section handles the planting and maintenance of these trees, including watering newly planted trees until established. Diversity & Inclusion Department The City of Fort Worth's Diversity and Inclusion Department promotes the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access as they apply to the City's employee and labor relations, its provision of municipal services and capital investments, and the quality of life that all Fort Worth residents experience. The department focuses on the following areas: Business Equity, Civil Rights Enforcement, Community Outreach, Municipal Equity, and Accessibility and Accommodations. Public Street Trees ° The City has jurisdiction over all trees within public rights -of --way including medians and parkways, typically defined as the first IO feet from them$` rains The Forestry Section of the Parks and Recreation Department rhfines trees these trees through the hazard abatement program. program for public safety, ensuring visibility at intersections and maintaining clearance for emergency vehicles. Hazard abatement requests are prioritized based on the tement ible level of hazard a tree d 300P000 trees in street rights aof way and an unknown number re' Serits - The for the estimated of trees in parks and other municipal property. Although the City maintains jurisdiction, the adjacent property owner benefits from trees in the parkway and is typically responsible for watering them. Requests for hazard abatement pruning often come from the adjacent property owner. However, property owners who wish to prune trees for aesthetic purposes or would like work done more immediately may apply for a pruning permit. The permit requires that work be done in accordance with industry standards by a Certified Arborist accredited by the International Society of The shared Arboriculture, or pre -approved equivalent credentials. responsibility necessitates education from the City to ensure the health and consistent and effective public sustainability of public street trees. Public Tree Inventory and Data Management is aeomprehensive The foundation of a sustainable municipal urban forest program understanding of the Public trees under its purview. Cities across the country conduct inventories of public trees to understand the location, composition structure, and other information to inform data -driven strategies, programs, and budgets. An updated inventory of public trees will provide vital information about their condition, composition, maintenance needs, and potential risks. This inventory will serve as a foundation for prioritizing tree care activities, delivering cost- effective forestry services, and developing Policies to maximize tree benefits while minimizing hazards. Utilization of tree inventory data will help to identify the necessary resources, including funding, staff, and equipment to ensure a sustainable, safe, and resilient urban forest. Fort Worth's Forestry Section provides exceptional services to mitigate hazards observed or reported to them. However, the program is primarily reactive due to limited resources and a lack of current tree inventory data. The most recent data currently available is from a sample street tree inventory conducted in 2011. The City is considering options for updating and expanding the inventory. including the U.S. Forest Service Forest -inventory Analysis (F ) Program update the public tree inventory data. proactive Tree Maintenance One measure of sustainable management is the number of years it takes to prune all public trees, also referred to as the pruning cycle. Routine main strategy ce is the most cost-effective short- and long-term pruning for street tree maintenance. Efficiencies in mobilization, scheduling, and service tracking allow preventive and reactive maintenance to be performed in one operation, reducing the need for future priority pruning. Conversely, street that are not pruned on a regular cycle are frequently more costly to trees maintain when the need arises. A programmed pruning cycle of 5 to 7 years is typically recommended for public street trees. Studies show a decline in tree health and increase in maintenance costs associated with longer pruning cycles (Miller, et al., 2015). 99 100 0 Fort Worth recently approved funding for a stmcturai pruning program and 0 created a contract compliance position to oversee the program. This program will allow the City to take advantage of the economic and risk management benefits of proactive maintenance. An updated public tree inventory will serve to enhance the pruning program and inform pruning prioritization. The Forestry Section should utilize inventory data and monitor the trees that are structurally pruned to support future budgetary and staffing requests. The City should also continue its efforts in raising awareness and educating the public about: /O Forestry's role in care and maintenance of street trees 4 Forestry's hazard abatement program 4 Procedures for requesting pruning of hazardous trees The importance of utilizing Certified Arborists to perform tree care 11 Responsibilities of adjacent property owners, including watering existing trees and obtaining a permit before planting, pruning, or removing a street tree %oorCe' TeX26 A��F�reSt�er�jce 102 Benefits of Proactive Tree Maintenance Tree Health A. Safety A Costs V i 40 Proactive pruning reduces per -tree pruning costs compared to reactive pruning done in response to storm damage. Proactive pruning eliminates sight clearance and immediate risks. 9 Early identification and correction ofinsectand disease problems can reduce tree mortality. Properly pruned trees develop correct form and structure and are less susceptible to storm damage. Trees pruned on a regular cycle, especially when young, require less work in the future, lowering maintenance costs. Pruning before trees become hazardous reduces the number of tree - related service requests, decreasing response time. Proactive tree pruning helps to create a healthy, sustainable, and resilient urban forest. Public Support for a Sustainable Urban Forest It is important for the City to share best management practices with property owners and to make them aware of the estimated costs associated with tree maintenance over time. Publ ished studies estimate an average annual maintenance cost of S ] 9 per year for a medium -size public street trce. This estimate is based on costs accumulated over a 40-year lifespan, although many trees can survive longer with proper care. The estimated cost includes planting (15%), pruning (451/6), plant health care (35%), and removal (50/6). More intensive care maybe required in the early stages of growth to ensure the tree survives and thrives while dealing with challenges, such as urban heat and prolonged periods of drought. Adequate water and proper pruning of young trees (the first 5 years on average) is critical to a tree's survival. Hence, proper establishment and care in the short- term can reduce the long-term costs of street tree care (McPherson et at., 2016). Property owners can help to ensure the health ofadjacent street trees by monitoring trees for potential pests, diseases, and hazards, and contacting the Forestry Section when maintenance is required. Additionally, planting and caring for trees on private property will multiply the effect on the urban forest. Whether planted on public or private property, species and location should be in accordance with "right tree, right place" practices: www.nrborday.org/trees/righttrecandplace/ For resources and programs on tree care and planting, visit the websites of the City of Fort Worth Forestry Section at www.fortworthtexas.gov/departmentslparks/services/forestry and the Texas Trees Foundation at wivw.texastrees.org 103 104 Risk management is a well -established concept in the management of public spaces. Acceptable levels of risk have been recognized or defined for most basic infrastructure elements, such as sidewalks, streets, playgrounds, and utilities. In many communities, these elements are assessed and managed according to acceptable levels of risk that are specified within written policies or enacted through management practices. A successful risk management program provides a systematic approach to implement corrective actions within a reasonable timeframe. Tree risk is managed in much the same way. Trees are evaluated for their potential to injure people or damage property. The Fort Worth Forestry Section's hazard abatement work is prioritized in the following manner: 1j Fmergency. An immediate threat to person, property, or commerce. Example: Tree uprooting and leaning toward a busy playground or a tree fallen and blocking all lanes of traffic on an arterial street. 40 Urgent: A threat to life, property, or commerce that can be barricaded and made safe until the risk can be mitigated. Example: barge broken branch over the sidewalk in front of an elementary school. Priority 1: Significant and obvious danger. Example: dead tree in poor condition, serious traffic hazard, broken limbs, fallen trees. Priority 2: Hindrance or nuisance but not an immediate danger. Example: Dead trees which are still solid, trimming of dead wood and low limbs over sidewalks, minor traffic hazards. 4 Priority 3: Routine maintenance that presents either a low or no safety 105 Fort Worth's hazard abatement program is comprised of two in-house crews and contracted crews working under annual purchasing agreements. These crews perform tree s care related to trees that are on or affecting City -owned property. The program receives more than 3,000 service requests and addresses tens of thousands of trees annually. Feedback from service requests has been overwhelmingly positive. It is recommended that risk assessors maintain International Society ofArboriculture's Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) and that the City continue to apply the Arnerican National Standards Institute's (ANSI) A300 Standards. Additional details are provided in the Recommendations Section of the Technical Report to the Urban Forest Master Plan, under Tree Risk Management. Tree -related storm response and disaster preparedness planning is administered by the Forestry Section. The Storm Mitigation Plan was last updated in 2022. Topics addressed include chain -of -command, activation and response proce- dures, prioritization of calls, documentation, and interdepartmental coordination. According to the FEMA National Risk Index, Tarrant County is in the 98.82 percentile nationally, and in the 97.60 percentile in Texas. Nationally rated risks percentiles include cold waves (97.4), hail (100,0), heat waves (97.7), ice storms (90.2), flooding (97.1). strong winds (92.2), tornados (99.9), wildfires (95.3), and winter weather (97.9). in low e 36. FEMA's Natsonal ask Index for Tarranx County, TX- Fe� use areas. 106 0 Due to Fort Worth's high weather -related risk, it is vital for the City to periodically review and update the Storm Mitigation Plan to effectively U prevent or mitigate damage caused by trees during storm events. The Storm Mitigation Plan supports the City's public safety, tree canopy cover, equity, and sustainability and resiliency goals and policies. Objectives of a storm response and disaster preparedness plan: Reduce the amount and severity of the damage and losses to people, property, the economy, and the environment that results from tree failures during storm events. /J Reduce tree canopy cover losses resulting from storm events. Purpose of a storm response and disaster preparedness, plan: 40 Provide information and set policies. Describe actions to betaken related to trees and the urban forest. /J Effectively prepare for, respond to, and recover from a storm event. Support the expansion of funding resources for tree maintenance, debris management, and post - storm tree replacement. Additional details are provided in the Recommendations Section of the Technical Report to the Urban Forest Master Plan, under Urban Forest Emergency Preparedness and Response Strategy, 108 Staffing Levels Many cities struggle to maintain adequate staffing and resource allocation. Available resources may cover short-term needs while neglecting important initiatives necessary to sustain long-term urban forest management. Determining and maintaining optimal staffing levels is critical to a program's efficiency. Optimal staffing depends on several factors, including the number of public trees, how authority and responsibility are defined in the municipal code, internal and external expectations, operations, and existing programs and policies. Understaffed programs typically contend with ex- cess overtime, morale issues, absenteeism, employee burnout, and difficulty with relief coverage and training requirements. In Fort Worth, Forestry Section staff review permits and agreements related to public trees and perform hazard abatement, tree planting and maintenance, inspections, enforcement, and public education. Urban Forestry Section staff perform permit reviews for projects on private property, GIS entry of permit data, inspections, enforce- ment and compliance assistance, review and presentation of waiver requests with staff recommendations, and drafting of proposed amendments to the urban forestry ordinance. The City should evaluate the responsibilities and staffing levels within the Forestry and Urban Forestry Sections to ensure they are sufficient to meet the needs of the urban forest, the community, and goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan. The City of Fort Worth's commitments to public health and safety, combatting urban heat, and addressing inequities translate into a growing demand for both long-term initiatives and the staff to implement them. The Forestry and Urban Forestry sections can utilize the following criteria to assess demand and staffing needs. _- • ,til6 110 Evaluating Program Effectiveness and Staffing Levels Identify and Analyze responsibilities and staffing over time Measure the effectiveness in maintaining an inventory of public park and street trees 4 Evaluate the costs for maintenance compared to tree benefits and services 0 Analyze the public tree database to understand and consider: species and age diversity, relative performance of species, improper pruning incidents, frequency of tree and hardscape conflicts, presence of known tree pests and diseases and/or vulnerability of public trees, structural issues caused by deferred maintenance or lack of young tree pruning, tree establislunent success, resilience to changing conditions, distribution of tree benefits and services, among others 4 Monitor development impacts on tree canopy and effectiveness of regulations Evaluate effectiveness of enforcement activities to determine if additional resources or methods are needed Evaluate the effectiveness of programs and resources for tree hazard abatement and risk management 4 Measure the response time for citizen service requests 40 Understand the requirements and resources needed to plant and maintain an urban forest that grows into 30%canopy cover lJ Measure the progress towards achieving the citywide tree canopy cover goal 1� Analyze the effectiveness ofcommunity trainings, events, and volunteer management Understand the resources required to effectively remove barriers for inclusive and equitable community outreach, education, and engagement Identify areas where urgent short-term needs are frequently given priority over important long-term initiatives Regulations and Policies Fort Worth's regulations and policies are an important component of a sustainable urban forest program. They establish the regulatory framework for the protection and preservation of the urban forest by regulating tree removals and requiring tree planting and maintenance. The City's tree -related ordinances and permits were reviewed against a set of criteria developed using research, industry standards, and best practices. Results are included in Element 1 of the Technical Report. Tree Preservation Ordinances -- Statewide Comparison A 2019 study conducted by Lavy and Hagelman identified 60 cities in Texas with Tree Preservation ordinances (TPOs). All of these cities were in or near one of three fast- growing metropolitan areas (Dallas -Fort Worth -Arlington. Austin -Round Rock, and Houston -The Woodlands -Sugar Land). The following observations and comparisons are based on this study (Lavy, Brendan L. and Hagelman 111, Ronald R., 2019). TPO ordinances with purpose statements referenced one or more of the following sustainabil i ty benefits of urban forests: environmental, social, and economic. Environmental benefits were the most frequently referenced, followed by social, with very few references to economic benefits. The purpose statement in Fort Worth's urban forestry ordinance contains references to all three categories, with the greatest emphasis on environmental benefits_ The study noted that tree protection on public property is greatest in the Dallas -Fort Worth -Arlington area. In Fort Worth, removal of trees from public property requires mitigation in the form of additional planting and/or payment into the tree fund. Development projects that include construction of either a parking lot or a structure that meets the applicability section of the OF ordinance must also meet urban forestry preservation and planting requirements. N 113 eTechnical Rep°rt' Fort`�`j orth, s trCerelated ordinances � earn- pared to the ' InElement t of th other Cities. ordinances of five otlt 61 or larser, which is t to trees tbat are ordinance s tree removal regulations apply W area -tile, Urban forestry rde, and for Forl giortli s for the I7F tree$ Z7,. or larger cityw, e study farm" vat of led east of 1-35 with the ulrmmnts for remo when loci consistent 1g** or largeL uircments for Contains additional req Time species ecific Cross rty contains additional tree le Protection in DFw removal of sp it for public grope valperm The mean diameter for matu The tree Temo removal of tree 30i' or larger. 24.75"' late tree removal in the wasdeterminedto 'Fortwo'�'doesnotraga exation died, removal prior to ann As with most offer Cities studied e limited diction(�T7)•,Uuiegutatedttee o cover inch tree canopy o gowever,Fort territorial jttrrs variance m Cover (14 �O)' extra ]y responsible far the decanopy tyie service be Part 50(0) vs the citywt mentsvn some of may exation areas ( in the ETd. repose ann tree PCeServation require P has including ing residential subdivisions worth be Mies develop and by $ lack of agceeme with camp dby e`emPtior is Cun'te �� s ordinance contains actofTPCs wo residences The study noted that the imp le-f�ntly Fo urbanforestsitu°� across the City az'd for sin& to have urban for ttte existingdistricts 'arc required protection uttTie design districts lantinS and do not lions form one acre• Des'€P' to tree P aired exemF smaller than I only a re- located onlots most of these apP must plant However, developers it to remove forestay standards residential subdivisions, obtain aperm oval• In a not required to lant and maintain trees address tree rem ers ar to but hameown ment are required to P t require them number °f trees, of develop does rio Other forms but the ordinance development, trees. Similarly, e of the for two years (or untlt established), maintain the canopy Coverage over the lifetime Compar'san �U,g,ForestServtpe's ces — F]atiostal f�er evaluatedusing 2015), the Tree Related prdman stem (Abbot, et al., public and Private tree 1egul�ions ` udit sy grams anasetr,cnt A unity forestry Pro ability and N1 us of 66 7 urban and Ca different cities• Urban Forest Sustain oc tree or' from five ded in the 20] Ae with �uuements related to frameworlrProrn comp ofautbority, and et al., 20I6), and designanan laming, maintenance (Bauer, included: Construction,p w©rth's The ordinance review abilities. FoA rvation, tree Protection during mentF mitigation for trees removed, and enforce o tree prese extent' m�gement, eriteriato some ordman�s addressed each of the listed Fort Worth's tree -related ordinances scored among the highest in addressing the primary facets of urban forestry operations, including tree preservation, planting, maintenance, mitigation, and enforcement. Fort Worth's ordinances reflect its strong commitment to the urban forest, and the proposed changes employ innovation, industry standards, and the community's vision for a healthy, vibrant, and sustain- able urban forest. Stakeholder Feedback Ordinance evaluation findings were cross-examined with feedback from internal and external stakeholders. Throughout the engagement process, community members and City staff voiced concerns about the loss of trees in the remaining Cross Timbers Forest. Concerns were also expressed regarding the difficulty of meeting preservation requirements on properties with few existing trees_ The approximate geographic boundaries of the eastern and western Cross Timbers Forests and Fort Worth Prairie are delineated in Figure 37. The urban forestry ordinance currently requires preservation of 25% of the existing canopy regardless of the amount or composition oftree cover. Based on feedback received, regional ecological variation, the age of Cross Timbers trees, and the fact that key Cross Timbers species are not commercially available for planting, the UFMP recommends that the City consider increasing required preservation in the Cross Timbers and decreasing the requirement on sparsely wooded areas, such as native prairie and farmland. 114 As highlighted in the quotes from the Fort Worth Report, there is support for tree preservation and planting from both resident and developer viewpoints. The goal of the ordinance evaluation was to identify opportunities to improve the balance between gray and green infrastructure, supporting development while protecting and expanding the urban forest. Updates to the Urban Forestry Ordinance will necessitate extensive outreach to obtain the support of various stakeholder groups. However, feedback from the engagement conducted for the UFMP indicates that the ordinance update provides an opportunity to find common ground and a balanced solution. Recommended Amendments The ordinance evaluation identified several criteria that are recommended for amendment, including: Identification and credentials of applicable City staff Required credentials for tree surveys Tree preservation requirements, particularly in the Cross Timbers regions Tree protection during construction Tree planting standards, establishment requirements, and incentives 9 Ongoing tree care and maintenance of required canopy cover P 40 Development incentives that support UFMP ` ' canopy goals The full review of Fort Worth's Urban Forestry Ordinance is found in Element 1 of the Technical Report, Existing Plans & Policies. IM Fan Werth Ecological Regions Eastern Cross 7nntiers I—,- Fort Worth Prairie Weswro Goss Tirntiers x .r Y City and EAralerritona11 Junsd+ctica f FTJ I Boundary jjJIM 'M . 1 1 i _ f k rA �.3 • 1� �~.t� �' � ,� ,I +! '••tom? �Y''. y J' - k 1��q� —�yY. r -+ ��� .l ^ \'� �'j � • ' �� ; 'rr I Sri � r �,,/ � ��+. '_may ty^���. ' ��,�'� l •f +' I �� /1 1 � ���� Ile 118 2022 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Master Plan 2019 Open Space Strategy Report Tree Debris Standard Operating Procedures Forestry Policies and Procedures Manual Commmunity Tree Planting Policies and Procedures Manual (DRAT"I') Storm Mitigation Plan Confluence - Trinity River Strategic Master Plan Active Transportation Plan 2019 Master Thoroughfare Plan 2016 rev. 2000 Transportation Engineering Manual Floodplain Management Plan 2016 rev. 2021 119 Stormwater Management Plan 2018-2023 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan 2017-2037 Tarrant County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan 2018 Tarrant County Emergency Management Plan 2015 l Figure 38. The degree to which trees are incorporated into select City and regional plans and resources City Plans Planning is crucial for a city's development. It impacts transportation systems, utilities, land use, and overall quality of life. City plans and policies also impact the allocation of resources for various initiatives_ A review of select City/regional plans and policies was conducted to evaluate the degree to which tree preservation, pro- tection, and planting are incorporated. City plans were also analyzed based on the U.S. Forest Service's Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Audit System (Abbot et al., 2017), This system consists of I 1 categories and 130 subcategories related to management, sustainability, and equity. As Figure 38 illustrates, many of Fort Worth's plans and policies support its urban forest. These plans and policies span multiple departments, as many facets of urban and ecological management cross departmental boundaries. The Urban Forest Master Plan will facilitate interdepartmental coordination regarding tree- related aspects of existing plans, while addressing canopy cover goals and urban issues such as heat, air quality, and human health and well-being. Trees and other vegetation incorporated into stormwater management an example of integrated planning, Source: City of Fort Worth Stormwater Master Plan Communities frequently establish tree canopy goals to guide efforts to achieve a shared vision for the urban forest. When canopy data is available, goals are set based on a comparison of existing and potential tree canopy coverage with a focus on equitable distribution. According to a national analysis by U.S. Forest Service researchers, a 40-601/o urban tree canopy is achievable in forested communities. Realistic baseline targets are lower in grassland cities (20%) and desert cities (15%). However, higher percentages are attainable through greater investment and prioriti- zation. It is important to note that urban tree canopy percentage is just one of many criteria to consider. Age and species diversity, condition of trees, and equitable distribution are equally important (Leahy, American Forests, 2017). Fort Worth established a 30% tree canopy goal as part of the Urban Forestry Ordi- nance adopted in 2007. A tree canopy assessment conducted by the Texas Trees Foundation in 2020 using 2018 imagery estimated Fort Worth's tree canopy at 19%. A canopy change analysis detailed in the Data Analysis Section (Element 4) of the Technical Report indicates that 19% is still an accurate estimate of Fort Worth's tree canopy cover. For this plan, data from the 2020 canopy assessment and the American Forests Tree Equity Score (TES) too] were analyzed to validate the feasibility ofthe goal and to develop strategies to achieve it. Alternative strategies and timeframes are presented for consideration in the Data Analysis Section (Element 4) of the Technical Report (See "Alternatives to the 30% in 25 Years Citywide Canopy Goal" on page 165). The draft canopy goals were developed through examination of available land area, tree canopy cover, tree equity, City priorities, future land use, opportunities to mitigate urban heat, and preservation of native prairie and Cross Timbers forest land. 122 a i-V Achieving 30% Canopy Cover Figure 40 depicts the recommended milestones to meet the 30%canopy goal by 2050. Achieving these milestones will require a combination of planting and preservation that is supported by City staff, community partners, and Fort Worth residents. Progress should be measured, tracked, and shared to guide urban forest management and maintain community interest and support. 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 25 year timeframe 10,000 trees planted across the City equal approximately 300 acres of canopy cover at maturity. F igure ,sy. rutt w wth s - it,, t;;=ny gu m and milestones Increasing tree canopy to 30"/o will require replacement of lost canopy and planting approximately 76,200 new trees annually. Based on these projections, it is estimated that Fort Worth's urban forest will consist of 1.9 million trees in 2050. The new trees will increase canopy coverage by an area equivalent to over 34,000 professional foot- ball fields and will provide additional ecosystem services and benefits of 535.4 mil- lion annually once established. In addition, the 1.9 million trees will sequester a total of 285 million pounds (142,%N tons) of carbon annually. Figure 41 provides 2020 Tree Canopy Assessment pole I♦ Tree canopy Gress Impervious water Bare soil F­7 Other Cities 1 Jurisdictions City and Fxtralerritodal Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Fgure 40. land Cw Map ar Fort Worth and ETt. Sours; 2020 Tree Canopy AssewnreM Trees Trees Fowdari n These calculations and estimates are based on industry research and practices, along with assumptions including planting primarily large -canopy native and adapted species in strategic locations, and a shared commitment to tree planting: 40% City - led (through planting on public property and tree giveaways), 30%through private development projects, and 301/o planted by community partrierslpri- vate landowners. Measuring and tracking progress will require data sharing and coordination between the Forestry and Urban Forestry sections. Trees capture carbon CO2 dioxide and store the CeduCtidll carbon in their biomass. M• Healthy trees grow larger and NO longer to capture and store more carbon. Tree roots store carbon and support healthy soils for carbon biomass. 123 an olasuation of carbon seQueSu&�°n, and stolinged is carbon ss of capt'�gCosbn se0.uester 41, bon se0.re tuc u��atio Si Bolo$ cal -910 thea mo F wet � p"FoTest iv-,Ifatmoshen the atm4 pecNLtlie°tea is of oll cLmate chanR� not en;itted into effect and lessen gceenbouse gzs Service)- 124 The canopy goals shown in Figure 42 account for differences in canopy cover due to Planting to Achieve 30% Tree Canopy Cover native vegetation. These differences are particularly evident on undeveloped land, However, tree planting in conjunction with land development will increase tree canopy in sectors with lower native tree canopy, helping to mitigate the temperature and stormwater challenges associated with urbanization. Ehieving 30% Canopy by Planning Sector ■ 1 Far North: 26% (25,556 trees per year) ■ 5 Far West: 35% (20,033 trees per year) ■ 2Far Northwest: 30% (12,703 trees per year) ■ 16 Far South: 45% (12,370 trees per year) thwest: 20% (7,377 trees per year) ■ 10 Eastside: 44% (5,630 trees per year) ■ 12 Sycamore: 20% (1,092 trees per year) ■ 3Northeast: 25% (1,049 trees per year) ■ 14 Wedgwood: 25% (636 trees per year) ■ 9 Southside: 25% (293 trees per year) ■ 7 Arlington Heights: 30% (273 trees per year) ■ 6 Western HillslRidglea: 27% (216 trees per year) 13 TCUAVesteliff. 40% (133 trees per year) 4 Northside: 23% (1 l8 trees per year) 8 Downtown: 15%(83 trees per year) I I Southeast: 30% (78 trees per year) Figure 42. Canopy Coverage and Annual Tree Planting Goals by Planning Sector 126 <27 0 Planting a Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest To support the City's goals to preserve and increase tree canopy cover, maximize W the benefits of trees sustainably and equitably, and grow a resilient urban forest, Fort Worth should implement a citywide tree planting plan with neighborhood - level strategies for public rights -of -way and greenspaces. A planting strategy for Fort Worth will: 9 Sustain and expand tree benefits to the community, including improving air quality, reducing stormwater runoff, reducing heat, and supporting wildlife habitats. 4 Beautify the City and make it more attractive to residents and visitors. 40 Reduce the urban heat island effect, making Fort Worth a healthier, more livable city. Improve surface water quality by decreasing runoff and increasing filtration. Diversify the urban forest, increasing resilience to changing conditions and tree pests and diseases. 9 Enhance survival of newly planted trees by implementing best practices for planting, watering, and care. Improve community health and well-being by providing a place for people to relax and enjoy nature. Improve efticiency by integrating tree plantings into City projects. Expand and solidify local partnerships with community members and organizations. Increase awareness and community support for protecting and expanding tree cover. Volunteer tree planting event. Source: Texas Trees Foundation The City of Fort Worth promotes tree planting through the Neighborhood Tree Planting and Tree Grant Programs, street tree planting permits, Citizen Forester programs, Tree City USA accreditation, Arbor Day and other events, tree -related ordinances, and planting of trees for City projects. However, FortWorth should establish a long-term citywide planting plan that includes existing efforts, such as replacing trees that are removed, planting trees in new sites, requiring tree establishment or replacement in development projects, and choosing the right species for planting locations. The citywide plan should include neighborhood -level strategies that support the 30% canopy goal and goals for tree species diversity and resiliency. By developing a long-term planting strategy, the City can ensure that trees are planted in the right places and cared for properly. This will help to ensure that Fort Worth's trees continue to serve the community for generations to come. A comprehensive long-term planting plan requires an understanding of the potential impact of changing conditions, threats from pests, diseases, and invasive tree species, opportunitics to integrate plantings into City projects, requirement,; for post -planting fare and long, -term maintenance, and Strategies to Now ..._ � r•r rY r. r....aFlr enlist and maintain community support. 130 Urban forests play a crucial role in creating livable, sustainable cities. However, trees are not always equitably distributed, and not all communities have equal access to their benefits. Engaging members of the community with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints helps to ensure that decisions represent the priorities of the whole community. Specific efforts are often needed to reach historically underrepresented community members, such as people of color and low-income populations. Building relationships with diverse groups and actively seeking their input helps to ensure that policies and programs are responsive to their needs and priorities. The unique histories, cultures, and perspectives should play a key role in planning and manag- ing the urban forest. Equitable and inclusive community engagement helps to build trust and understand- . ing between communities and decision -makers. When community members are involved in decision -making processes, they feel heard and valued, which leads to a sense of ownership and personal investment in the outcome. This results in greater support for urban forest initiatives and a higher likelihood of their success. Equitable and inclusive community engagement can also help to identify and rectify inequi- ties in tree benefits. For example, economically vulnerable residents and minority communities often have less access to greenspaces and are more burdened by the negative impacts of urbanization, such as air pollution and heat island effects (Drescher, 2019). The following strategies can be used to ensure equitable and inclusive community engagement regarding urban forest planning and management: Utilize neighborhood events such as food and clothing drives, farmers markets, and block parties to make connections. People are more likely to provide feedback and share ideas in familiar surroundings, /f Consider the challenges of transportation, childcare, health conditions, language, work schedules, and other considerations when planning engagement events. 0 Engage with community boards, youth programs, and workforce development initiatives to reach historically underrepresented communities. 0 Gather feedback and measure effectiveness of engagement efforts in underrepresented areas. 131 Citizen Foresters pIxiting trees at the City's tree farm. 132 Citizen Forester and PARR staff member with volunteers from Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority at tree planting event 133 Tree giveaway at Mayfest 2022. Photo courtesy of the Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council. Diversity and Inclusion The City of Fort Worth has taken several steps to actively address diversity, equity, and inclusion. In 2019, the City established a Diversity and Inclusion Department to promote a culture of equity and inclusivity within the organization and throughout the community. The Department's initiatives include training and development programs, community outreach, and diversity and inclusion assessments. The City has also created a task force focused on addressing racial and social justice issues and has implemented a diversity and inclusion strategic plan to guide its efforts. Partnerships and Programs Following are some of the programs, projects, and initiatives that foster community engagement and partnerships regarding the urban forest. 0 40 Community Tree Planting Program (CTPP) The CTPP operates the Rolling Hills Tree Farm, which grows and distributes trees to the public and plants trees in public spaces. The value oftrees provided exceeds $400,000 a year. Volunteers contribute over 6,000 hours annually to the tree farm and associated planting projects. oO Training and Public Education Programs The Forestry Section's Neighborhood Tree Planting Program trains individuals on best practices for planting, pruning, and maintaining trees in an urban environment. The section also provides training to community members participating in the CTUFC Citizen Forester Program. 40 Partnerships 4 Events and Celebrations The City develops and maintains partnerships with non-profit organizations, such As the oldest Tree City USA community in Texas, the City hosts an annual as the Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council (CTUFC) and the Texas Trees Arbor Day celebration at various locations around the City. Free trees from Foundation, that provide resources, programs, and volunteer opportunities to the City's Tree Farm are provided during the annual Mayfest celebration. support the growth of Fort Worth's urban forest. 135 et ab} lggl). �� rnana�e it, thePto�a� eval'cat+on`uas ofFoct�o�h �J',� mo�sg�� sUsn�FotestS�. �$e�iettotshaPlfbcX �et�.S.Fe°i�2p 5 . s and �e c° inS�je b�nev+o Audit C�bbt' can dodted • enen 11itY an • ' tainab i � ability f.'G� f�rbtffi ForestSus ev�,yationaf of tut os dateA �ton'tt'enrc►az9 abaed adaP�dbYePO�a ewotk'Nas a Dent itetatiansthe authors 1991) as f°v'stex d ns edby tc iyations' n'anage�ent tcan'. ek i° ,V°� s nr�te2 p ultin e orPan vrb F°test a ethefnllsveetva on b tinc{easts tat tevelot a Pr°granti ditto a�en'cnt, ees and the h�atb P�Fofessionatissn in s►s °f'nanageocnt ptac� n forest. analy the nrba �ondoct a bo"Dts ve the healtl► of b1e of urban f imPY°ental fnstice and egnita directjOn to Provide serate�'e t for euviron f maAavot 0.lathe cunt, om �a tri'bnb0n °f resonrce$ tit sU ►ves °c Pc o thieve d'e of p ovides as one e►„Pfwg fonew iaa m is do{fined s tedas ark c�iazk s SO 0,30t of w'— indicators "' abilici' is able s9ste five cam, measutabla susta►n �` swan forts, d'e °haves at the gea ability alon�w► ire considcscd�cible and `Nh s nef►ts . ce os. .vi11 to evauatesusta nat"t� mien ecplo�ieally P Sottocondit', long we11 as what i4 c1a1k specific criteria VON a &°a1 an°oi° f attars, as d .deco �s lathe► th and ecvie the ttoih cctened ss d as a p w e is ad often sustainab►litY speietallg desicedb �an�e ova time, / Clark's framework categorizes urban forest sustainability indicators in terms of the trees (or resource), the management, and the people who benefit from the urban forest. Within each category, a series of urban forestry industry standards and best management practices were used to evaluate Fort Worth's current performance level. Indicators were rated as low, medium, or high based on available data and informa- tion provided by stakeholders. Assessment results were used to identify areas where Fort Worth's urban forest can be improved and to develop recommendations. The complete Indicators Assessment is located in Appendix B of the UFMP and in Element 6 (Urban Forest Audit) of the Plan's Technical Report. Graphic representation of Fort Worth's current performance level by indicator is provided in Figures 43 and 44. Figure 43. Fort Worth's overall performance level for each of the three Indicators of a Sustainable Forest 136 a 0 The People Public Awareness Neighborhood Action City Boards / Commissions Green Industry Involvement Department / Agenc Coordination Utility Engagement Developer Engagement Private/ Industrial Landholder Involvement Regional Collaboration State Agency Engagement The Trees Urban Tree Canopy Equitab n Size / Age Distribution I Species Diversity Public Tree Condition Ts The Management Tree Inventories `. Tree Canopy Assessment Urban Forest Plans Professional Capacity 1 Training Funding / Accounting Decision / Management Autbority Public Tree Maintenance Planting Program Risk Management Disaster Preparedness / Response Contractor / Contracts GitlYrt �I ree Protection Policy Standards / Best Mgmt. Practices 00��~aR y.t ,At ���^�� 139 SECTION 3 UNDERSTANDING FORT WORTH'S PRIORITIES Project Team Steering Internal Stakeholders Committee (80 City staff) External Stakeholders The Fort Worth (55 groups) Community The Urban Forest Master Plan was developed with input and guidance from five groups: the Project Team, Steering Committee, Internal Stakeholders, External Stakeholder groups, and the Fort Worth community. Project Team. The Project Team's role was to develop the recommendations, pro- vide technical input and guidance, create plan documents, and lead and facilitate the engagement process. The PrejectTeam developed the recommendations and recommended action steps based on evaluation of available plans, data and input from participating groups. The Project Team included members from the Texas Trees Foundation, City of Fort Worth, and the consulting team from PlanIT Geo, MIG, Inc., and J Williams Group. Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was established to provide input and feedback on the direction, content, and recommendations of the Plan. Mem- bets represented community stakeholder groups, subject experts, Texas Trees Foundation, and City of Fort Worth leadership and elected officials. Internal Stakeholders. Internal stakeholders consist of City staff from various departments, divisions, and sections that interact with trees andlor the Fort Worth community. A total of80 staff representing 1 I City departments participated in the survey, department -specific meetings, and/or public engagement sessions. External Stakeholder Focus Groups. The External Stakeholder Focus Groups provided targeted input about urban forest issues, challenges, and opportunities in . r Tepcesented°vet 6� to -rest, toc�ud�'� Focus gawp plir e t °t inva�verner IF�a{ch ha JtFattat 142 143 groups focused on development, real estate, transportation, watershed management, meetings. Through various checkpoints during the process, the project team sthe environment, and the landscape, tree care, and nursery industry. Participants identified underrepresented groups and took part in strategically located events and o also included chambers of commerce, public agencies, educational institutions, and meetings to increase participation rates. d u community organizations. Fort Worth Community. The Fort Worth community was engaged during the planning process to understand their values and knowledge about trees and Fort Worth's urban forest and to identify priorities and issues important to them. Input��� a 4 a gathered from the community and stakeholders during development of the UrbanUri Forest Master Plan provided important context for understanding community prior- RI- 5POP LINGUA UP 2 6FOCUS PRO SOCI ities, where Fort Worth is today, and urban forest challenges and opportunities. L EVEN VIRTUAL GROUP MO AL SURVEY TS WORKSH MEETIN VIBE MED Purpose of Education and Engagement to Develop the Plan + OPS GS OS IA The public outreach, education, and engagement in Fort Worth ensured the UFMP PRES CT4 dam. EMA S MEDIA NEIGHBOR Ft,Yrtts IL RELEA INTERVI HOOD PROJECT BLAS SES EWS ASSOCIATI WEBSITE TS ONS was developed with input from the community and reflected its needs and priori- ties. As stated by James Clark in A Model of Urban Fort Sustainability (1997), "Urban trees and forests are considered integral to the sustainability of cities as a whole. Yet, sustainable urban forests are not born, they are made. They do not arise at random, but result from a community -wide commit- ment to their creation and management." The five -month community engagement process was designed to reach a diverse group of residents and other community stakeholders, informing them about the project and benefits of urban trees while collecting feedback to help guide plan development. Continued engagement will allow the City to utilize community sup- port to preserve, manage, and grow Fort Worth's urban forest. Process to Gather Representative Feedback from All Fort Worth Communities The engagement process prioritized engaging with the communities most impacted by planning processes, especially those who have been historically left out of civic conversations, such as low-income communities, limited -English proficient individuals, and communities of color. The project team successfully provided grassroots outreach support in English and Spanish throughout the project. Community members were able to participate through in -person events, virtual meetings, and a community survey available in paper or digital format. The project team developed and designed a suite of highly visual outreach and engagement materials for use at in -person events and virtual workshops and Figure 45. Summary of the primary and supporting engagement activities. 101 Methods Opportunities for public feedback included online and paper surveys, virtual and in -person meetings, and community events. These opportunities were publicized by the Texas Trees Foundation and the City of Fort Worth through their websites and social media, direct contact with neighborhood associations and other stakeholder groups, flyer distribution, and other City events. Targeted engagement efforts included outreach to specific neighborhood associations and community groups, and participation in meetings and events in areas with higher populations of under- represented groups. Feedback received provided insight into community perceptions, priorities, and ideas for innovation and collaboration. Over 2,300 community mem- bers participated in the public engagement process. Element 3 of the Technical Report contains a detailed account of the public engagement process and results. 4 EXTERNAL, FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS Throughout January and February 2023, virtual and in -person discus- sions were held among 7 focus groups with a total of 55 unique or- ganizations, agencies, or individuals represented. Specific questions were prepared for each focus group category, and interactive mural boards gathered feedback from the online meetings. Response Themes: Coordinate efforts to achieve common goals 11 Plant trees resilient to changing conditions 1 / Preserve and plant more trees 11 Balance canopy goals with intended use and native vegetation (e.g., prairies and riparfan areas) 11 Plant native and adapted species / / Locate trees where they do not conflict with infra- structure ! / Incentivize preservation i4 URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY The online survey gathered feedback on the community's relationship and experiences with trees, priorities for trees and urban forest pro- grams, areas where tree plantings should be prioritized, and where additional resources should be invested for the urban forest. Demo- graphic questions helped to identify gaps in participation rates to inform engagement strategies. Responses: 1,232 4 VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND LOCAL EVENTS Two online community meetings were held, the first in January 2023 and the second in February 2023. A brief presentation was shared with participants followed by an interactive mural board discussion that gathered feedback on their vision for trees in Fort Worth, areas where more tree canopy cover and increased preservation is needed, and oth- er concerns and priorities. ResponseThemes: Tree protection I I Incentives for preservation and planting I I Mitigating the effects of changing conditions 1 I Planting trees that will survive 1 I Planting trees in parks, along streets, and on campus and school grounds 146 Feedback Received What are your favorite types of trees? 9l%favor trees providing shade 84% for trees that benefit ecosystems 76%for trees with vibrant fall color What is most important to you about the trees in Fort Worth? 86% would like more trees for shade 83°/o for more trees where there are none 82% would like to see more preservation 77%suggest planting trees where they can thrive 75%support private development preserving more trees 75%would like to see more funding for City programs Where should the City prioritize resources for the urban forest? 90%would like to see trees planted that can withstand droughts 79% for more trees and preservation in development projects 70%for more trees along sidewalks to shade and beautify the City Summary of Community Priorities and Themes Through the input and engagement activities, the community and stakeholders identified a set of urban forest priorities for Fort Worth. They are listed in order below based on the frequency each was referenced by the engagement partic- ipants. For example, enforcing and strengthening tree ordinances is listed first from left to right, because it was referenced the most. COMMON THEMES i Pnforee Prioritize Prese Plant Fund Tree and Tree rye Trees to Maintenan Strength Planting in the Provide ce en City Underserved Fort Shade Programs Ordinan Areas Wort and and Public ces h Cooling Training Prairi e These priorities along with the assessment of the indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest established the initial foundation of the Plan. 147 148 Guiding Principles During the gathering of stakeholder input, collection of information, and analysis of data, a series of overarching guiding principles emerged that helped to set the plan's direction and solidify its foundation. Prioritize the urban forest by preserving and protecting existing trees Preservation and protection of existing trees was identified as a high priority. Existing mature trees have an outsized impact on sustainability, environmental justice, wildlife and ecosystems, and human health. Exploring changes to the Urban Forestry Ordinance was raised in most engagement activities and sessions. Preservation and planting requirements should be robust but not unduly burdensome to developers. They should also be tailored to the biome, e.g., different standards for natural prairies vs. Eastern Cross Timbers_ Trees planted or protected should survive post -development and be replaced if they die. Plan for the long term with an equitable canopy cover goal Experts and stakeholders stressed the importance of setting and achieving local and citywide canopy goals to support the long-term health and sustainability of the urban forest. For example, planted trees must be resilient to drought and extreme weather events while supporting biodiversity in the urban ecosystem. A diverse mix of tree species is necessary to ensure the ability of the urban forest to survive pest and disease outbreaks. Success is predicated on planting trees matched to the site in terms of soils, water availability, space, and desired function. Post -planting care is required for trees to become established and thrive in the urban environment. Proactively maintain trees and support residents Participants at various sessions mentioned confusion surrounding the responsibil- ity for maintaining public street trees, especially those trees which are adjacent to private property. Additionally, the community would like to see more shade trees along streets and sidewalks, recognizing that this will require additional resources. Participants stated that they would like the City to maintain street trees in a rou- tine, proactive manner. Secure sustainable funding and resources to meet current and future needs During external and internal engagement, concerns were raised regarding limited resources in terms of staffing, funding, and time to address the current challenges. Additional resources are needed for monitoring compliance and enforcing tree regulations, proactive maintenance and hazard abatement, and planting trees to mitigate urban heat and tree losses from development projects and extreme weather. Participants largely supported the allocation of additional resources to ensure availability of the urban forest resource now and in the future. 144 Align and clarify urban forest policies and messaging Participants reported a perception of conflicting policies and priorities regarding the City's trees. City departments, partners, developers, and the community must have a common understanding of the challenges and opportunities surrounding the urban forest to develop a shared vision for addressing them. A common theme across engagement efforts was the confusion around the roles and responsibilities of the City's Urban Forestry Section compared to the Forestry Section. A public communications plan stemming from a citywide coordinated effort was seen as a necessary step in bringing clarity and a shared vocabulary to the issues. Mi SECTION 4 ACHIEVING THE SHARED VISION FOR FORT WORTH'S URBAN FOREST 152 O N Fort Worth's Urban Forest Master Plan was designed to guide the City in managing, protecting, and growing its urban forest, The goals, recommendations, and action steps were developed based on research and analysis of available data, extensive internal and external engagement, and an evaluation of urban forest sustainability indicators. The resulting goals and recommendations align with the shared priorities included in Section 3 and the challenges discussed in Section 2 of the Urban Forest Master Plan. The plan's long-term framework supports the shared vision for Fort Worth's urban forest: Fort Worth's urban forest is an integrated and valued resource that enhances the livability, economic development, and environmental integrity of the City. We will strive to create and sustain a resilient, inclusive, and diverse urban for- est that serves as the cornerstone of a vibrant, cool, healthy, and prosperous city, Plan for a sustainable and resilient urban forest by developing strategies and policies that align with internationally -established best management practices, Manage tree maintenance, care, and tree planting i activities more effectively by improving data, tech- nology, communication, decision -making, and collaboration. Protect the urban forest and maximize the benefits it a r provides by ensuring systems are in place to support its long-term growth, preservation, and care. 40 Grow the urban forest in an equitable and sustainable manner to ensure that Fort Worth residents have access to trees and the benefits they provide. Engage and connect with the community about the important role that they play in the growth, preserva- tion, and care of Fort Worth's trees. F L M! Engagement and data analysis for the Urban Forest Master Plan led to identification of the following goals for Fort Worth's urban fnrest- 9 Goal 1. Continue to manage the urban forest as an asset using industry standards and best practices and adequate resources for sustainable management. Goal 2, Preserve and expand the urban forest to address tree equity, resiliency, urban heat. air quality, human health, and other challenges facing Fort Worth. Goal 3. Strengthen urban forest programs through coordination, integration, 9 professionalism, and funding to meet the needs of a growing city and urban forest. Goal 4. Invigorate equitable engagement for a community -wide commitment 9 to care for and grow Fort Worth's urban forest. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS The following recommendations are designed to achieve the four overall goals for the urban forest based on the feedback received daring the engagement process combined with the evaluation of sustainable urban RITCst indicators. The recom- mended action steps form key components of cohesive anal integral urban forest management strategy. Sustainable long-term funding, detailed in recommendation 6, is critical to unlocking each of these recommendations and to the successful im- plementation of this Plan. tt is recommended that the City strive to achieve all short-term targets within three years of Plan adoption. The table to the right provides an overview of the Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan recommendations categorized by Sustainable Urban Forest Indicator. 1) Conduct a comprehensive inventory of public trees in the rights -of -way, parks, and other public property. 2) Explore and implement changes to tree regula- Management, tions, standards, and best practices to support Fort Trees Worth's tree canopy and sustainability goals. 3) Expand and strengthen cooperation among departments to ensure adequate staffing, training, and integration of urban forest considerations into city plans, programs, and policies. 4) Strengthen existing relationships and support new partnerships with neighborhoods and community People organizations throughout the City, 5) Coordinate, create, and implement a public communications, education, and engagement plan focused on Fort Worth's urban forest. 6) Develop and implement a strategy to maintain sustainable funding and resources to achieve desired levels of service for urban forest programs Trees, People and management. 7) Support and expand plans for maintenance, risk management, and resiliency of public trees. S) Create plans for tree planting, preservation, and maintenance to grow a resilient and equitable Management urban forest with 30 /o canopy cover. 9) Develop protocols for monitoring the urban forest to identify and address pests and other threats throughout the City. 10) Strengthen, expand, and increase awareness of programs and strategies that utilize or repurpose Trees, Management urban wood waste generated from public tree operations. 156 ublie pees in ctghts-of way p��' Onsive inventoc+l of P a Ceo54P�c �dnCCacomple,aPett9 maiataiacdin urwforest 1 can°d pt)tet public 4t pf public gees eet. �d efficient rarer n the ensive inventory �ste� make da �ntpreh critical t0 information to A System �cls) is rpvides CinP,s e invenooN p d Prat bifotmation ptities �' aintenanh'stoN ri�ageinent,Th nac'� P m leg T6111% YtaR`te ecies etcanbe'csedtoaaeKddiseases, sP s decisipns aged,integtated gists m' n� Tree gam vulnetabdities tovol" pfitees d °tytec potential co P Nre1l-wren identify managers to evaluate what types and an Yye data t° es Ondi'f an d whetbef best used erfatmaa chan$ws urban f otest c enyuOntnenksaa c15 data cube data ovese tp& Nv°tk �� Ada tonally e eos lease public aw mess 4 &� eshavebc su a deco"Isternben age the nee oci to caleicl ACTION' �ps . ris that will �dendusets. vecow d ottment staff P° intended use dumto estimate the Identt gory prO ect and den enrol? and I Tte a �� inventotled, iaven 2bl l maple s that �vi11 nee Ide°tify Jett the inventory Utili number of pUbtie tree and tracking ateas tots law and budget {0 c° the inventor! be calleGted, Create a work P for ducting to jot IA) � �d method mP��d �etecmille "ace ptnnventarY pti06W aehas wn c° risk, etc.8 cs consider whether condition, co the potential to of where invent°�� d species, site, and inaPping tan such aging• if or aconsultan sites while forrazton eoUeotio o020 tea c by city s�ngp°ssible P oa° at Provide- in n vgillbe thatc°fie stadd volunteevs.l�ote sGanbealOw-cotvw- in invents' t°gtt mendationsintl'e ducttuetnventor-Iousc foteost for oll'er Tecom nsider options to Ante$ion as a msout aty will vo estimate costs atili�e other cities in onsulm"Isif inven catty, the, IA wases or all at Once. .Developlist of oc0ourates of scale. fY4s Pe titnates and Ina Be tnindm 0 uni Cate flow, connactot the mo�e trees trio nlod"erd In' toried, the 10*Nc a z tatingtn�entpi'y 1t4datirto', and lttt S' N te�ectplanttng \an for nmanagtn%, dated to erational tou�tely up ventoty peveloP a P To im4c°ve oP 10 shouldbe � mat will utit;2e in lttvento a maintenance activities. data deparCm ccw,pvals, an tifY addtttpnal anon and idea Kemal ate the wpck Plan to efftcienctes, prep or external data at'd ans°ie to T- dep ttte in4cotory leadecsivP complete tajectto City °� and to 117) $ecuCe f�ndl�tals to ptesent �em4hast� �mmundY atw411 zes'alt from ptting mate funding, cast -savings �' with city su nTo support CttY efficiencies attd the prpject ait�ts unicate the watts.the aPmattonal statinghOw on dm�°comet toes. exPla11' eet.Bu"a suPp°rtbY 'For ootstde fn initiatives and P the ptoj d initiatives• ti , wittithe ot93ntyaa elect a consultant pplicies, goals, note ands multant bid itnpaets ld sPeCiRcatiorks be Co ethods rid reieaseb be cone°etedbYddalm fields,m the inventory Ni11 {equine a Scments of the e are a 1�) pi P ab if e tunelines, ifi t an teckb°nst, (cf app aria should itictude ications, qua �ulture Certified Ar �cdata coItoejo , 2 � anal societmou y i MOW Id livertot ables de t (e•s , re )• tat and integration pia e colts", nproj3eOPIPIC ' , and refeten s e the datamanagem m�g',vaystomak peandimPle1"ent mkeY City staffteg entorY data. 1� ? Reded ufi� e vuan °better utili%c tree inv cess mote of ector 0 otherb°imdatY pro VOON G I• ncCitYC�lannmgsdsadvantagednetg�°efor ed and mrnendeat mefram s1iORT �' toN t° ° undesseN Cornplcte the raven priocid OcCaT, VLeco chood)'aY Cion. fro ,dnSe`6l In gear lth to a f plan adoP completion: with lations. star'dards, and best n es to tree re6u stainability goals. and implem ort`Vows Me canopy and unity 2, peveiop s City and cO practices to supPortF thatbalance e additional ework i edtoerrcourag d fair regulatory fram be des gn ent projects. A robust an tives shoulda on deV eiopm increase is esstial u$e o f gee infrastructure should be considered t0 mrnunity. anon an incentives ent co tree presery ,,,ln the developtla and non"monetar'1 oalw standardsandbe5tPractices Both monetary de 3�°%canopy g ort for the eitywi Ce with industry fits. The City of Fort supP dated cC1MP11A" and aSsooiated beoe the values of the 0OmMunity when �,dditiona]ly, rr,an ban tree lifesPa"s � to the will help maximize ur ie that reflects a value laded Chang exaMP Element 1 Worth, set an erties. d maintaining public Prop for consideration in developing an ordinance are Provided City's Urban Forestry hnlcal R part to the Ylan. d e of theTec STEPS Forestry Ordinance an �oED AOTI4ld a Urban Fore creative NCO internal team to review th }; force to identify !increase organize au es. Establish a tas elutes designed to mended cha[[g ntive stru ects. Incentives rec4rn and ,,,,-monetary M [rent PTO d planting on develop ced approach. lmple rnoneu►rY atioa an ,vide aba]an %Tee presery lent regulations to P should comp education wM. require additional staffing• d educA and standards• Seek mentntton azt ulations with Fort worth' s proposed amendments to reg, iliac 2A) Draft a architects famolar W.,,hurbm' forestry r]sts, lands°tip el t4 d cometp' leaders It City Persons input from arbo Topriate permitting P14C65s, and dwork withthe aPP ded ehangeS [a il�e es an cil. R�,rnn d bench - formalize the chan8 to City Coun ,unity elagagement an prepare for Presentation based on corn Report. Ordinance, entIoftl1eTechnicalRp Urban FotesaY are included in Elem ubl. information sessions mark ass e5Snlcla[' a ement and P The City should engage endments for adoption' 2S) Conduct stakeholder eng to obtain broadbased sup- senting text am interest Stoups interest prior to pre d int �specific lverse stakeholders an wben engaging [nrnendations. with S' ended changes inf7uend by rhea reco port for recom, at were cc groups, highlight changes th s f, z uaicait changes to City st es to comet ted, substantial ohang N Update the C►tY j ebsite and adop Fortworth the public. once andtraining• external stakeholders, and ineho%v to handle require e. 'nsive educatiola regulations may pion phase and deter, Ge changes. lan for a trans Ito adoption of ord]nan containing will need to P ubmitted Pr1° shop' resource costa applications that were accessible "one -stop- ed to assist should create andbe sufficiently staff The city ations information on tree rem e applicants during the transition phas ' de4Clopers' tree care professionals, city tree regulations, }? Create a manual for residents, s tree [evlations, managers containing the worth Consolidate Fort Ce that is available °[Sete and PrOPcra d best practices. and procedures into a resour ittmg Process and standards,laintheperm other standards, Protocols, lasers. E1.0 g anisli and and tailored to various clad" anal into p Consider translating the m include FAQ$ relevant languages. tte additional and departments to upd` dating other sections. %Tee5.Eh.rnplesmclttdeuP workti"+ith acting u dworking policies' it articles of the City Code. regulations and P artment to increase use of FillMaten2a and GradingYerm ublierNorks DeP Zp to update theTransportationfP emit Repeat action steps trees for stormwater aims related to ordinances and man and manuals aids, specifications, s decision rt stand ithpublictrces.Dcvelop SY) Update C Y nfilietsv d sansparent decisiou- etinfrastrneture CD istent an to the hardscaP toollcit for con-` of the Technical Report checldust and solution Section making The Rccoriunu ations infrastmoturc conflicts with for handling standards, We cifo- a strategy whela updating City UFO provides public trees that can be utilized and manuals. cations, require stake' RMTARG 2: rnrestry Ordinance that do noathority, and to Urban ' inologY' definitions' in cbanges Draft the ehang c % (erg ,updated teTai ►,older mvo1Y th other ordinances). EYaluate additional recom alignment r and draft proposed ordinance language• Seek input from local 160 arborists, community leaders involved with urban forestry, and professionals Steel's Tavern Oaks, a cluster of Heritage live oaks in downtown Fort Worth. familiar with F'ortWorth's permitting process. Recommended timeframe for completion. one year from Plan adoption. 3. Expand and strengthen cooperation among departments to ensure adequate staffing, training, and integration of urban forest considerations into City plans, pol icier, and programs. Where resources are limited, proper training, coordination, and collaboration can increase capacity and efficiency_ The recommended action steps are intended to determine resources needed, provide justification for budget and staffing needs, and more thoroughly incorporate urban forest considerations into decision -making processes. RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS Identify members, objectives, and roles of an internal urban forest working group to assess staffing and resources needed to implement the UFMP. Providing adequate staffing for urban forest programs will help to ensure other departments and sections are able to maintain necessary coverage. I[aI 3A) Create an Urban ForestWorking Group to support UFMP implemen- tation and future decisions on staffing and programs. Initially, the working group should coordinate the implementation of the UFMP and monitor progress. Long term, the working group should evaluate ability of Forestry and Urban Forestry programs to meet UFMP goals and recommend budget and staffing changes needed. 33) Identify and budget for training, certifications, equipment, and other resource needs of forestry and urban forestry staff. Identify certifications needed based on roles and responsibilities. Consider local, regional, and national conferences, as well as online options for professional development and continuing education units. Ensure that budgets include adequate funding for memberships, professional development, equipment, and resources. Budget items should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure staff have the tools they need for efficient and effective operations. 3.C) Update or create protocols and procedures for inter- departmental operations and cross -training. Continue existing cross -training programs with other departments (e.g., PARD currently cross -trains staff from Water and Transportation/Public Works departments). Review departmental structure to identify additional areas with overlapping responsibilities that would benefit from cross -training. Specifically, look for ways to increase tree plantinglpreservation in public rights -of -way and stormwater manage- ment projects. Continue to provide technical support to the City's open space conservation, riparian restoration, and other urban ecology programs. 3.1)) Consider renaming the Urban Forestry Section and the Urban Forestry Ordinance to clarify the roles and responsibilities regarding public and private trees. The UFMP engagement process revealed that both internal and external stakeholders were unclear about the division of responsibilities between the Urban Forestry Section and the Forestry Section. It is recom- mended that the City gather input from staff and the community regarding a clearer name for the Urban Forestry section. Consider options such as "Private Forestry" or "Development Forestry" for the section title. For the Urban Forestry Ordinance, consider "Private Tree Ordinance", "Private Urban Forestry Ordinance", "Private Forestry Ordinance", or "Tree Preservation, Planting, and Maintenance" 162 Projects and initiatives that 3.E) Identify areas to streamline processes. tiple departments may require interaction with mulbe good candidates far N streamlining Determine if the activity could be handled within a single department or better coordinated between departments• Consider estab- lishing a centralized UrbanForestry Department withjurisdiction over public and private trees. Ensure that processes and policies are clearly defined and readily available to City staff and external stakeholders, 3.13) Meet regularly as a working group to implement a continuous improvement framework.AeontinuousProcess, opre Se�aP� ae a consists of four elements, Commitment, Strategy, rove should be regularly considered to adjust operational workflows and imp coordination between departments With urban forest responsibilities. 3.G) Explore the benefits and feasibility of establishing a City Urban Forest Advisory Committee. The committee could serve as advocates for public and private trees, provide public education, advise the Mayor and Council on tree -related issues, and inform decision -makers on how staffing and resource levels translate to achieving urban forest goals. 3.In Provide an annual update to City Council regarding the state of the urban forest and progress made toward UFMP goals. The update should also include any obstacles that need to be addressed. Determine whether the update will come from the Urban Forest Working Group and/or the Urban Forest Advisory C(Pmmittee. SHORT:p ,RMTARGET I to organize, monitor, Establish an internal urban forest warktng group and report on Plan implementation. Recommended time frame for completion: within two years of Plan adoption. 4 Strengthen existing relationships and support new Partnerships with neighborhoods and community organizations throughout the City. Collaborating with partners can provide access to funding, resources, and expertise that may not be available otherwise. Strong partnerships also promote community engagement and support, which is essential for the longterm sustainability of the urban forest. By forming diverse partnerships that represent a wide crass -section of demographics, experiences, and institutions, the City ofFort Worth can gather valuable insights to support innovative longterm management of the urban Forest. RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS Share the final UFMP with existing partners and Provide a summary of how their input influenced the Plan, 4.A) Create a list of potential local partners including public, private, institutional, and non-profit organizations. Consider including utility companies, tree care contractors, and non-profit organizations with complementary missions. Utilize the stakeholders and focus groups engaged in developing the UFMP as a starting Point' 4.B) Host virtual discussions with stakeholders to update them on the UFMP and encourage continued participation. Build upon the momentum ofrelationships formed during development of the UFMP to collaborate on implementation. 4.C) Lead or partner with one or more organizations to host an event highlighting Fort W orth's urban forest and the UFMP. Raise awareness of how the community corm play an important role in supporting the UFMP's goals. Communicate the ways public engagement was integrated into the plan and provide opportunities for future public participation toward realizing Plan goals. 4.D) Develop or support a program that documents voluntary tree planting and recognizes exemplary urban forest stewards. An awareness campaign that allows private property owners to document trees planted on their property could be used to encourage and track tree planting. A recognition program that includes various categories (e.g., youth, residents, organizations, developers, business owners) will encourage participation in urban forest efforts and relationship building with the community. 163 0 ii N 164 F are supP°rttPg� to ensure they uy underserYed evaluate partpersbt c�taaan of bistortca uld cansider the Reguea Y rester rePr� r°g{ess reports sh° ga is an need com °rn� d fits aahzeved. and d1S1 blips an a ocga°i�tians state of the Padrs ARCLT 4: rhodd and Comm es{ortccommended SylO� , vs,S list ci t p t"as toot ea oVk { Fian ad00111r. Revr list of Poue tw `1 d m and Graft a mPletion: �►th education � couans, me for u+v timeCra cntapnblic'x' {orest. est.Fztvate advapiem }�tor►� s urban foz d drnate, aeate, locused on Fort a Sustainable opY cover an 5' Bement 13 anon e curl cal t f the �i 'Sue e c e .elusive, d ort and p20 tzi P Guts 64 !o o Effeo e °rt to sore hlie suPP roperty cant View ttee Pltuzgs,ental ,mica 4esider'tI al zonedP tablesPD6 foznov6matedirctezdeP City.The COMM ; ublic h� the most avert s�uldbe a ers throuSh°ut the the geoeza p als° gen7e" ertY tlaz.Tes°natewitht �d aimed v�ith eQuitab� eng rivate prop latforn's ing is cansisten rversity a„d reaches P mult;Ple P essV D aepaztcnenu�E �cc rnmun nessagtng Ensure m ;cations, lazrsbOuldlnclude interest g, Dups. se of City nonsp sPeciftc lJttli�eexPerkr uccessfulp and *I ves• dservice5foras other City in;tiati hbpzhoo a�rlei$ en Pik l on t Inclusion ag � dl}6stthelJp and eng education,wjaCaMMEy�•fI��SSTEdeSignationan grogram' lvlaiutaitn�tb°rDe oodTrceYlantmg efforts in the Ctty°s � t the e, Ubo tarn* and volunteer where to implemen gorater ip ldentifY areas 5A) Continue Citizen Gals• dswithvulnerable de anopY � TreeCrantphogMY and eesP cially in neigborizooepriotity Planting suPp°rt of e can expPand, e program° zth eed thna a wed POP °hoods with tt'e greatest n oat� to identiCY n e trarrspar- meehanism to rncreortunities for hb6ard or other rovess ar'd °P obtain feedback O ,create a Pnhlie d mnnity UPdated onrPb° Opp°rt �' ercnitt`ng prpeess and keep the corn ll help to sustain P receding ae P and Private Prop eucY E uza information from public Participation• fb�s unity• oval ages froznfr?e e°tzeAutrem FozestryeandUrbanForestrh wemp orts• u- and natt ga entefC osted on eng kfzolntbe corm' d ertY is clearly p ublic eduCatio tither feedbac baza forest. luake R obanges to the Cityd its uz of efforts ctl g 5 Gi ptegularlY eva e aweness of tree benefits and Measure the efiectzi s to alivp Nvith daPtstrateg atezialst0nt�eas nprivatePtoPe' city-P d care ° ble and 9eveloP educational m laming X` ti e proper tree? c wlth and snRP° t o ltree Utt�c encom g ni . to engag of pnblrc s ons to offer e °QP°rtu the P19nting ended acu d 5A ExPlareit p°pulatrarrs `n previous recorserved pop°lati°ns an unaergerV bultthrougb Ond feasibility of Mnerable and u'n the relatiOnsh'ps ities to explore e need vol>mteer o4p° the er- street ttees ur tr micas long tamr ese ne.loborhQo • j�gPublic where Proactively maim S% ai and engagement PIaa deRart- OjTw edu nI ratbcr tha e f L� nn►cati�ons? all nately err 'e th m a Cit wide ►nit► ad"! cs Of peveiap a Public c° amated as star to hja yea additional within strategrt arc coo utcesstkafe r comvialonr nrbThiscnded timefrarne fo mental e . and resources to eomtnunitl ble fumdtng ent. o tion- ins ams and naattagem pica ad P azn►tizn sta sQ d sty to m Coyest progr an entastr r urban omme"datians Deve\oP vd imv eels of sarvtce f0 ce CAeh of frae othot ttees Gunn acts, ar'd achieve des advaTr urban fotestbY imp ed furaamg is essential ° ow its u red, costs of roar ten ould Irlveas r •s efforts Durres To -mS stza g Sh ozdm0'ee tasupPort des �besthen�ds,Ses, aditionalCundheutWtote stry thins O' 7) essol to sec es For exarr'ple, Ole srrateg5'tha lantedtteestba Kovaever> elmes willbeas well as P"blzctr, tcewl p uafrve (5) years. tim torePlae any atdrev�rth address'pov ee reserved cs ertY o,,,,mers rY ��to mitigate far tiny P 166 enforce these regulations Post -construction' additional resources are required to ro rams have strategies and resources for both l°ng"te a l�s ro ect-based funding' pro�eets that take Successful urban forest F g and can be funded operational funding and short-term P 3 fete are typically considered short-term capital improve - ears to comp grants, mitigation funds, and than five Y runing programs project partners, donations, than on Ding, Proactive p through pro) er-term projects such as g rnent budgets. Long beautification fees, parcel ou h special assessment districs 'ecial revenue funds from gas maybe funded thr g fees, p e stormwater utility -owned land - taxes for street frontag d sale of methane gas generated by City - ad mitigation, air est central fees, and consolidation -Well pad offer cost savings fIlls. Other funding paths include carbon trading, p s into one division ar section that may o f tree -related program or more efficient allocatron of resources_ ENDED ACTION STEPS fiord tree planting. RECOINM long-term Plan to fully city,s 30' Develop an actionable, maintenance, and preservation at levels itt ng' ,� ons and canopy goal, including funding 101110 rmitting, regulatory enforcement. canopy assessment, and the TJP'MP 6A) Use data from the inventory, needed to achieve Repor't to determine the level of funding the tree oals of the UFNII!. Information from e inventory, Technical ement plan will identify the and ,stain the g and urban forest manag canopy assessment roveandgrowFortworth�surbanforest. be used to determine the level of service 4vork that needs to be done to imp d that ,,his data and information can fan can then be develope and funding required. A funding action g and puts a value an how additional includes what can be accomplishedfrequently updated inventory can funding will benefit the commumty. A g U help to support continued funding during uncertain economic times. mechanism provided in theUFMP lement a funding provides various 60 Review and rmp endix G The Technical Report Pr Technical Rep ort° A'pp term projects and offers for funding short- and long- and urban considerations its funding portfolio for forestry the City options to diversify forestry programs. 167 a 4 Z d ertormance indicators to adjust funding N chnical 6C1 Evaluatcand measure p IheLJITIP ndthe needed to achieve the goals of the UFNfP• The arks and methods for measuring progress, ',port provide bcnchm uld be used to monitor indicators urban forest working group co . sources beyond the current o (,gyp) Establish dedicated, sustained funding to increase the level of budget for forestry and urban forestry p erations acquire dedicated service provided. It is often difficult for cities ton cquire ai>s. However, funding to meet the growing demand and changing and other outside uncertainties due to extreme weather, the economy, t an program' budgets if Fort W orth tias a forces will have a lesser imPacwith contingency plans in place. diverse portfolio of funding SSORT-TERMIARGCT 6e strategy for one (1) underfunded ion plan and funding Completion, one year Develop an act program or initiative. Recommended timeframc for from Plan ad°ption. ort and expand plans for maintenance, risk manage- merit, and resiliency of 7' Supp Policies public trees. and lays outhigh-level Po tMaster plan builds momentumlev.1,Dperational plans The i)rban FOres ement. At the ground ance P fans, trcc risk i for achieving sustanable manag forest management plans, public tree mainten such as urban or seasonal lans w as, and pest and disease pill direct the daily d Dols. management strategies, MP s long-term vision an urban forest activities that feed into the OF RECOMivtENDEDACTION S i>;PS ies and recommendations provided in the Recommenda- 's Technical Report to develop an annual urban Reviewthe strateg onsihilities lions Section of the UFi+/1P ermitting, fan The plan should coordinate roles and resp forest work p laming, P ents involved in tree work p Fulfillment of various City departm Public property, inspections, and other tree -related activities on p of additional dudes will require additional staffing' timeframe for completion: within two years of Plan adoption. 7,A) Identify the departmental staff/positions to lead the development of an urban forest management plan. Draft the scope for the plan and consider including tree risk management and storm response/recovery components. Determine whether it will be completed in-house or with an outside consultant. 7.13) Secure funding and utilize the data from the public tree inventory to develop the urban forest management plan. A recent and up-to-date tree inventory is the foundation for the development of an urban forest management plan. The management plan can be developed for the entire city or for smaller planning areas that are based on the phases of the inventory or priority areas as funding allows. 7.Q Develop a tree pest and disease management plan for public trees and include a public education component. Use the Pest and Disease Management Strategy contained in the Recommendations Section of the Technical Report to identify the scope of the pest and disease plans. The public education component should also target large private landholders whose properties have significant tree canopy. Consider including a strategy for addressing invasive plant species on public land in the plan. 7,D) ITtilize current research and innovation to adopt new or improved management strategies supporting urban forest sustainability and resiliency. State and federal agencies along with university extension services offer research summaries and other resources on current and emerging threats to the urban forest. SHORT-TERMTARGET 7: Develop the first annual wont plan for the following fiscal year. Rccom- mended S, Create plan resilient an A citywide t establishme' provide the principle: ti functions Planting Pl own- ers_ G©nSnit'dn- lanLing y.. - - enance. The p a hic and economlU long-tarnl mamma tang health, demogr P a lanting areas goal of increasing, citywide tree canopy with the PriorityYP factors into accW" , well as the g cover to 30% ino years. RErOENpED ACTION STEPS priority maps to identify Utilize the 2020 canopy assessment and UFNII' the tMepaTea for the fast planting plan, ort and diversify fending sources for the ? Continue to supP rowing, distributing, and city's Ii6IlingHilisTreeFarm a adapted trees. At any given thee, the nudity native and adap e annual value planting{1 eas under culuvation. Th has over t5,400 tr public areas exceeds tree fanr[i lent ing � of trees Pantf ed or distributed for Pis currently funded largely g400,000E However, the tree arm s well revenues. Fort W orth should Plan to diver- sift', through din to ensure sutTlcient and stable increase,8r replace this fun g funding• i n g m e c h a n i s m s ctexistics, �starY, °T Furp osc • geritage Txees canhave special cbaTa guished andlotdpctionreQu'temen�.L�kfas ptesetvation rivate develapmevit lts partviers, and P ,xill allow F°Yt b the 17tbFOTestt9 removed Trask Plaudup led y d d ocTcit of cauoF`1 eenFaxesttY andlleighbOr SU) axon betty s Pl"ated an�ommuniaations e Pra�e`ts Coordul regarding tree mbcts of tree ess �o�lauaaknu ,rllc�ity' awaren �eyPlavit enlFr°3ects. iucre snstoreporttrees h develoPrn can assist with wtrexs 'rtotm new Doug Department' rivateFxaPettyo ovalwill boadseryices ,waensp lantings laTsiingPlan d to s. en uments to F T,efits TraGxu'g�ee Pad adj avid liseirptopert}' success, budget'ngfor on rineiPlebY asis.An pxiorityareas pta� ublictreesP avivivalb d avi cticc a na.net ►ass t srr r those remove uPFoIt this aPPrOacs T d be d L? ing rePlacervievit tree inventory vasll TIOdoss approach Pladated ed publee P1 Wring Flans• ch s 0 imp°tit step t°w ax Glg has up Public tr s apProa should inform vial budgeting• nce Plan that 0 9 cover g°�s• and Malt, util�ed �' water acevmg can P tree planpng nations• letter eo$n. ?At of sail li vben considex- Tuulfi Year P Ties &D� gevelop a realest need. dscaPes= such as natural ptas prior`►tries areas of g dlivelan an forest availabnsty, lust that supports urb osys• ed irt& PlantinglOca YeGorvinrended tree PIaC tt xe list should n'ca an Public tree lainlain a �eefi l base s gL1estreeb eriodiealy diversity g°al and naax'm d be revised P that species dlosses resilience d.,vatet needs � sWGtuxed s° widesprea Quid be ceptible to e vJhich soil type "" .phe list sb also detetmin inventaty data, theTubar,fotesf es Ties can imF,etedb9 ved n akrng a-yscs m ollesmay d beat. ,jiedue to Pew an e detforzni� well a g d pe , of alb ed ue Pecies and ecies ar P such as pr°loo d other P tree sP ive avi dance ehangTnB eandit1p irg a list of ulvas due to the °vetabun e Consider maintain be Tecotsunended es to expand th aces that maY rotbe, tonlotes hies attd rmplesnevit e treeFro€am P itY• She SxPlare OPT, �totth sllentag ce for the cotnmuastin- proYP",Fotl voluableTeso kwthave unsq°e'd tbal aces ate a voes gerltageTre inatious jot public awareness F arestry Sect- a�egts nosh aweness azld ort°nidas C0 incze�e am• e opp the 1pe,Lxe izul°wut ge p° carp `°o ioU° sn�e9 0 l evvi ' ban ee , tS Co`►d°ct ao rTz then S•Fpz am data l�'bend SG) nforest°v °t`t a paal�sis Pt° maple smrv� of For stIV-4c"t4 a y2e the 61ts for A VAaers�'d eies Ie available)• Anventozy dot for u tlnveotorY tap- public uinezability t°' e zb Fozese the tot s �atweiy, , th aan lire gist bie,uti dPlan for legit'°n' Alte ) data av essmenA I s se yVNsis( v ezabMVass u indveyeat and an fai `' a falloff' P n maz►��eSco Survey � fide tree �'n°py cover and ad p t Iteassessthe ��dodteebo corL uctdieopdated St riarides d etfoz ibelates .Lwr ets and p -5 dbu g ntifyi`1� plou ass smentl ts, ezY years• 01" em°tel�'df at zeto 0,0 assessznents fotF° `ozkh zt unities oPP°t�' lanttzl�• aucc Plan atip4 and tree p at►d1°a�ntcu thlu hvo c°0eN � TNuamUlfrye°c ei¢ar e(o c009\ on• Sv,OVL andlraPle►pe OtvlatLA hand 'Develop area.%ee°n' zest 'tde ifyandaddzcssP fie of t'1s adoPtlon• n uzban fa to nt r the a$eTC99 OODes is foz mato competition an to finable m Ctity• to 9 Developtaot ts go,40°`1'tttl-nz fazest15cziticsvrith�b heat, entSCOSand othez d S ban e foz 5`]t`"lval which caneakimPlelue'� 1,40DFort� - instant st pollutants' a11e The �i shovvate 1�°ers Cuban oleos ed°uhts, to 'PCs sts and diseas and educate Pn eats fat sP ong ace, Pzol suSGeptiblc lazdW public is con'bat o$e oze n TOX', then, znv co an'to es �d °w tEiey �nCIO and S and d as °f n on e CO ut 0 e facing SID�cTlot,,fie �h on tree 1} ' ,adz Wo10 Or-C a10 �"'V ,tb ctIto°lnmun ty soups. Gatefotsaatl°nvn shams bste• City, s.,ve years before it is recogn�ed. With training d resources,Fort yrortb can how a To resilient urban forest. sess- ram to conduct flU � �d public tree monitorlug Pr4l ulat►on•The 9A) Expand the P rowing tree Pop to FOlt wortl� s monitor threats to a g °tential lea Monitoring Canbe iucuts and °� htghti� dent and P� emerging- d e constaTv trained volunteers an TecYmical t but neW direats ar dvough urban fore' ' th consultants, conducted in house} p eers, or a cO�ur011 of these. staff in other sections an d cross -training TheParkan ortunities far erations. in 90 Expand opp ter trees in their op rovide cross -train g encoun scents p departn1ents that may rnent Services deP and�rbanFbrestry sections. Recreatirm and Develop e Forestry Teased support outside of di staff oan translate to U1c opportunities far staff and urbW' forestry' Pro&r s. Increased aweness by other City eats f°r d� forestry its deluding staff from various progr rove- d additional eyes and process, uality Ne1�,borhood Imp During the engagem Envuorj11ental Q expressed interest in ppen space Can$ervatian tenance crews, e best practices. cat, Inspections, and street mam�ormation about tree car and additional to receivingtraming of develop meet projects City inspeetr°ns Ordinance - strengthen thellrbauyorestry ofyort 9.( Continue and fiance wim the City sin in come nce suPP° coons forestry ardi urban eats. City inspection' ensure they re � the urban mbar forest for Compliance w address e requilo ents of main- orts to identify and eets meet th laming, Wow s eff that development pros bees that die after P should verify copy cover, replacing taming the required ees. the survival of preserved tr emcrgingtree Pests and and ensuring ffered by search and and resources o 9y) Keep up `,nth current re ences, ebivars, ban participation in confer yoill support effective ur diseases• and enter ion services partners, age forest largelandh°Iders, forest management city owners, most of anon to PrOg and diseases of concerncoger- 9,E) Provide inform emerging tree pestsesscntial that P ty current and rivate land• It is est and regarding dyer is an P tree P the City 's tree ° ed to monitor, treat, and races cis P°e nt in s cornmunit5 owners are Prepared times, an invasive P disease outbreaks TARS 9t bU¢ tre¢ vnon'taT ro" Rs S'a0a p\etn¢nt s+ Pu s of ¢ane¢rn,s`� Develop Qnd sts and d\sease d¢d fiOtto ¢fat tiara• vV00 'ar° for bt¢r'VLCC s'm Ts ot4lao ado4 em¢ta\d h `vlthln tht¢e 9 of Pso� 0", ¢oml�letion` t"Vereness ,Hood waste pnd i4o� sPc'se °sbA 06, rep 10. Stroas gies that u. U'r, Oty- Tss ingrem°valof' pan &enema d fTasa Ppblic ce ran l stsess> sp oyal e Tean9 Gp°dTtios re0. e environsnentaxo,Never,remd ' as age: storm d o d ease infest�tsshas comet°jen usem dTe'noval itatians, thatatCee to the muse 1i'n not mean ams fad Tta pm3' Va asi ix — does *oodunviaa ing °f °d ebb f rom n ees is ""Ichedss blic tr acro teP°$ wo°ddebrfr°ma vari°`tslocat1°e 'ecutto cvTTento sm w,lable tom a from t n,°vat °f ptTe andm Logs gene, t1Te c'tY 6 Z ad. �eTc►�n"'g idea to collect fos fisaw° er'talni„g zes or Fisc Do foT'>se as andieftforte��nfOTemP\ogee eF rhzoTLhZ°notsu e d ee is to tach am ?Ill h toth OUSma15Dprovidesaacavbee, es•'fse �CtY n t,VOos of cal"net � eFocCOYl'p �a,andensiohsneokaTe°ffe,edva a0a\habitat, Uitalblefat pOd dmills• dfXx �h'lealso decaydes llwoskets,' debrisfsorntl'el1chs�.11o`�er> sl'oPs> aTtrs�'s, ces diversthe d with serail m and standas TaGtl a$5°elate Ce tp 'se e woadUtili2atioslp lastieba� cific sdTO sseso'd ra spe elirn olfi h'JOstat'n% b fi fro mc'Ncaeff0t w d wF> .Wortht,t�t WSxds-aO" able ll+ri to core' s phis tivtu apo en its F°d ou tC'ePTog'' am andsts °pesating piOcedvse n1 end' a eT,ess expox'dthe'p itiesto Test• poTesttY °pera- ban fo oPPn�° g ent of tl'e �T �C�1+�� �ThpS is �enesated fsosn 5`ty�t19 dis�bnted. R��pAA1�DElD mneliwood �vassoleted>�'dh°`r it cv ra w herethevvoodwe is how �etetn' Lions, 174 i; 0 10.A) document the procedures and protocols for utilizing alternatives to mulching and landOiling woody debris resulting from public tree maintenance. Currently, most of the debris from hazard abatement and stone cleanup is mulched and left for free pickup by residents. The City should continue these efforts in addition to expanding the reuse of logs for wood products such as furniture. Clear protocols with information on the location of mulch drop-off 1 pick-up sites and woodworkers accepting wood waste could support an expansion of the program and less time in coordinating the effort. Also, if the City were to perform more extensive proactive pruning, clearly defined protocols would support efficiencies. The protocols should include the means for tracking and reporting of wood volume generated and utilized and should be included in the City's Storm Related Tree Debris Standard Operating Procedure, 10.13) Quantify the potential carbon and waste diversion impacts of reusing wood waste. Utilize the wood volume tracking data from the previous action step to quantify the amount of carbon sequestered and repurposed through wood utilization. Also, quantify the reduced costs associated with the program along with the increased awareness and engagement of the public. Utilize the data and protocols to expand the wood utilization program and network of woodworking facilities. Altern- ately, consulting firms such as Cambium Carbon provide or conduct stakeholder engagement, biomass inventories and assessments, strategy and policy development, carbon and waste diversion impact studies, community education plans, business models, and revenue opportunities. 10.C) Increase awareness and provide opportunities for private tree care companies to support sustainable practices such as urban Hood utilization. Tree care companies perfonning tree maintenance and removals throughout the city should be aware of and be a part of Fort Worth's sustainability efforts. Provide guidance or best practices for tree care companies to participate in wood waste reuse programs and activities. SHORT TL'Rh7TARGEI' I0: Quantify the current amount of wood volume repurposed annually on average and the potential amount of wood volume that would be generated by expanding the program. Recommended timcframe for completion: within three years of Plan adoption. 44 178 U Monitoring and Measuring Fort Worth's Urban Forest Master Plan will need to be monitored and updated based on progress made, urban forest conditions, and community priorities. Changes to the Plan should be based on the evolving urban forest structure, latest research, and community needs. This process should be implemented by the Forestry and Urban Forestry Sections with support from other sections and departments, and potentially an urban forest working group or other subcommittee. The implementation and monitoring protocols for the Plan follow the Evaluate, Monitor, Report, and Revise methodology. The assessment of the Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest estab] ished the baseline of where Fort Worth's urban forest is today: 60EEI � Tree Canopy Assessments Cities around the world use tree canopy goals, typically in the form of percent tree canopy cover, to guide urban forest management and improve the livability of their communities. Urban tree canopy is ideal for goal -setting, because it can represent the complex distribution and benefits of the urban forest within a single metric. Urban tree canopy goals must walk a careful line of ambition, inspiration, and pract- icality, Change in tree canopy cover can be used as a baseline metric to inform updates to the Urban Forest Master Plan. innovations in technology now offer an affordable approach to canopy assessments and enable communities to examine canopy change in as little as two-year intervals. Based on the rate of growth, Fort Worth should plan and budget for reassessing its tree canopy cover at least once every five years. As Fort Worth's population and land area expand, the value of its urban forest increases. Sustainable management of this resource starts with an understanding of the extent and distribution oftree canopy, establishing a goal for growth, and monitoring progress. "By knowing the amount of and direction in which urban tree cover is moving, urban forest management can be adjusted to provide desired levels ofurban tree cover and benefits for current and future generations." (Nowak et al., 2018) Changes in Tree Benefits In addition to measuring canopy cover change, Fort Worth can measure progress by examining changes to urban forest benefits. The USDA Forest Service's i-Tree suite of tools measures and quantifies the benefits of trees and canopy cover. These tools are routinely updated based on the latest research and science to measure benefits over time. However, for accurate comparison, the same version of i-Tree should be utilized for the initial and subsequent assessments. 182 Tracking Tree Planting and Care Activities Evaluating the impact of urban forest efforts involves tracking criteria, such as tree planting and preservation, tree care, and occurrence of hardscape conflicts. Devel- oping a uniform system where this information can be accessed by the City, residents, and community organizations can help standardize data collection and reporting. Sample data for a tree planting event could include: 40 Location 4 Number and species of trees planted 4 Event hours A Number of participants Uses of this information go beyond just tracking the number of trees planted. For example, surveys and participation rates could be used to assess whether residents' attitudes toward trees change following a planting event in their neighborhood. Data can also be used to verify if planted trees have a measurable impact on the amount of tree canopy cover in the area. Monitoring oftrees' condition over time can pro- vide information regarding a species' ability to survive and thrive under various soil and site conditions. 183 184 Progress Reporting The City's urban forest working group or a similar team for monitoring the plan should record and report on the metrics and indicators that are tracked for implementation. Some examples of the types of reports are listed below. These and other metrics are measures or indicators of success that should be communicated to stakeholders, policy and decision -makers, and the community. Note, the following list is not comprehensive nor listed in any particular order or priority. These reporting elements can be incorporated into an annual report and posted on the City's website. Green Asset Management Report the number of public trees inventoried. 9 Report the ecosystem benefits of the inventoried tree population. Report the number of public trees pruned, removed, and planted. Report the number of trees managed for pests and diseases. 0 Report the number of trees planted in stormwater management projects. 9 Report progress towards canopy goals and tree planting targets. Report the volume of woody biomass utilized. Report the condition, structure, and diversity of the public trees. List indicator scores and actions/targets achieved, ongoing, or not started. Community Engagement and Partnerships o$ List existing and potential partners. to Report the number of planting events and trees planted. /J Report the history/count ofTree City USA and supporting awards. Report the number of volunteers, events, and volunteer hours. Report the number of private tree plantings, as feasible. Report the number of trainings, workshops, and attendees. /J Report the results of public surveys. Recognize exemplary urban forest stewards. List indicator scores and actionsltargets achieved, ongoing, or not started. Tree Regulations and Policies 9 Report the number of permits reviewed and approved. IJ% Report the number of trees preserved, planted, and mitigated for development. List all City and partner -led planning efforts. /f Describe related planning efforts. !f Establish a Citywide canopy goal and local planting targets. 9 List recommended changes to City Code, policies, and manuals. IJ List indicator scores and actionsltargets achieved, ongoing, or not started. 185 CoosSe°{e�p0�by c��pce � Arncricao�O t�h 4 taA° �g ectorstabele� Tt�cc C a CIO (2D?olthF°rtNv0 1�g � 5 Ix A Q AFP� oPy Coves 9 e e,�noPy assessme°t n � ce aP 4 ptayiog�4etma4 {D the "C%ati°° 2020 Tree Canopy Assessment «o,a mao*rt Tree Equity Scores (TES)by U.S. Census Block Groups ktsoume: Ar d— rmesta) Tree canopy Grass < R TES Impervious 64 79 TES Water &D-8 TES p .f Bare TES are soil r U Other Cities I Jurisdictions _ 100 TES terflorial City and Extraterritorial Jurisdictioand n (ETJ) Boundary Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary 0 Other Cities lJurisdictions �i 190 Average Surface Temperatures by Census Block Group Average Summer Surface Temperatures (5.h—hao) i♦ 84-94 degrees 94-95 degrees p 95-96 degrees 96-97 degrees 97-102 degrees Data Not Available 0 Other Citles 1 Jurisdictions Existing Canopy Cover by Planning Sector Map of the City planning sectors by tree canopy cover range Planning Sectors Canopy (&—d., tI.MO Tree Campy Aisassmenl ..V 2010 k-9.V) 1 Far North 9 Southside 2 Far Northwest 10 Eastside 3 Northeast 11 Southeast 4 Northside 12 Sycamore 5 Far West 13 TCUIWesteliff 6 Western Hills/Ridglea 14 Wedgwood 7 Arlington Heights 15 Far Southwest 8 Downtown 16 Far South <10% 10 -15% 15-20M 20 - 35% 35 - 100°! City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Other Cities 1 Jurisdictions 191 192 Existing Canopy by Census Block Group Map of Census Block Groups by tree canopy cover range Census Block Group Canopy % (Based on the 20M Tree Campy uses rlu&IN 201S V-11ryi <10°l0 10-15k � 15 - 20ak 20 - 35% 35 -100% City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Other Citles 1 Jurisdictions Q V Achieving 30% Canopy by Future Land Use Industrial, Commercial, & Mixed -Else Canopy Goals & Annual Tree Requirements ' M industrial Growth Center. 20%(5,011 trees per year) N General Commercial: 30%(4,076 trees per year) 9 Mlxed-Use: 25%(4,030 trees per year) �.-. Neighborhood Commercial• 30%(2,774 treas per year) - Light Industrial: 20% (1,862 trees per year) - Heavy Industial: 20% (382 trees per year} Manufactured Housing: 30%(342 trees per year) ^- ❑ Other Cities f Juris&tions '"• L: City and Extraler-itorial ,jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary _ L Mapanrdsscllmn lIMSddlNS.awrrsrallf.Wrrplrrll- • � 6 � � se 1YPaA �Fytlaa>aA.endrytaadApngoiist•Yts 193 194 Achieving 30% Canopy by Future Land Use cunt. pi .t� ea ear) 41 14 J Public & Private Open Space, Vacant, Ag, Institutional, Infrastructure, & Water Canopy Goals & Annual Tree Requirements ■ Public Park, Rec. & Open Space: year) Vacant, Undeveloped, Ag: year) Institutional: 25%(2,229 trees per year) Infrastructure: 25% (1,308 trees per ec, & Open Space: & Ponds: 30%(37 �...•,• s per year) ❑ Other Ihearetd�ro>timA!1tlfNM4161i /*'+e open We",racer, city a6d-Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Map and description of the public and �rivate open space, vacant, gricultural, institutional, infrastructure, and water types, canopy goals, and planting '-Qulrements 195 Residential Land Use Canopy Goals & Annual Tree Requirements ■ Rural Residential: 40% (22,816 trees per year) ■ Single Family Residential: 30% (16,578 trees per year) Suburban Residential: 40% (4,665 trees per year) Residential: 30% (1,048 trees sT owaDensity t 71� Medium -Density Residential: v 200/, (477 trees year) 0 Urban Resid ti 4 trees per ,G " — -Density Residential: ■r . /o (45 trees per year) Cl Other j r *Cities / Jurisdictions City and Extraterritorial .lurisdietion (ETJ) VL Me C �eneHeml.lAwn Yrd weq� nn��iAnq nGuiiYmei� Map and description ofthe sidential future land use types, anopy goals, and planting requirements a r r es Sri, 196 Achieving 30%Canopy by Planning Sector Scenario to achieve 30% canopy by planning sector canopy goals and planting requirements Planting Priority: Public Input on Priorities and Low - Tree Canopy Census Blocks Map displaying public priorities for planting within Census Block Croups that have less than 10% free canopy cover Census Block Group Canopy % )ee9aa m Pe 2020 Tree Campy Aesess-1 us" 203 heaw) <10% 10-15% 15 - 2C5'o 20 - 35% 35 -100% City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary 0 Other Cities lJurisdictions n E 1Z Public Priorities in Census Block Groups with Less in 197 Far 1swW 26% (75,556 Woo per ymr� Far west 3536 (20.033 be -Li per year; Far hmth vesl: 30% (12,703 Tree., M ydar} ►ar SmAh: 45% (12,170 trees per Yw) Far Soutlrrreg,. M 6 (7,177 trees l4! 'rear) Fasty&: soh (5,630 noses per rear`, SNuarnare_ 20%(1,092 trees per ycw) r&-X& easr 25% (1,011) trees per Year? 1Ye qmw AT 4636 trees per year? So,alrWe: 2S% (293 trees fw v*aQ s� AMnOtW reKj't' 30% (274 trees per year) Cj we" Wts!Rlrloea: 2m, i2161rnes Ix+r rw) TC(JAVestdllf: INY4 (133 trees per yeast) N*Ahi- a: 23% Cl IS Meer per year) Omynbu m 15% (83 trees per year 1'4sWWIt: J" V* tree,, per peter, City BmrdM h -the €.traterrNnnai Junsdocom (E t J) 198 Priority: Public Input and CBGs with Average Surface Temperature of >97 N1ap displaying public priorities for planting within Census Block Groups that have an average surface temperature of 97 degrees or greater L.%r Public Priorities in Census Block Groups with Average Surface Temperatures of 97 Degrees or Greater o Priority planting areas identified in public engagement sessions Census Block Groups with an average surface temperature of 97 degrees or greater City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary 0 Other Cites I Jurisdictions c� Q Priority: Public Input and CBGs with_>70% Minority Populations Map displaying public priorities for planting within Census Block Groups with 70% or more minority- populations Public Priorities in Census Block Groups with 70% or more Minorities populations 0 Priority planting areas identified _ in public engagement a sessions Census Block Groups with 70% or more populations of minorites City and gxtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary Other Cities t Jurisdictions o a9 oe 199 200 Priority: Public Input and CBGs with _>70% Economically Vulnerable Populations iilap displaying public priorities for planting within Census Block Groups with 70% or more populations in poverty Public Priorities in Census Block Groups with 70% of Population in Poverty o Priority planting areas identified in public engagement sessions Census Block Groups with 70% or more populations in poverty City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary 0 Other Cities I Jurisdictions 0 Priority: Public Input and CBGs with a Health Risk Index of 65 of Greater Map displaying public priorities for planting within Census Block Groups with a Flealth Risk Index rating of 65 or greater (CDC source) Public Priorities in Census Block Groups with a Health Risk Index or 65 or Greater 0 Priority planting areas identified in public engagement o sessions Census Block Groups with a Health Risk Index of 65 z 0 or greater City and Extraterritorial Jtiritidic6on (ETJ) Cities/ Jurisdictions 201 202 Combined Priority Map NIap displaying the combined priorities of the public for tree plantings and the integrated data analyses Combined Priority Planting Map (by Census Block Groups) _ High Moderate Low City and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Boundary o Priority planting areas identified in public engagement sessions 0 Other Cities I Jurisdictions C'1i ♦_ l APPENDIX B: INDICATORS OF A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST rrwK.7oRa. 0+rer.40q00+ww 1 rod v/ewa edmle"puffbrarwuae tome w.e.lnebl. Vrban T.raat Mwwt stw.dard ry l4w McMreM �� mt0vt4w nve rer pene+si Pr-� pa"OM.ma Peet-r�rarq� ehr t:Tx•?I:•� [M P"d4a+e. rrtmlmeO PUMW awwn... IMe. and w%waW fa eu ueminq whe and w pwwce al Me m1dr- [ed r,rtvr h..�.t rtx-:syF"j A td Ckgaaq.r.>rrYe.er�, KL'14k tSe►plexrry� mvghbarhoad caaPetaw end pdfWq� w .+ Mf wt[ an the Act�m wrU.reMw.t me{aperL�wnt et n.npeayhood�..rN {--e rr4~h00d Arms{ e?.t nee eeureFw!.-� wd4 kunliedgmac TrPQeylnabond Ca tow-7dF DOD A Hood w Crrt,mnedrr chy fiord. ,d vvw77atrr6pKkMttedrbary miles, ftAA 9 wme dertam"GdOV to.e0an Cwrrmtmuona or WRh ata•+arIM rl Me .A —Ft .-u t lt+pf.m vwArtryvwrkc frwnlndr..ery �ItWlydee'a[tA7aew amci Ywolvelmrn aCfe{1^re. r7m.UeYee+L'h! {Ve11lR o7eYrlotln ld[al yrerrr elmmwyeapwur•.nd .rre.rebR ' ram mpon o CRYWW CAYirlrMliO L4rwx q.iKa,d:.biatrve•. Jd Wrrt•n.re awmc al antl ir..0.d art the Urben ftev7 Wnt�inyaq..mNt ar.Adooper.tefa,.dw 7v"W wh %. rnmra "K and6b)OCOeea cdntrqumllry iaewere of end crp.q..nem-d[LmCwx•*afowf� drymnoewbnv farmer rp.k e_^d ebrectne. htl'Csuet J4m;od Ir�Jrrr Cm'1 tnn, P�<rlrtlt A.tCijrUAt Cdn4�nme egeel G:twti6rt %Ty nwpag&"slmail tleeicL 4dt* rnyn,..d a+CeryrtRnn of reN•M lrY'�nareCr`ledl LOW WT DIUM L, d roNul sral-0n 61 coar6-rrarYrs++ MF 7JrtM�R rwrere'dn!1 P1 O"Fft MM deweYywt de nel wMrr teems 203 CI N ' 206 In dKNon of a ilyerPll bbJ.Rhyr w bart 1NefcA cwfar.i f+rrto+tlureca I-ewl i fla4eafnafiy tMWn f treuary s.,.tea+d farwr t.ey. rf.d+vrr. r+wh !aEalulK. I "eeelre af!'nf+trt Mfao-ulpr iN'.lbe+eh[w+r-.r1 . ir'rrr'I.rrall�9rrewk+ alrrtkra9lvr wr'4�.q CPmI�w.IeJtirO betVlgt•R ilte�l+/ �dy dat'iaftrllehK afld and Stnrnun ���� IYa[frrnq taVp}but Caa anA tt dbaftm. do4pnrra W hMw..Ary, nr�ir[nrw,�.yq n.lf [•I..s4ula.rr. pppdVtpy. VOW %WAM/, nttdld to>iltirni ne twovow,W-! OW Kqylefayy, rrrdared We pfdted[brr .vrlMl.ln r.wlf4nnFlwn.nwr a abatY obmxdrwl T]M PraYeld= t1711MT14Nty goat TM +'PHq trYM!'t dlSrwa•d rra ntren an p,tw and prhawe proaa+tyafe e+ mn w the wMMC.frfllr't M.tlIAY,g +-arrefv"rKrm nur,4,* d tree cam, p4r" seal n'wrrarrrcr bf-A :a.IW ardc aM a— lwa smgcfw m pra[TRM and F{arap.rtwnt !tafldt.di kw nflfl byCKY daP, P.wrekra +vrnrar[+SryirvrSlrwy d[ye/OPwS W atgfwa enpf/Qad tnRar eNlttad alrantles Ni f7n I#A W."H Ill- Sht—fawl—y . LYd1rwr• e, P b[evwvow plteftwwm Pam. ptartdflq, and r.1fTi W-c n The ordi wwa hm nut been .Ipdated%w 200A and to dlol:Mw voukotloro and er,'waermmz are r¢eerd +wtetxuPlt rr+. sa•1su reranry [tarraEes and o.rcrf>•rcy uarw.f dlaailalhe uandarda ' arld p[FC>rCkS tq G n4A... -Awl 0~ rnt1Mt be better mnrn o,kaWd and wrtptllffta d Ov arks pop"Ty awlan and iwfsmote"" bta t0Atrlft OraaM rr rett rrwt* CtWmm Pe-Ommmece lrvW Seems b fta/fllard Laft Patdlfarl High .Yhrrle trrdrvfwdttlfr [ON!•Mmum ren Yeaws Vmueanupygow :Ana(ry fny'� ltr'11r1ain!rfu ,�,�ry� N.. d'jplw 1'1C tMbaftTraa�arfa�f yoaKaatklrtittwftlrrt Cayxcs.gry[trYa+ I.eyhFr¢rlexfip alsidnl t,�asnitrtame Ple. tMkilw lwyr fi./� futlwf^One Ur eta�>� re reTxaI aue[ftpe ar]Ta txY av!trl 1.+! i'ar+flpY afxt Wi6fuPa: fort WaiFrl larMlnn nr f...w.pf ottl.rly raStara dpvAdl arfd trrw FfitMly Scof. ;Arnerle.r+rtamr�l�I•. ICC11awa by nayRborrrood tflwra gq out of TpO D+t[rlbuipn} 1St:fhr tKrtelb canopj Me arrNabbe to bl! waR, car+lp.rsd lalM aapat:klty 10f t11rM�n"..pat InPnla+ ryrYaiP'af RS rM.r aaw. of . w"" UbferilYe w e r. twtrr+r C.rrrpn Plrrrmrralwfrf. L...1 S—WOAU. lhban Inauguy lrlallderd taw lYrdYah N*h -- t a AA h a d%M~ &W..a 1, f oatbarf of pWlkto, on aI.YNIbM.A a¢Ytf�Hl.ar>tiNl;ptyShaftr MMOWW00- Aw M it eea MU. aarr np df-Imd hs", ''hleN[ 0 cc r- n Md AQ. J�wwtlrr} Watm,54vt-cf� DILtAbvkk" O-WDiti 4M W"r ACd pxk he" �rY frin ltr+ e[as rtd baarr n.:<SAndJClFan 10-M'Cf11110'6 Cv% a-ae•.TOa OUWx�aaaats aaertla ayi.rltory x ayodebnrlf" maf IOW Na, ta.+d m a gef+en")v fonr at on Okvm paptAmanat aeWbla.A ptlbdcly-awfrd lraaa aaaa cnnlpra.rw+pYe Of rer, Trp 1Yprslea e'+p.rMa SNy i.d 1w ealeh Dlrwralfy �IFfaulOW .Y.TIaxRfl�mF'[r4 [amw&oddrfditaolotr4 fra�llGS tJI+T uw te..ry fart ay- 7m tlrflf+j "noia" Or h as fprttn dr 1pOiMil�I rpalki otAdxrodtsa- nn'iIW eluawteryl-a :C7w A."Mrtm! --- ;'Ifwlrlat/On cnc Adlf and aagbta.A noariii+l�fSpOiStw [ar.pfeS4ltthi+ , PW Mr Tr" cuirdlton &0 pfltNn7./ Ink YYetfhl f [ c�441w farely Oe/f1aISP7s'S. alMaw [rays pubai]rrwrrd tract. TV* b. rfTotfnalgn is W4*RO d"*Ct 1n]inla.fiIIC41{[191Ya 0641111 tiTr Wwwnlrwtaryn aaraliM*Icrn7a7t -_ __ fNP..�,.I,�� M A" w fhyNrcarnRlaM Pe1i.l. i t¢Iq Von Wfwth Ku an Trtea fM PrlYaf. i'r.oantwrxwryofllvwSMl IrIwavgw ir.epka rrrlglla; RvP'r nY aardift afPro Tsar exdd Cdflfarlen 3r tfaK d:PfytO p/fgta tSaYaftl/RYfR do- lx'I'L P WOA b+d M rnlr+pftWeglrn �Labelar MCDOUM: M 101.Oty pbgC rt'hflalMhlglC. t6 plaoILWOvarft aryl urban box addrass.s trw lar-Ke$ to DWO S—I.t—blllty kw-q lb —hi .)rhar4 fdorq[o 'WarkX11WI y N l ltp nd• li r MVI•pfSrVryl+,1�� +oaatace raN+.lalfncolrco a.awtnaalay, 207 208 APPENDIX C: Implementation Plan Timetable The following tables are representations of the contents of an Excel spreadsheet provided to assist with implementing the recommended action steps for Fort Worth's Urban Forest Master Plan.The recommended steps and short-term targets should he adapted to align with available resources and priorities.'fhe interactive workshect and key performance indicator tracking tool are provided as a separate resource to the Plan. Short -Term Target I - Comnlctc the inventory in one City planning sector or other boundary (e.g., neighborhood). Prioritize LUldcr,er ed and disadvantaged neighborhoods within areas with low tree canopy. First Identify the department staff/positions that will manage the tree Step inventory project and determine the intended use and end users. Utilize the 2011 sample inventory and i-Tree Streets data to estimate the total number of public trees that will need to be inventoried. Create a work plan and budget to complete the inventory. LB Estimate costs and consider options to conduct the inventory in phases or all at once. Develop a plan for managing, updating, and integrating inventory data. 1.D Secure funding to complete the inventory. Prepare and release bid specifications and select a consultant (if applicable). 1.117 Refine and implement the data management and integration plan as needed. Immediate (1-5 years) Short -Term Target 2: Draft the changes to Urban Forestry Ordinance that do not require stakeholder involvement (e.g., updated terminology, definitions, authority, and alignment with other ordinances). Evaluate additional recommended changes and draft proposed ordinance language. Seek input from local arhorists, commu- nity leaders involved with urban forestry, and professionals familiar with Fort Worth's permitting process. First Organize an internal team to reviewthe Urban Forestry Ordinance Step and recommended changes. Establish a task force to identify creative monetary and non -monetary incentive structures designed to increase tree preservation and planting on development proj- ects. Incentives should complement regulations to provide a balanced approach. Implementation and education will require additional staffing. Draft proposed amendments to regulations and standards. 2.B Conduct stakeholder engagement and public information sessions prior to presenting text amendments for adoption. Immediate Update the City website and communicate changes to City staff, (1-5 years) external stakeholders, and the public. 2.D Create a manual for residents, tree care professionals. developers, and property managers containing the City's tree regulations, standards, and best practices. Work with other sections and departments to update additional regulations impacting trees. 2.17 Update City standards, specifications, and manuals rebated to hardscape/infrastructure conflicts with public trees. Short -Terre Target 3: Establish an internal urban forest working group to organize, monitor, and report on plan implementation. First Identify members, objectives, and roles of an internal urban Step forest working group to assess the staffing and resources needed to implement the UFMP. Providing adequate staffing for urban forest programs will help to ensure other departments and sections are able to maintain necessary coverage. Create an Urban Forest Working Group to support UFMP implementation and future decisions on staffing and programs. 3.13 Identify and budget for training, certifications, equipment, and other resource needs of forestry and urban forestry staff. Update or create protocols and procedures for inter -departmental operations and cross -training. 3.D Consider renaming the Urban Forestry Section and the Urban Forestry Ordinance to clarify the roles and responsibilities regarding public and private trees. Identify areas to streamline processes. 3.F Meet regularly as a working group to implement a continuous improvement framework. Explore the benefits and feasibility of establishing a City Urban Forest Advisory Committee. 3.H Provide an annual update to City Council regarding the state of the urban forest and progress made toward UFMP goals. Immediate/Ongoing (1-3 years) Short -Term Target 4: Review the City's list of neighborhood and community - based organizations and draft a list of potential partners for urban forest efforts. First Share the final UFMP with existing partners and provide a Step summary of how their input influenced the plan. A Create a list of potential local partners, including public, private, institutional, and non-profit organizations. 4.113 Host virtual discussions with stakeholders to update them on the UFMP and encourage continued participation. immemate Lead or partner with one or more organizations to host an event (1-3 years) highlighting Fort Worth's urban forest and the UFMP. 4.D Develop or support a program that documents voluntary tree planting and recognizes exemplary urban forest stewards. A F Regularly evaluate partnerships to ensure they are supporting UFMP goals and achieving greater representation of historically underserved and disinvested communities. Short -Term Target 5; Develop a public communications, education, and engage- ment plan where strategies are coordinated as a Citywide initiative rather than a departmental effort. This may necessitate additional staff to adequately engage the community. First Maintain Arbor Day Tree City USA designation and post the UFMP Step on the City's website. Continue to implement the Neighborhood Tree Planting Program, Tree Grant Program, Citizen Forester Program, and volunteer efforts in support of the UFMP and citywide canopy goals. 5.B Create a public dashboard or other mechanism to increase transparency and keep the community updated on progress and opportunities for participation. Regularly evaluate public education and engagement efforts. 5.D Explore opportunities to engage with and support vulnerable and underserved populations in the planting of public street trees. Short -MEd Term (1.10 years) Short -Term Target 6: Develop an action plan and funding strategy for one (1) underfunded program or initiative. First Develop an actionable, long-term plan to fully fund tree planting, Step maintenance, and preservation at levels needed to meet the City's 30% canopy goal. Use data from the inventory, canopy assessment, and the UFMP Technical Report to determine the level of funding needed to achieve and sustain the goals of the UFMP. 6.B Review and implement a funding mechanism provided in Appendix C of the UFMP's Technical Report. ^ Evaluate and measure performance indicators to adjust funding as needed to achieve the goals of the UFMP. 6.D Establish dedicated, sustained funding sources beyond the current budget for forestry and urban forestry operations to increase the level of service provided. Short -Mid Term (1-10 years) Short -'perm 'Target 7: Develop the first annual work plan for the following fiscal year. First Review the strategies and recommendations provided in the Step Recommendations Section of the UFMP's Technical Report to develop an annual urban forest work plan. The plan should coordinate roles and responsibilities of various City departments involved in tree work, planting, permitting, inspections, and other tree -related activities on public property. Fulfillment of additional duties will require additional staffing Identify the departmental staff/positions to lead the development of an urban forest management plan. 7.13 Secure funding and utilize the data from the public tree inventory to develop the urban forest management plan. Develop a tree pest and disease management plan for public trees and include a public education component. 7.D Utilize current research and innovation to adopt new or improved management strategies supporting urban forest sustainability and resiliency. Short -Mid Term t,-rV years) Short -Term Target 8: Develop and impleme ^; t a multi -year tree planting and maintenance plan for a priority area. First Utilize the 2020 canopy assessment and UFMP priority maps to Step identify the target area for the first planting plan. Continue to support and diversify funding sources for the City's Rolling Hills Tree Farm in growing, distributing, and planting quality native and adapted trees. 8.B Track plantings led by the City, its partners, and private develop- ment projects. Practice a no -net -loss for public trees principle by budgeting for and planting replacement trees for those removed on an annual basis. 8.D Develop a multi -year public tree planting and maintenance plan Mid -Term that prioritizes areas of greatest need. (3-10 years) Maintain a recommended tree planting list that supports urban forest resilience and maximizes tree benefits. 8.F Explore opportunities and implement measures to expand the Heritage Tree Program. Conduct an i-Tree Eco survey of the citywide urban forest or utilize the U.S. Forest Service Urban Forest Inventory and analysis program data {when available}. 8.14 Reassess the citywide tree canopy cover using the latest recom- mended technology and adapt planting targets and priorities. N Short -Term Target 9: Develop and implement a public tree monitoring program for pests and diseases of concern, such as emerald ash borer. First Gather and review the latest research on tree pests and diseases Step of concern and share information with community groups. Include information on the City's website. Expand the public tree monitoring program to conduct field assessments and monitor threats to a growing tree population. 9.B Expand opportunities for cross -training staff in other sections and departments that may encounter trees in their operations. Continue and strengthen City inspections of development projects to ensure they remain in compliance with the Urban Forestry Ordinance. 9.D Keep up with current research and emerging tree pests and diseases. ^ c Provide information to property owners, especially large land- holders, regarding current and emerging tree pests and diseases of concern. Long -Term (5-10 years) Short -Term Target 1 Q: Quantify the current amount of wood volume repurposed annually on average and the potential amount of wood volume that would be generated by expanding the program. First Determine how much wood waste is generated from City Forestry Step operations, where the wood waste is generated, and if and how it is currently distributed Document the procedures and protocols for utilizing alternatives to mulching and landfilling woody debris resulting from public tree maintenance. 10.B Quantify the potential carbon and waste diversion impacts of reusing wood waste. Increase awareness and provide opportunities for private tree care companies to support sustainable practices such as urban wood utilization. Long -Term to-iu years) 218 2020 Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment completed by PlanIT Geo, Inc. under contract with the Texas Trees Foundation. The assessment utilized 2018 NAIP imagery and 2015 LiDAR imagery and was delivered to the City ofFort Worth in 2021. Abbot, J., Hanel, D., Kidd, S., Macie, E., Mitchell, C., "Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Review' spreadsheet developed by Urban Forestry South (USDA Forest Service, Region 8, SRS-4952, Athens, GA.) Original checklist developed in cooperation with Agnes Scott College Office of Sustainability, the ASC Arboretum Advisory Council, and the City of Austin, TX, 2015. American Forests, "Nationwide Evaluation of Tree Cover Shows Huge Opportunity to Reduce Heat Exposure and Boost Air Quality and Employment," June 2021. American Forests, "Tree Equity Score", www.americanforests.org/tools-research-re- ports-and-guides/tree�quity-score/ Appel, D., McBride, S., Texas A&MAgriLife Extension, PLPM-PU- 086, "Wilt Diseases of Elms in Texas," October 2021. Brook, R_ D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., et al., Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association, National Library of Medicine, June 2010. City of Fort Worth Parks and Community Services Department, "Native & Adapted Trees for Fort Worth & Tarrant County". circa 2000. Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., "A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. Application to Cities in the United States." Journal of Arboriculture 24(2): pp. 17-30, March 1997. 219 Academy of Sciences (PNAS), December 2019;116(52): 26153-26154. Erickson, A. P., Carver, J. L., The Texas Tribune, "Wetter weather is coming this weekend. But it won't be enough to end Texas' drought." U.S. Drought Monitor, credit Covington, C. August 2022. Drescher, M. "Urban heating and canopy cover need to be considered as matters of environmental justice." National Library ofMedicine, Proceedings of the National onbiodiversitY. {{ects °fhabitat t atmentd1On cs134� 48�'b15 and SYstemati F�,g,1,. �2403)0 �cologY Evolution on pmualReview tfeEXtens+on,Te�� pail: er oll Cjtiffin, l Texasnk g390%110`1 IiaSnosticLab, u ofTs �dManag�pent�d`e u.ed ee C T plantcltnic.tam Nauet,R.,P etersenINN, "1`�I�& �,unitY Foteso �ens� unitedstates: A20l4lJcb�' be�Pat ovez300 „2p16_ Nam' Activities I,The ght,, Sept, 2012' end= telmPact, Nensg,T� �ytheTex N'�2019)'S 'fzees'Ki1 d 4aoAws 5sastem T1Si1Gon Prima ree SReG�es of lve�Qn,LR.°pe ��an��Pa �pz��.10�4)•302 Sis of Clim°1inS R l is of is 901j10040302 uze to �teenness os om ' httPs Jtdoi.0410' �..jAdet�,F., BxP Study Of bez Nat onynae Prost}es t124C4� Irk 3i �,t352, $cPten� andM°��� eatthPersPect �nvisonTnent�x peng,lZ' �"uzb� 2016c.,1vScCoaCc re0j,city, d and lCeet,� ejcipb°zhoodell Poa JAC aid zm4liditY S`on, voltoe140,Tssne Datdooz �linicalbnm aptedictoz�Y.TEnvu°n �4g. as 1SSN0 1,6 b0choadC'tieene �itbochoo 1410- CrimesbenHealtl' 2020Feb75-,ll'� touglitubas` RespubUc ��� �d�e11b���bru� 2p2t • - nendijk, ""pr 3 30'300 to I inked _i Y,,on J Inttodu°ins fozests 22Q 1s,Fort�°� plus to spend As Conczete sPTt 2Q2Q cpzpmon 0Gto ity and ,padWo dq o derelo4n'ent• l to drversf � r 1wopolitan Sasr'se\' vclan eith�an milliozrs tO sa ces for utbanP F $- 1990ZT ePzoce�inSs °f valunje 5, San3girt,ezvion$r°\a$`1• A Fgtest, papetPte$ented � liance Co Fza'entatio n � Ucban sense' Tgveznent Al c.p,., m ectiT* al Tteo lmP acgoles' $cosYste �nYRanaldP lll, ions of �MaY2Q19• Ztee lets,D.Aw b�o1o�°alC UscquenGesof Y eke Av e danL,�$'clm dSU �n i\rtY&Utb exee b 'Ttee Sawn 1�"32, $ ofQneTtee kavY�gzen m Sm"d�ds �utbanvo estTY A4petcentUt we, Tjq,l,pp cbig91 u,Vbfpow etpftes yatiap0ns din'�5 , omn'cnaa gtic1'NbY' Review USDAF°testSeT,nce, concengett atron onset sec gtests n efieits Ptesezv 241�)Y F e b eop`1"g°�� zeesincalifomta gtanathech2pj5' „ �ldmnwithA 2.5 �2QQR)' �Q2Q9 Lca\rY,1.t �erican etcen�,rz of�,Teett gt ua,F•$" � nn°npr (jq8\• a"A4 F va\ue g °fpxtc eGtin CmjOpY tecazatod nction'd 14tr-i15• n�the Sayloz,A p.> Io�al n�otl{ot'' tsEpz4b\ezns.a� nq ton�ei� StNe�'te'� 1� `2Qib) I,�•E�\on tY►e 1kin�ep� neaancn cPbers°n,��,e UzbzrGie ink acl3auP °n P., a tmgs°f f ern Wa eExtensiau.ea�pt°blems" f° iItinTex� Usp`Uzb'Fpz A gezrnedY'5"ti�,Qu�rtY $20)• 'fes�'asAStrt$e�ebandl'0o t-tott ttrespmaa° a seP� �lievv Q Oct12; and b s:llp\an stc°�°n t� aY,. Pzeveo a°ost,SwnindUblic'lea1�`2Q21Fozestzy:Plmg mU\tiplc.cta4 t`ce}AiLifd APzi\2422me�dAshBoTez tiansbrP ages U� pones tcdaY- cktil\in& os4ital•int5$nvizo ,Nem�>1 P t2Qn� aces leXas p,8=M , w�„w.ailife ewstoon+.�ze " r\aY 2422. WWIR w Yla`t,�os4 s�Zbitd$ditio andirian'ngUTbaneensPssPtinP' pgtestScTvice,Q�tyvL fsv+ebt'u Qmst,MmG�2p15. w1w agingUi Gze �Pozest�' P\annrng e �° in zoo S� \`l� bhp ;p1am* 3otina' ban a�iet 'Ce'�s Faz'� lasUt t�,ei1'D ) aqo nf9tm gft'c+e �, :> d 189 �mespO daaon, Dg•-'�m�ewaY'kki ecanoFY'Ibem O � 42 _ �i11eT>R'�_PTcntiCe��l• nistTationC� 2 3• �,}evu t scY p m osPhenc A PTecipitanon ways gn pzaPe 321 Sew \{ S� ;gac �enefr of �baQ16. A2, 2 panic and 1 and Annua\ act of GTecn 3� 3 �2p45) jv(olf, ultiPlcbea\th Uea\thPla`� 2 of Cl�nateane arc eigna\ �pw ,I�gnth Y 1.> "`e 1m4$eazch 3� $5, nett k 1•D 1 ctiptron- d$f{ects T,rice> tan•3° a\afLers e32pp• 1P ;pzan pies ..comp°""' Q23• and cTalnp cirn volun� lot a texas, SO Utbancteen, 18• mtectionA�eno`! evidence eb 24 ds F to dence�°mQ,usti�n, � \an d�latont°Red v �tiaY Z•Sicbol\s. "'� otes�`1 UNted gtates. v�a�enta\F °v�eaUs F than epa'g Trees � vaiues'.E`� .�. �•*Ut� vet ink tion• U U s•En �• w*'�`' g cTee4eld uzutY eecp tTtaeFo4°1a andgeatisl'ds,nAenc�,•Vj2Q22 �., m ute ?Totedtislands' 1`\D g""banAdcgDrvetsi�'dgtabi\it~lrnas ts►tY 10'tralol US,Endneau.epag°vea A 19g3. tree dry bleat lsi e Racr as,9„171 tot s�c e tt2)'15 Rcasonable�idelines tec laces, .gcalaSY es s�,te�`1 loz pzO �cbatds,T1. �;43 ,349• aTtgs\+aP June2422. ��Tjev\tvz o�w°��Fo Is � o ash over policy:, S�sei,K"pd develoPe\rk � residents an - 222 USDA Forest Service, Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, www.Ea.fs.usda.gov/program-features/urbmg U.S. Geological Survey, "What is Carbon Sequestration?", %"vw.usgs.gov/faqs/whatcarbon-sequestration White, M. P., et al., "Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed -Effects Analysis of Panel Data," Psychological Science (2013): 920-928. Winguth, A. M. E., Kelp, B., "The Urban Heat Island of the North-Central Texas Region and Its Relation to the 2011 Severe Texas Drought," American Meteorological, 2013. Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., Fehrenbach, J., "Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity -Mapping Analysis," Urban Geography. 26:1, 4-35. 2005. Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., van den Bosch, M., Bardekjian, A. C., "UrbanTrees and Human Health: A Scoping Review." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2020. The Fort Worth Urban Forest Master Plan was developed through a partnership between the Texas Trees Foundation and the City of Fort Worth. The Texas Trees Foundation, a private 501(c)(3), serves as a catalyst in creating a new green legacy for North Texas through transformational, research -based plans and projects that educate and mobilize the public to activate the social, economic, environmental, and health benefits that trees and urban forestry provide for a better quality of life. Plan Sponsors Wells Fargo Atmos Energy Nicholas Martin Jr. Family Foundation Martini City of Fort Worth, Texas BNSF Railway Community Engagement MIG, Inc. J. Williams Group Project Team Rachel McGregor, Texas Trees Foundation Cheri Cuellar, Texas Trees Foundation Mary Wells, City ofFort Worth Craig Fox, City ofFort Worth Julianne Ragland, City ofFort Worth Jaclyn Ingram, City of Fort Worth Plan Prepared by Plan1T Cco, Ina Chris Peiffer Alex Hancock Mike Art Direction and Design Team rocker&co Steering Committee Gyna Bivens City of Fort Worth Mayor Pro-Tem, Council Member District 5 Alan Blaylock City of Fort Worth Council Member District 4 Norm Daley Texas Trees Foundation Rachel McGregor Texas Trees Foundation Cheri Cuellar Texas Trees Foundation Dana Burghdoff City ofFort Worth, Assistant City Manager Jesica McEachem City of Fort Worth, Assistant City Manager D. J. Harrell City ofFort Worth, Director, Development Services Christina Brooks City of Fort Worth, Director, Equity & Inclusion Joel McElhany City of Fort Worth, Assistant Director, Park and Recreation Sylvia Alcala City of Fort Worth Park and Recreation Advisory Board Gareth Harrier Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council, Bartlett Tree Experts Travis Clegg Development Advisory Committee, Peloton Land Solutions 223 �t{ee> DawaY p,avisotY°m F°Tt 4evel°P�nt cit of Gtea Tom cAbli-Orl jajxand VLZ � Y piece o Sne s gi Valleys, Ass°dates �° LLC s & Susta. avow FP°1a, enta� ° ire ectoi 17eP aist1vitoo �Fo�t Ex t Ted �' 2�� COUrtne� Ble"�s Sciences>Re�i°°al�sbanF°test SeR`tC.e' 224 Technical Advisors Janette Monear, President/CEO, Texas Trees Foundation Norm Daley, ChiefOperations & Communications Officer, Texas Trees Foundation Emily Plauche, Urban Forestry Coordinator, Texas Trees Foundation Contributing Organizations (Alphabetized) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Texas, Fort Worth Branch • American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Texas, DF W Section • Botanical Research institute ofTexas (BRIT) / Fort Worth Botanic Garden City of Fort Worth, TX • Climate Reality Project, DFW Chapter • Community Design Fort Worth • Community Frontline • Cross Timbers Urban Forestry Council (CTUFC) • CTUFC Citizen Foresters • Downtown Fort Worth Inc • Fort Worth Audubon Society Fort Worth Bicycling Association • Fort Worth Botanical Society • Fort Worth Development Advisory Committee • Fort Worth Garden Club, Inc • Fort Worth hispanic Chamber of Commerce • National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP) • Near Southside Inc. • North Central Texas Council of Governments • Fort Worth - Fort Worth Metropolitan Black Independent Chamber of Commerce School District Fort Worth Neighborhood and Homeowners Associations • Fort Worth Urban Forestry Advisory Committee • Friends of Fort WorthNature Center & Refuge • Friends ofTandy Hills Natural Area, Inc. • Girl Scouts Texas Oklahoma Plains • Greater Fort Worth Association of Realtors • Greater Fort Worth Builders Association • Greater Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce • Greater Fort Worth Sierra Club • Hispanic Real Estate Brokers Association • Keep Fort Worth Beautiful • Kids Environmental Education Network • League of Women Voters, Tarrant County 225 • Tarrant Transit Alliance • TexasA&MAgriLife Extension Service District 4 • Texas A&M Forest Service • Texas Blossoms / Eastside Blossoms • North Tarrant Express Mobility Partners • North Texas Tollway Authority • Real Estate Council of Fort Worth • Riverside Alliance • RxPlore / Fort Worth Climate Safe Neighborhood Coalition • Scenic Texas / Scenic Fort Worth • Streams and Valleys • Tarleton University, Fort Worth Campus Tarrant County Asian Chamber of Commerce • Tarrant County College • Tarrant County Master Gardeners Association • Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) Texas Christian University Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Fort Worth District • Texas Master Naturalists, Cross Timbers Chapter • Texas Nursery and Landscape Association (TNLA) Region V Texas Wesleyan University • Trinity Metro • Trinity River Vision Authority (TRVA) • Trust for Public Land • University of North Texas Health Science Center • Urban Land Institute • US Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District • Visit Fort Worth We invite you to collaborate with us. 3000 Pegasus Park Drive, Suite 740 // Dallas, TX 75247 214.953.1184 H texastrees.org Contact: Janette Monear H janette@texastrees.org