Advocate for Trees

We observe a dis­con­nect, inter­nal­ly between City agen­cies and exter­nal­ly with part­ners that hin­ders effi­cien­cy and capac­i­ty and often results in missed opportunities.

1. Con­vene a sum­mit of all agen­cies with a major impact on our urban for­est to for­mal­ize com­mu­ni­ca­tion meth­ods, iden­ti­fy coop­er­a­tive projects, and seek synergy.
2. For­mal­ly describe urban for­est man­age­ment respon­si­bil­i­ties across all agen­cies and part­ners. With a clear divi­sion of labor and artic­u­lat­ed respon­si­bil­i­ties, work­flow will more smooth and efficient.
3. As long as urban forestry respon­si­bil­i­ty and fund­ing are divid­ed among var­i­ous agen­cies, the City should ensure the means to increase inter­de­part­men­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tion and coop­er­a­tion for plans and projects that may affect the urban forest.
4. Iden­ti­fy coop­er­a­tive projects that con­nect pri­vate landown­ers to the City’s urban for­est goals.
5. Per­form a com­pre­hen­sive oper­a­tional review of the City’s Forestry Division.

It is no secret that some Pitts­burgh neigh­bor­hoods have more trees than oth­ers, nor is it a sur­prise that wealth­i­er neigh­bor­hoods have more trees, in bet­ter con­di­tion, than eco­nom­i­cal­ly dis­tressed neigh­bor­hoods. While the fact remains that all City neigh­bor­hoods have their share of forestry needs, the Urban For­est Mas­ter Plan address­es tree canopy dis­tri­b­u­tion issues with a series of rec­om­men­da­tions, and the City has a clear role to play in ensur­ing that all Pitts­burgh res­i­dents ben­e­fit equal­ly from the urban forest.

1. Give pri­or­i­ty for urban forestry and out­reach activ­i­ties to dis­ad­van­taged com­mu­ni­ties that are cur­rent­ly gain­ing the least ben­e­fit from the urban forest.
2. Pri­or­i­tize neigh­bor­hoods for future tree plant­i­ng and pro­tec­tion efforts to increase defi­cient tree canopy fig­ures and allow for more equi­table canopy cov­er across the City.
3. Respond to res­i­dent requests for trees rather than prop­er­ty own­er requests.
4. In neigh­bor­hoods with long-term vacant prop­er­ties, respond to adja­cent res­i­dents’ requests to plant trees in front of the vacant properties.
5. Do not allow absen­tee land­lords to veto tree plant­i­ng on adja­cent pub­lic property.

Accord­ing to the 2012 State of the Urban For­est Report, the City’s tree canopy cov­er is at 42%. While this num­ber seems robust, most of the tree canopy is locat­ed in parks, hill­sides, and vacant prop­er­ties. These trees pro­vide sub­stan­tial ben­e­fits to City res­i­dents, but they do not pro­vide the same ben­e­fit as trees plant­ed with­in com­mu­ni­ties. Neigh­bor­hood trees pro­vide shade to homes and busi­ness­es, cap­ture stormwa­ter before it hits imper­vi­ous sur­faces, and bring beau­ty and a sense of place to com­mu­ni­ties. We must bal­ance the pro­tec­tion and restora­tion of our nat­ur­al areas with the proac­tive plant­i­ng and care of neigh­bor­hood trees.

1. Uti­lize the UTC analy­sis in con­junc­tion with the i‑Tree analy­ses to increase aware­ness about the rela­tion­ship between trees and envi­ron­men­tal qual­i­ty and to engage stake­hold­ers in tree planting.
2. Set a goal to max­i­mize street tree stock­ing levels.
3. Tar­get parks and oth­er pub­lic land to max­i­mize pos­si­ble canopy coverage.
4. Adopt per­for­mance-based plant­i­ng strate­gies by select­ing species based on desired ben­e­fit out­comes rather than canopy cov­er alone.
5. Design a back­yard tree plant­i­ng and tree care toolk­it for pri­vate landown­ers inter­est­ed in plant­i­ng trees to increase ben­e­fits that guide peo­ple to choose species and plant­i­ng loca­tions that max­i­mize benefits.
6. Share estab­lished tree canopy goals and share the UTC analy­sis with stake­hold­ers con­cerned with the urban forest.
7. Bud­get ade­quate­ly to main­tain trees after planting.
8. Gen­er­ate pos­i­tive canopy impacts on small-scale devel­op­ment and rede­vel­op­ment projects by incor­po­rat­ing canopy goals into munic­i­pal land­scape require­ments for streetscapes, park­ing lots, and oth­er sites.

1. Reassess the City’s urban forestry pro­gram bud­get in terms of achiev­ing street tree and UTC plant­i­ng goals, the rec­om­mend­ed sev­en-year pre­ven­tive main­te­nance cycle, and the young tree main­te­nance programs.
2. Sus­tain estab­lished part­ner­ships and cre­ate new part­ner­ships as a means to lever­age resources need­ed to accom­plish urban forestry goals.
3. Increase penal­ties for devel­op­ers and builders who dam­age trees and ensure enforcement.

1. Reg­u­lar­ly mon­i­tor pub­lic trees for main­te­nance needs, risks, and pests.
2. Devel­op a pro­to­col that pro­vides for reg­u­lar updat­ing of the pub­lic tree inventory.
3. Imple­ment a cycli­cal main­te­nance sched­ule of all street trees that pro­vides for a sev­en-year cycle of inspection.
4. Ensure that cycli­cal main­te­nance includes prun­ing of medi­um-sized and large trees to reduce risk and extend the pro­duc­tive life.
5. Ensure that cycli­cal prun­ing also includes care for new­ly plant­ed and young trees in their for­ma­tive years.
6. Com­mu­ni­cate and engage with the com­mu­ni­ty regard­ing the urban for­est plan.
7. Ensure the Tree Ten­der pro­gram con­tin­ues so that the City can nar­row its focus on mature tree care

1. Facil­i­tate a sys­tem­at­ic tree main­te­nance pro­gram for pub­lic trees.
2. Main­tain an updat­ed tree inven­to­ry with risk rat­ing data that uti­lize the tree risk assess­ment stan­dards in ANSI A300 (Part 9) and the Best Man­age­ment Prac­tices pub­lished by the ISA that address both tree inven­to­ries and tree risk assess­ment. [63, 64, 65]
3. Cre­ate a pri­or­i­ti­za­tion scheme in the pub­lic tree inven­to­ry that rates trees based on risk levels.
4. Use qual­i­fied indi­vid­u­als such as ISA Cer­ti­fied Arborists to mon­i­tor pub­lic infra­struc­ture improve­ments for poten­tial increase in tree risk and to iden­ti­fy poten­tial­ly high-risk trees as part of reg­u­lar­ly sched­uled inven­to­ry updates.
5. Per­form re-inspec­tions after storms that include heavy winds or snow that may increase branch loading.
6. Prompt­ly remove and prune trees iden­ti­fied with severe and high risk.
7. Inte­grate a side­walk repair pro­gram with prop­er arbori­cul­tur­al prac­tices and a per­mit sys­tem that tracks pro­posed work near pub­lic trees.
8. Main­tain ade­quate fund­ing lev­els for risk man­age­ment using in-house fund­ing or part­ner­ships with non­prof­its or obtain new fund­ing stream.

1. Iden­ti­fy the high­est lev­el, exot­ic pest threats and devel­op strate­gies for mon­i­tor­ing, con­trol, removals, and replant­i­ng. Strate­gies should include infor­ma­tion about uti­liza­tion of lim­it­ed resources and meth­ods to secure fund­ing to pre­vent or deal with exist­ing pest issues.
2. Uti­lize exist­ing street tree inven­to­ry data to mon­i­tor pub­lic street trees for high-pri­or­i­ty, exot­ic pest threat zones.
3. Edu­cate city staff, stake­hold­ers, and the gen­er­al pub­lic about exot­ic pest threats and pro­vide infor­ma­tion about iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and treat­ment options.
4. Cre­ate cit­i­zen watch pro­grams to assist with ear­ly detec­tion of exot­ic pests. Dove­tail these pro­grams with addi­tion­al edu­ca­tion about urban forestry issues.

1. Enforce city codes that require tree plant­i­ng to be a part of devel­op­ment projects.
2. Estab­lish street tree stock­ing goals for each neigh­bor­hood and for the entire City.
3. Tar­get nat­ur­al areas and forest­ed hill­sides for restora­tion plant­i­ng projects.
4. Ensure there is sus­tain­able fund­ing for nec­es­sary lev­els of tree main­te­nance to grow new­ly plant­ed trees into safe and healthy, mature trees.
5. Track all new tree plant­i­ngs in an accu­rate and reli­able inven­to­ry sys­tem to facil­i­tate the use of tree data for research pur­pos­es, project costs, main­te­nance needs, and to eval­u­ate progress towards diver­si­ty objectives.

1. Update and enforce ordi­nances that pro­tect exist­ing tree resources both on pub­lic and pri­vate lands.
2. Devel­op a set of arbori­cul­tur­al stan­dards for all work that occurs near pub­lic trees. The stan­dards should apply to per­mit­ted work by pri­vate con­trac­tors and munic­i­pal crews who per­form any type of work that may impact trees.
3. Devel­op ordi­nance pro­tec­tion for the City’s forest­ed hillsides.
4. Cre­ate clear author­i­ty with an inter­a­gency and inter­de­part­men­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tion process for inspec­tion, mon­i­tor­ing, and enforce­ment of pro­tec­tion of pub­lic trees dur­ing infra­struc­ture improve­ments by pub­lic agen­cies, or per­mit­ted work on pub­lic rights-of-way near pub­lic trees.
5. Cre­ate a ded­i­cat­ed account for funds from reme­di­a­tion and fines that is strict­ly for fund­ing oth­er tree-relat­ed projects.
6. Incor­po­rate tree pro­tec­tion best man­age­ment prac­tices and exam­ples of poor prac­tices in a pub­lic out­reach campaign.
7. Cre­ate a pri­vate prop­er­ty tree pro­tec­tion ordinance.