Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 47(5): September 2021 research and provide new trees appropriate for urban landscapes; and Doroski et al. (2020) have proposed establishment of networks and funding programs tar- geted at smaller-sized municipalities to remedy planting inequities and knowledge gaps relative to larger-sized municipalities. We also see opportunities for coordinated action specific to New York State and in particular the urban and community forestry program administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Norway maple is categorized by the NYSDEC as a regulated invasive species, meaning it cannot be know- ingly introduced into a “free-living state” (i.e., public lands or lands connected to public lands, natural areas, and public waters or waters connected to public waters), but its sale and use as a street tree is still allowed (NYSDEC 2014). Categorizing Norway maple as a prohibited invasive species and phasing out future sales in the state, as has been done in Massachusetts (MDAR 2021), would expedite its decline as a prev- alent street tree. Additionally, the NYSDEC provides funding for municipal urban and community forestry projects, which includes grants for a community forest management plan (CFMP) as well as for tree planting as long as a street tree inventory has previously been conducted. The request for applications (RFA) for the 2019 round of these grants contained a single refer- ence to increasing tree species diversity, which was buried in an appendix for a CFMP sample work plan (NYSDEC 2019). A comparable grant program in New Jersey stipulated that tree planting should include a diversity of tree species and follow Santam- our’s 10-20-30 rule for the long-term health and sta- bility of community trees (NJDEP 2017). The New York State grant program should adopt comparable language emphasizing street tree diversity and should integrate tree diversity into the scoring criteria for consideration of future grant proposals. It could also follow the example of the Tennessee Community Tree Planting Program by calling out tree species deemed invasive, undesirable, or vulnerable to pests and disease, and explicitly deny funding for the plant- ing of these species (Tennessee Department of Agri- culture 2020). Finally, North (2018) has suggested that municipalities enter into contract growing agree- ments with nurseries to ensure availability of less commonly planted tree species, as was done in New York City (Stephens 2010). However, such agree- ments typically require a level of arboricultural and 209 planning expertise exceeding the resources and abili- ties of smaller municipalities. Assistance with such expertise and planning could be provided by the state’s regional foresters and by its Cooperating For- ester program. Also, since it already operates a nursery to produce tree and shrub seedlings for conservation plantings on public and private lands, the NYSDEC could possibly perform some contract growing itself. CONCLUSION Street tree diversity in New York State was evaluated by analyzing street tree inventory data obtained from municipalities in the state. This analysis had two components: the first, a statewide assessment com- prised of 75 inventories that built on two previous statewide assessments (Cowett and Bassuk 2014; Cowett and Bassuk 2017), and, the second, an assess- ment limited to 32 municipalities where inventory data had been collected at multiple points in time (i.e., newer and older inventories). Based on these assess- ments, we believe that progress has been made to increase the diversity of street tree populations in New York State and that this progress is likely to con- tinue with the continued support of national, state, and municipal officials. However, there is no guaran- tee that diversity will increase to targeted levels, and it is unlikely that diversity alone will be sufficient to protect street tree populations from the challenges posed by polyphagous pests and climate change (Ber- land and Hopton 2016; Dale and Frank 2017). Never- theless, we believe that increasing street tree diversity is essential to protect the public investment in these trees and to sustain the environmental, social, and economic benefits they provide. Recommendations have been made to accomplish this. Additionally, there is a need for periodic and systematic monitoring designed to provide the information necessary for state and local officials responsible for municipal tree management to assess on a statewide basis not simply diversity, but the health of tree populations, and to more fully understand the extent to which current management efforts are effective or if these efforts need to be changed. Finally, some thought should be given to the aesthetic consequences of increased tree diversity on municipal streetscapes. The City Beauti- ful movement may have erred from an ecological perspective in advocating uniform street tree plant- ings, but visual aesthetics remain a significant factor in community attitudes and decisions concerning ©2021 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2021
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
