©2023 International Society of Arboriculture Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 49(2): March 2023 59 associated with the original model. Finally, ice storm frequency and severity within the eastern United States necessitates the incorporation of ice storm information into the urban forestry planning process. While we cannot stop ice storms from occurring, we can take steps to reduce the impact of this major for- est disturbance on urban forests and the interface between forests, buildings, and infrastructure. LITERATURE CITED Bloniarz DV, Ryan HDP III, Luley CJ, Bond J, Hawkins DC. 2001. An initial storm damage assessment protocol for urban and community forests. Amherst (MA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northeast Center for Urban and Community Forestry, Univer- sity of Massachusetts, Amherst; Naples (NY, USA): Davey Resource Group. [Accessed 2022 October 9]. 35 p. www .umass.edu/urbantree/icestorm/pages/StormAssessProtocol.doc Bond J. 2005. Final report: 2003 storm damage protocol imple- mentation (OH-03-346). Naples (NY, USA): Davey Resource Group. [Accessed 2022 October 9]. 20 p. www.itreetools.org/ storm/resources/2003%20SDAP%20Implementation.pdf Call DA. 2010. Changes in ice storm impacts over time: 1886– 2000. Weather, Climate, and Society. 2(1):23-35. https://doi .org/10.1175/2009WCAS1013.1 Changnon SA. 2003. Characteristics of ice storms in the United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 42(5):630-639. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2003) 042<0630:COISIT>2.0.CO;2 Coder KD. 2017. Tree damage from major ice storms. Arborist News. 26(1):20-23. Conway TM, Yip V. 2016. Assessing residents’ reactions to urban forest disservices: A case study of a major storm event. Land- scape and Urban Planning. 153:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .landurbplan.2016.04.016 Degelia SK, Christian JI, Basara JB, Mitchell TJ, Gardner DF, Jackson SE, Ragland JC, Mahan HR. 2016. An overview of ice storms and their impact in the United States. International Journal of Climatology. 36(8):2811-2822. https://doi.org/10 .1002/joc.4525 Escobedo FJ, Luley CJ, Bond J, Staudhammer C, Bartel C. 2009. Hurricane debris and damage assessment for Florida urban forests. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 35(2):100-106. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2009.018 FEMA. 2018. Fact sheet: Navigating your recovery: Debris removal. Hyattsville (MD, USA): Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency. R4 DR-4400-GA FS 001. [Accessed 2022 October 9]. 2 p. https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210318/ fact-sheet-navigating-your-recovery-debris-removal Greene DF, Jones KF, Proulx OJ. 2007. The effect of icing events on the death and regeneration of North American trees. In: Johnson EA, Miyanishi K. Plant disturbance ecology: The process and the response. Cambridge (MA, USA): Academic Press. p. 181-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088778 -1/50008-X Hauer RJ, Dawson JO, Werner LP. 2006. Trees and ice storms: The development of ice storm–resistant urban tree populations. 2nd Ed. Joint Publication 06-1. Wausau (WI, USA): College debris occurs on private property. Tree debris that is collected and reimbursed through United States Fed- eral Emergency Management Agency disaster decla- ration is restricted to public property (FEMA 2018). The debris estimates from communities used to develop this model were based on debris placed within a public ROW (Hauer et al. 2011). This included debris from trees within the public ROW and debris that was placed in the ROW from private tree debris that either fell or was placed in the public ROW. Additional tree debris occurs on private land that was not accounted for in the model, which a community would normally collect within a few weeks to months following an ice storm. It is not uncommon for additional tree debris result- ing from storms to occur several months or even years later, either from failure initiated by the storm or peo- ple’s decisions (e.g., people may decide to remove trees due to concern of future failure)(Hauer et al. 2006; Conway and Yip 2016). The model in this paper does not account for this. In addition, trees may become damaged by ice storms and not immediately fail from the storm (Shortle et al. 2003; Luley and Bond 2006; Greene et al. 2007). For example, tree branches may become cracked from ice loading and then, during a later loading event (e.g., wind, ice, foliage), fail and become debris (Zipperer et al. 2004; Greene et al. 2007; Kraemer and Nyland 2010; Coder 2017). While it is important to account for these additional residual sources of debris, the intent of this current model is to rapidly predict potential tree debris vol- umes during the near-term collection of debris. Thus, the modified model in this paper is intended to make local and regional estimates of debris collected by a municipality soon after ice storms (e.g., weeks to a few months). These estimates could be used then to plan for labor and equipment needs and estimate the potential costs for state and federal recovery funding. CONCLUSION Storms are a common urban forest disturbance factor resulting in tree damage and debris. Ice storms are one such common storm in eastern North America. Pro- actively estimating the volume of debris, or rapidly estimating potential debris soon after a storm, is important for planners. This study used an improved tree canopy estimate within a tree debris estimation model. We found marginal improvement using finer resolution imagery. However, the use of the canopy predictor should make a more local-based estimate for a community from a regional predictive model
March 2023
| 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
