Salinas UFMP Final Draft — Salinas City Council, February 6, 2024

Urban Forest Management Plan

PREPARED BY
September 2023

ii | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................... VII VISION ...................................................................................................................................................IX 1 | INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1

1.1 | Historical and Environmental Context .......................................................1

1.2 | Why Salinas Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan .........4

1.3 | Developing the Salinas UFMP .............................................................................6 2 | KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................10

2.1 | The City Needs an updated tree inventory .......................................11

2.2 | Improvements to the City’s urban forest record keeping system are essential .................................................................................................................11

2.3 | The urban forest is not prepared for threats from pests, diseases, or climate change ..........................................................................11

2.4 | The City’s canopy cover is low and not equitably
distributed .........................................................................................................................................12

2.5 | Community members value trees as a vibrant resource ......12

2.6 | The City’s long-range planning efforts should
prioritize the urban forest .................................................................................................13

2.7 | Policies and ordinances that protect trees on private property should be enhanced .......................................................................................13 3 | CANOPY COVER.............................................................................................................14

3.1 | Citywide Canopy Cover ........................................................................................15

3.2 | Increasing Canopy Cover ...................................................................................19

3.3 | T ree Equity ...........................................................................................................................21

3.4 | Opportunity and Priority Planting Areas .............................................29 4 | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST ...............................................................30

4.1 | Environmental Services/Economic Benefits ....................................31

4.2 | Species Diversity Summary ................................................................................33

4.3 | Climate Preparedness .............................................................................................37

4.4 | DSH Distribution Summary .................................................................................41

4.5 | T ree Condition .................................................................................................................44

4.6 | Relative Performance Index Summary ....................................................45

4.7 | Importance Values Summary ............................................................................46 5 | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ................................................................48

5.1 | Budget and funding ....................................................................................................49

5.2 | Annual Service Data ...................................................................................................53

iv | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .........................................................................54

6.1 | Working Group ................................................................................................................55

6.2 | Public Survey .....................................................................................................................56

6.3 | Make a Difference Day ............................................................................................59

6.4 | Pop-Up Event ....................................................................................................................62 7 | STRATEGIC PLAN ..........................................................................................................64 8 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .....................................................................................75 9 | MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................82 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment ....................................................................................83 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................91

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1. Benefits of T rees ...................................................................4 Exhibit 3-1. Land Cover Classification ...............................................16 Exhibit 3-2. Map of T ree Canopy Cover in Salinas ........................17 Exhibit 3-3. T otal Number of T rees
Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11.5% .................................19 Exhibit 3-4. T otal Number of T rees Needed
to Plant per Year for 20 Years to Increase Canopy Cover ..............20

Exhibit 3-5. Map of CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentiles for Census T racts within Canopy Analysis Area .......22 Exhibit 3-6. Map of CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentiles for Census T racts within Canopy Analysis Area .........23 Exhibit 3-7. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Compared
to T ree Canopy Cover for Analysis Area in Salinas ...............................24 Exhibit 3-8. T ree Canopy Cover Percent by Council
District Compared to Canopy Cover from City T rees ........................25 Exhibit 3-9. City of Salinas Parks Canopy Cover ...................................26 Exhibit 3-10. City of Salinas Bus Stops Canopy Cover .....................27 Exhibit 3-11. City of Salinas Bikeways Canopy Cover ......................28 Exhibit 3-12. Planting Priority Score by Salinas Census T ract ..29 Exhibit 4-1. T op 10 T ree Genera in the City Inventory .....................34 Exhibit 4-2. T op 10 T ree Species in the City Inventory .....................36 Exhibit 4-3. Water Use Rating Distribution of the City’s T ree Inventory ...............................................................................................38 Exhibit 4-4. T op 10 Species Predicted to be Unsuitable for Salinas’s Future Climates ..........................................................................................40 Exhibit 4-5. DSH Distribution of the City’s T ree Inventory ............42 Exhibit 4-6. T op 10 Species Predicted to be Unsuitable for Salinas’s Future Climates ....................................................................................................43 Exhibit 4-7. Condition Distribution of the City’s
T ree Inventory ...............................................................................................44 Exhibit 4-8. City’s T ree Inventory Relative
Performance Index ...................................................................................................................45

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit 4-9. T en Species with the Highest Importance
Values in the City’s Inventory .........................................................................................46 Exhibit 5-1. Distribution of Salinas Urban Forestry
Funding Sources ..........................................................................................52 Exhibit 6-1. Community Responses to
“Where does the City need more trees?” .......................................................63 TABLES
T able 1-1. List of City Staff and Elected Officials Interviewed ...8 T able 4-1. Annual Environmental Services
and Benefits Provided by City Managed T ree Inventory ..................31 T able 4-2. Financial Value of City-Managed T rees .................................32 T able 5-1. Salinas Annual T ree Management
2020-2021 Budget ....................................................................................49 T able 5-2. Urban Forestry Positions and Funding ..........................50 T able 5-3. Estimated Funding Needed to Achieve Best
Management Practices ........................................................................................................51 T able 5-4. Annual T ree Service Data ......................................................................53 T able 6-1. Salinas Urban Forest Management Plan
Working Group Members .................................................................................................55 T able 6-2. Summary of Salinas T ree Survey Responses .....................56 T able 6-3. Summary of Community Engagement Responses .....61 T able 9-1. T ree Canopy Goal Summary ..............................................................84

vi | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY OF SALINAS STAFF
Brian Frus
Adriana Robles
Victor Baez
Yazmin Ochoa-Flores
Liliana Morales de Martinez

CITY OF SALINAS COUNCILMEMBERS
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
Carla Viviana Gonzalez
Tony Barrera
Steve McShane
Andrew Sandoval
Anthony Rocha

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
Brian Frus
Adriana Robles
Yazmin Ochoa-Flores
Victor Baez
Maria Contreras
Cathy Andrews
Rachel Saunders
Joanna Devers
Leticia Hernandez
Rolando Aguilar

FUNDING PROVIDED BY
California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE)

PREPARED BY
Dudek – Urban Forestry Division
Abby Beissinger, Ryan Allen, Dana Link-Herrera,
Kalie Ortiz, Jared Davis, Clarissa Boyajian

viii | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
VISION
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | ix
VISION
The Salinas urban forest is a well-funded and
maintained living asset that creates a flourishing
shelter enjoyed by all community members and
provides shade and protection, fresh air and
oxygen, and physical and mental benefits that
promote a healthier, sustainable future for all.

x | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 1

1.1 HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The native inhabitants of the Salinas area were the Costanoan Indians, also known as the Ohlone, who occupied the California central coast between Big Sur and San Francisco. Smaller banded groups dwelled along the coast, including the Salinan Indians to the south. (Johnston 1977). The Salinas River watershed consisted of wooded creeks and marshland that provided the native tribes with a myriad of resources, such as staple food sources, materials for making baskets and tools, and fresh water. Tree species that are historically recorded consist of well- vegetated willow thickets, mixed willow cottonwood forests, coast live oaks, and sycamores (Beller et al. 2009).

The establishment of ranchos in the early 1800s marked the emergence of Salinas as a city (City). However, it was not until the latter part of the century that the central valley was recognized for its fertile soil. The conversion of grazing land to an agriculture encouraged rapid City growth, and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors incorporated the City of Salinas in 1874 (Durham 1998).

WILLOW & OAK
Tree species that are
historically recorded consist of
well-vegetated willow thickets,
mixed willow cottonwood
forests, coast live oaks, and
sycamores (Beller et al. 2009).

COSTANOANS
Also known as the Ohlone,
occupied the California central
coast between Big Sur and San
Francisco.

SALINAS RIVER
The Salinas River watershed
consisted of wooded creeks and
marshland that provided the
native tribes with a myriad of
resources, such as staple food
sources, materials for making
baskets and tools, and fresh
water.
2 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Historical and Environmental Context
The City’s agricultural success significantly altered the Salinas valley ecosystems and ecology through fragmentation, irrigation, runoff of nutrients and pesticides, and the stabilization of water flows (Beller et al. 2010). Like many developing cities, invasive species such as arundo and eucalyptus were introduced. Following World War II, major urban and suburban development converted farmland into an urban landscape where churches, schools, hotels, and commercial corridors created opportunities to plant trees.

Today, elements of Salinas’s history remain throughout the downtown area, where buildings are framed by mature street trees that provide shade, beauty, and community character.

FERTILE SOIL
The conversion of grazing land to
an agriculture encouraged rapid
City growth, and the Monterey
County Board of Supervisors
incorporated the City of Salinas
in 1874 (Durham 1998).

URBAN

DEVELOPMENT
Following World War II,
major urban and suburban
development converted
farmland into an urban
landscape where churches,
schools, hotels, and commercial
corridors created opportunities
to plant trees.

Historical and Environmental Context | INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 32 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

4 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

1.2 WHY SALINAS NEEDS AN URBAN FOREST

MANAGEMENT PLAN
The need to have an equitable, connected tree canopy that is resilient against changing environmental conditions is increasingly important in Salinas. Some common concerns that were expressed throughout the development of this urban forest management plan (UFMP) was the urgency of increasing canopy cover, enforcing tree protection policies, and having an effective tree planting and maintenance program, especially in neighborhoods with dense housing. With a population of more than 166,000 people and a 7.8% canopy cover recorded in the 2015 Urban Forest Assessment (City of Salinas 2015), investments to enhance the urban forest is critical. As illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, trees provide numerous environmental, economic, and social benefits that help mitigate the environmental risks experienced in urban areas such as heavy air pollution and the urban heat island effect. Some existing and projected threats in the Salinas region that could be further mitigated by increasing the urban forest and its resources include the following:
• Monterey County’s lack of affordable housing and dense population negatively affects the environment, open spaces, and sense of community (Smith 2004). • Land use policies that don’t align with community choice and affect all residents, such as prioritizing the development of subdivisions (Smith 2004).

When considering environmental and socioeconomic risks, a resilient urban forest that is well-managed and maintained can provide multi-benefit solutions to alleviate environmental issues that results in a higher quality of life for all community members in the City of Salinas.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 5
Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION4 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Exhibit 1-1. Benefits of T rees
INTRODUCTION | Developing the Salinas Urban Forest Management Plan

1.3 DEVELOPING THE SALINAS UFMP
In February 2021, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) awarded the City of Salinas grant funding from Proposition 68 to complete the UFMP and plant 300 trees on City properties. The City’s Forestry, Engineering and Waste, Water, and Energy divisions (within the Public Works department) are the main City entities that were responsible for overseeing the UFMP’s development and implementation. The divisions provided key insights into City practices, coordinated with internal and external interested parties, and participated in community engagement events.
6 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 7
Developing the Salinas Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION Urban Forest Inventory Analysis
An inventory of all City-managed trees was conducted in 2014 and 2015, and the City used TreeKeeper software to record maintenance requests through 2018. The 2014–2018 inventory data was used to analyze the City-managed trees based on sustainability metrics and to estimate the environmental services and economic benefits provided by these public trees. The sustainability metrics analyzed include species diversity, age distribution based on diameter at standard height (DSH), tree condition distribution, water use rating, and climate preparedness. These metrics determine the condition of the City-managed urban forest and help identify what management practices will need to be improved to have the most meaningful impact on tree health and safety. The inventory analysis used the i-Tree Eco software developed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS 2020) to model the environmental services and economic benefits of the inventoried trees. These include annual carbon sequestration, diverted runoff, pollution removal, total carbon storage, and functional and structural dollar values. Dollar amounts are equated to the environmental services and are useful for public education, City planning, and exploring long-term funding mechanisms.

Analysis of Current Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
A comprehensive review of the status of Salinas’ urban forestry program provides a baseline for understanding the effectiveness of City tree management. This review included extensive analyses of urban forest policies, funding mechanisms, tree management practices, ordinances, and procedures. Long-range planning documents related to the urban forest were identified by the City and reviewed as part of the UFMP baseline, including the General Plan, Alisal Vibrancy Plan, Urban Greening Plan, Parks and Libraries Master Plan, and the most recent Urban Forest Assessment. Understanding the existing conditions provided a baseline to compare current actions against best management practices (BMPs) and goals, and to identify areas for improvement to ensure the City meets the standards of sustainable urban forest management.

8 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Developing the Salinas Urban Forest Management Plan Departmental and
Elected Official Interviews
The internal review of the Salinas urban forestry program was conducted through a series of nine interviews with various City staff and elected officials. Each was asked how their role affects tree management, tree planting, protection, internal City procedures, and maintenance efforts. The list of City staff and elected officials who participated in the interview process are identified in Table 1-1.

T able 1-1. List of City Staff and Elected Officials Interviewed Department Staff
Public Works
• Maintenance Superintendent
• Urban Forestry Manager
• Senior Engineer
• City Engineer
• National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES)
Program Manager
Community
Development • Director
Elected Officials • Council member
Fire • Deputy Fire Chief
Library and
Community Services
• Parks and Recreation
Superintendent
The following is a sample of some of the questions explored during these interviews:
 How do you envision the Salinas urban forest in the
next 30 years?
 Do you have suggestions/thoughts for improving
your department’s role regarding tree management?
 Are existing policies considered appropriate for effi - cient tree management?
 Are there specific locations that need to be priori - tized for tree planting?
 What are the biggest challenges facing the expan -
sion of the urban forest?
Gathering input from City staff and elected officials
illuminated reoccurring themes of the urban forest program and areas of greatest needs and concerns.

Community Engagement
Community engagement was a critical component
throughout the creation of the UFMP to ensure a diverse representation of community members were informed,
involved, and represented. A series of in-person and virtual outreach events helped the consultants understand the
core values of community members in Salinas, such as their love for the City’s parks and the need for public educational resources about trees.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 9
Developing the Salina Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION The engagement strategy included the
following activities:
 Bilingual public tree survey that
was circulated online and in-person
(total of 145 responses)
 Three tabling events at the Alisal
Farmers Market with educational
materials and resources about the
City’s tree inventory
 Online outreach through the City’s
social media channels and networks
(website, e-newsletter, Instagram,
Facebook)
 Local outreach to community-based
organizations and nonprofits
 Four Working Group meetings con-
sisting of 10 community members
to understand interested parties’
priorities and concerns of the urban
forest
 Community Event Collaboration
with Amor Salinas (Make a Differ-
ence Day, October 2022)

KEY FINDINGS
2 CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 11

2.1 The City Needs an updated tree inventory.

An inventory of City managed trees was last completed in 2014 and should be updated so City leadership can base decisions on current and accurate data. The City should complete a new inventory and establish a mechanism to ensure data for each tree is no more than 3–5 years old at any given time. Maintaining the inventory can be accomplished if the City can achieve a consistent and optimal maintenance cycle of all trees in its inventory.

2.2 Improvements to the City’s urban forest
record keeping system are essential.

The City uses the Q-Alert system, an internal database
managed by the GIS department; Public Works uses Q-Alert to manage its tree work requests. The City also uses Tree Keeper, which is useful for grant reporting. The two systems are managed separately and cannot be updated concurrently, leading to inaccurate tree inventory information, annual service data, and management information. The City will need to improve its record-keeping strategies and merge the two systems to ensure funding and management decisions
are made using the most current data.

2.3 The urban forest is not prepared for threats
from pests, diseases, or climate change.

Cities with tree inventories that have low species diversity may be more susceptible to invasive pests, pathogens, or significant weather events. The City’s current street tree palette contains a list of seven predominantly small-stature trees that has resulted in an overrepresentation of species in the inventory, including sweet gums, London planes,
pears, plums, and magnolias. Many of these species are
simultaneously not prepared for the impacts of climate
change. The City can prepare for these expected changes by selecting and planting species that are predicted to perform well in future climate conditions, thereby increasing species diversity in the City. This UFMP includes a
recommended species palette to implement upon adoption.

KEY FINDINGS
12 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

KEY FINDINGS

2.4 The City’s canopy cover is low and not
equitably distributed.

The UFMP’s canopy cover assessment revealed that
Salinas currently has an 11.5% canopy cover. However,
spatial analysis of the canopy cover throughout the City showed that it is not equally distributed. Within the analysis area, canopy cover by council districts range from 6.6% to 17.4% and canopy cover by census tracts range from
1% to 23.3%. Roughly 50% of all parks and bus stops and roughly 80% of all bikeways have less than 10% canopy
cover. Areas with higher pollution burden and vulnerability have lower tree canopy cover and proportionally more low- income and marginalized community members. The City
will need to strengthen its tree planting and preservation strategies and ensure focus is put on low canopied
areas first to increase the overall canopy cover equitably throughout the City.

2.5 Community members value trees as
a vibrant resource.

Open discussions with City staff and community members
show that the Salinas community believes trees are a
valuable City asset. Community members expressed the
desire and need for more trees and public education
about the benefits of the urban forest. Overall, community members would like to become more involved in the City’s efforts to increase tree canopy; however, the gap between community wants and the City’s capacity to fulfill them is wide. Investments in the Urban Forest program will need to occur for City staff to create a balance of allocated resources towards a sustainable maintenance and tree
planting program, and to update community outreach and
education campaigns.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 13

KEY FINDINGS

2.6 The City’s long-range planning efforts
should prioritize the urban forest.

Updates are needed to the City’s long-range planning
efforts and municipal code comprehensive planning
efforts, as there is currently some inconsistency regarding planning for trees. More recent planning efforts, such
as the Neighborhood Vibrancy – Urban Greening Plan,
recognize the importance of trees and provide guidance
for prioritizing tree planting. However, the General Plan has very little guidance, policies, or goals regarding trees.

As the overall blueprint for the City, updating the General Plan to prioritize trees will help to achieve the goals of this UFMP.

2.7 Policies and ordinances that protect trees
on private property should be enhanced.

The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 35: Trees and
Shrubs protects street trees and other trees grown on
City-managed property. However, the chapter could be
significantly strengthened to improve tree protection
policies during construction, to identify stricter penalties for violation of the ordinance, and to add specificity for the types of trees that are protected. Additionally, other sections in the municipal code do not protect trees planted on private property. One of the strongest ways to ensure the City does not experience a net loss of canopy cover is to improve and enforce tree protection ordinances and policies on private property. The City will need to improve its tree protection policies and partner with community members to plant and protect more trees, in order to meet canopy cover goals.
14 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

CANOPY COVER
3 CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 15

CANOPY COVER
Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves,
branches, and stems that provide tree coverage
of the ground when viewed from above.

3.1 CITYWIDE CANOPY COVER
Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves, branches, and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above. Tree canopy cover can have a positive impact on communities as it provides many environmental benefits and services. When analyzing the Salinas Tree Survey, survey respondents heavily expressed a desire to increase canopy cover, especially in parks, open spaces, and main streets throughout the City. Research has found that residents who live adjacent to green spaces and trees have lower levels of illness and disease compared to other people of similar income levels (Wolf et al. 2015). Thus, neighborhood and park environments that have a substantial amount of canopy cover can reduce socioeconomic inequalities.

16 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CANOPY COVER | Citywide Canopy Cover
A Citywide canopy cover assessment was conducted for Salinas using satellite imagery and spatial analysis (see the UFMP Technical Assessment for methodology details). The results of the canopy cover analysis are shown in Exhibit 3-1, Land Cover Classification, and Exhibit 3-2, Map of Tree Canopy Cover in Salinas. The canopy cover analysis revealed that Salinas has an existing canopy cover of approximately 11.5%.

Source: USDA 2020.

Exhibit 3-1. Land Cover Classification
City of Salinas Canopy Cover Analysis

PERCENT OF LAND COVER TYPES WITHIN ANAL YSIS AREA

ANAL YSIS
AREA:
11,916
ACRES
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 17
Citywide Canopy Cover | CANOPY COVER
Exhibit 3-2. Map of T ree Canopy Cover in Salinas
Map of
TREE
CANOPY
COVER
in Salinas
Source: USDA 2020.

EXISTING

CANOPY COVER

11.5%

CANOPY COVER
19 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.2 INCREASING

CANOPY COVER
Exhibit 3-3 presents the total number of
new trees of different statures (20-, 35-, 50-,
and 75-foot canopy spreads) that would
need to be planted over the next 20 years
to increase canopy cover to reach 15%,
20%, or 25% canopy cover goals. Based on
analysis conducted in the UFMP Technical
Assessment, a realistic canopy cover goal
of 15% was selected for the City. The ratio
of tree statures was calculated based on
the sizes of all planting spaces within the
City, using tree inventory data. Exhibit
3-4 presents the number of trees that
would need to be planted annually over
the next 20 years to reach 15%, 20%, and
25% canopy cover goals. The same ratio of
tree statures presented in Exhibit 3-3 is
assumed.

Goal for Salinas:
15% canopy cover
Citywide to be
achieved over the
next 20 years.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19
Increasing Canopy Cover | CANOPY COVER19 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Exhibit 3-3. T otal Number of T rees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11.5% Sources: USDA 2020; City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014 and additional inventory data).

City of Salinas Canopy Cover Analysis

TOTALS TREES NEEDED TO MEET CANOPY GOALS
6,076 3,882 6,582
14,652 9,361 15,873
23,227 14,840 25,163
15%
20%
25%
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Total Trees to Plant
Canopy Cover Goal
Tree Stature
(canopy width)
20' 35' 50' 75'
Total Public and Private Trees Needed to Meet Canopy Goals City of Salinas − Canopy Increase Analysis
Totals include an assumed 5% mortality rate.
645
406
168
20 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CANOPY COVER | Increasing Canopy Cover
Exhibit 3-4. T otal Number of T rees Needed to Plant per Year for 20 Years to Increase Canopy Cover Sources: USDA 2020; City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014 and additional inventory data).

City of Salinas Canopy Cover Analysis
ANNUAL TREE PLANTING TOTALS OVER 20 YEARS TO MEET CANOPY GOALS

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21
Tree Equity | CANOPY COVER

3.3 TREE EQUITY
Canopy cover, heat severity, pollution burden, and
other environmental factors are often distributed
inequitably throughout a city. Studies have shown
that due to identifiable systemic injustices and
socioeconomic factors, inequitable canopy cover
and pollution vulnerability disproportionately
affects low-income and marginalized communities
(Locke et al. 2020). When addressing this issue
of inequity, it is important to consider and
understand the ways in which parts of the city
differ in terms of population, land use, current
canopy cover, existing planting spaces, and other
environmental factors. This section uses council
districts and census tracts to examine equity
issues pertaining to canopy cover and pollution
burden in Salinas.

The canopy and equity analyses conducted for
this UFMP revealed the following key findings.

For more information and context, including
methodology and full analysis, see the technical
Assessment.

22 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CANOPY COVER | Tree Equity
Canopy cover for census tracts within the analysis area ranges from 1% to 23.3% , as shown in Exhibit 3-5.City of Salinas − Census Tracts Canopy Cover
Tree Canopy Cover %
20 to 25
15 to 20
10 to 15
5 to 10
0 to 5
Analysis area
00102
00103
00104
0020000300
00400
00501
00502
00600
00800
00900
01200
01300
01400
01500
01600
01700
01801
01802
10504
10505
10506
10603
10604
10605
10607
10608
80000
00101
14500
10606
00701
00702
Sources: USDA 2020
Exhibit 3-5. Map of Canopy Cover
Map of
canopy cover
percent for census
tracts within canopy
analysis area
CANOPY
COVER
RANGES
FROM
1% TO
23%

FOR CENSUS

TRACTS WITHIN

THE ANALYSIS
AREA
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 23
Tree Equity | CANOPY COVER
CalEnviroScreen (CES) measures pollution burden and vulnerability, for census tracts. Within the analysis area, CES scores range from 22 to 83, as shown in Exhibit 3-6. The lower the CES score, the less pollution burden the census tract experiences.

City of Salinas − Census Tracts
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentiles
CES Range
80 to 90
70 to 80
60 to 70
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
Missing
Analysis area
00102
00103
00104
00200
00300
00400
00501
00502
00600
00800
00900
01200
01300
01400
01500
01600
01700
01801
01802
10504
10505
10506
10603
10604
10605
10607
10608
80000
00101
14500
10606
00701
00702
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2023).

Exhibit 3-6. Map of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentiles for Census T racts within Canopy Analysis Area Map of
CalEnviroScreen

4.0 Percentiles for
Census T racts within
Canopy Analysis
Area
CES
SCORES
RANGE
FROM
22 TO
83 LOWER CES

SCORES EQUAL

LESS POLLUTION
BURDEN
24 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CANOPY COVER | Tree Equity
In Salinas, census tracts with lower CES scores tend to have higher canopy cover, as shown in Exhibit 3-7.

Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2023); USDA (2020).

Exhibit 3-7. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Compared to T ree Canopy Cover for Analysis Area in Salinas City of
Salinas
Census
T racts
TREE
CANOPY
COVER

PERCENT
BY CES
RANGE

19.6%

14.4%

13.6%

16.0%

9.3%

11.2%

9.3%

1.3%
0−9
10−19
20−29
30−39
40−49
50−59
60−69
70−79
80−89
90−100
NA
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Tree Canopy Cover (%)
CES Range
(least to most pollution burdened)
CES Range NA
90−100
80−89
70−79
60−69
50−59
40−49
30−39
20−29
10−19
0−9
Tree Canopy Cover Percent by CES Range
City of Salinas − Census Tracts
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 25
Tree Equity | CANOPY COVER
Canopy cover for council districts within the analysis area ranges from 6.6% (Council District 2) to 17.4% (Council District 6) with the percent of canopy coming from City-managed trees ranging from 14.6% (Council District 5) to 23.4% (Council District 6), as shown in Exhibit 3-8.

Source: USDA 2020; City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014).

Exhibit 3-8. T ree Canopy Cover Percent by Council District Compared to Canopy Cover from City T rees City of Salinas − Council Districts
Canopy Cover
CD 1

14.7%
CD 2

6.6%
CD 3

11.3%
CD 4

9.0%
CD 5

12.7%
CD 6

17.4% Estimated Canopy Cover from Public Trees

15.9%

22.7%

22.9%

20.2%

14.6% 23.4%
Tree canopy cover %
15 to 20
10 to 15
5 to 10
Analysis area
% canopy from public trees
5 10 15 20

TREE CANOPY COVER PERCENT BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
Compared to Canopy Cover from City T rees
CANOPY
COVER

COUNCIL

DISTRICTS

RANGES FROM

6.6%
TO

17. 4%

WITHIN THE

ANALYSIS AREA
City of Salinas − Council Districts
Canopy Cover
CD 1

14.7%
CD 2

6.6%
CD 3

11.3%
CD 4

9.0%
CD 5

12.7%
CD 6

17.4% Estimated Canopy Cover from Public Trees

15.9%

22.7%

22.9%

20.2%

14.6% 23.4%
Tree canopy cover %
15 to 20
10 to 15
5 to 10
Analysis area
% canopy from public trees
5 10 15 20
City of Salinas − Council Districts
Canopy Cover
CD 1

14.7%
CD 2

6.6%
CD 3

11.3%
CD 4

9.0%
CD 5

12.7%
CD 6

17.4% Estimated Canopy Cover from Public Trees

15.9%

22.7%

22.9%

20.2%

14.6% 23.4%
Tree canopy cover %
15 to 20
10 to 15
5 to 10
Analysis area
% canopy from public trees
5 10 15 20

COUNCIL DISTRICTS

CANOPY COVER

ESTIMATED CANOPY COVER

FROM PUBLIC TREES
26 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CANOPY COVER | Tree Equity
Roughly half of all parks have less than 10% canopy cover, and two-thirds of all parks have less than 20% canopy cover, as shown in Exhibit 3-9. City of Salinas − Parks
Park Canopy Cover
Park Canopy Cover %
60 to 100
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
Council Districts
Source: USDA 2020; City of Salinas GIS Portal 2022.

Exhibit 3-9. City of Salinas Parks Canopy Cover
City of Salinas
PARKS
CANOPY
COVER
City of Salinas − Parks
Park Canopy Cover
Park Canopy Cover %
60 to 100
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
Council Districts
50% OF
PARKS

HAVE LESS THAN
10%
CANOPY
COVER
66% OF
PARKS

HAVE LESS THAN
20%
CANOPY
COVER
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 27
Tree Equity | CANOPY COVER
Of all bus stops, 50% have less than 10% canopy cover and over 70% have less than 20% canopy cover, as shown in Exhibit 3-10.

City of Salinas − Bus Stops
Bus Stop Canopy Cover
Bus stop canopy cover %
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
Council Districts
Source: USDA 2020; City of Salinas GIS Portal 2022
Exhibit 3-10. City of Salinas Bus Stops Canopy Cover
City of Salinas

BUS STOPS
CANOPY
COVER
City of Salinas − Bus Stops
Bus Stop Canopy Cover
Bus stop canopy cover %
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
Council Districts
50% OF
BUS
STOPS

HAVE LESS THAN
10%
CANOPY
COVER
70% OF
BUS
STOPS

HAVE LESS THAN
20%
CANOPY
COVER
28 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CANOPY COVER | Tree Equity
Roughly 80% of all bikeways have less than 10% canopy cover and 93% have less than 20% canopy cover, as shown in Exhibit 3-11.

City of Salinas − Bikeways
Bikeway Canopy Cover
Bikeways canopy cover %
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
Council Districts
Source: USDA 2020; City of Salinas GIS Portal 2021.

Exhibit 3-11. City of Salinas Bikeways Canopy Cover
City of Salinas

BIKEW A YS
CANOPY
COVER
City of Salinas − Bikeways
Bikeway Canopy Cover
Bikeways canopy cover %
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
Council Districts
80% OF

BIKEWAYS

HAVE LESS THAN
10%
CANOPY
COVER
93% OF

BIKEWAYS

HAVE LESS THAN
20%
CANOPY
COVER
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 29
Opportunity and Priority Planting Areas | CANOPY COVER

3.4 OPPORTUNITY

AND PRIORITY

PLANTING AREAS
The Priority Planting Score
(PPS), presented in Exhibit
3-12, indicates where the City
should focus tree planting
efforts by census tract for a
more equitably distributed
canopy cover. The study area
for developing the PPS was
limited to the canopy analysis
study area. A higher PPS
indicates a higher priority for
focused tree planting efforts.

PPS considers current canopy
cover, distribution of land use
type, total recorded City-
managed vacant planting
sites, pollution burden and
equity, and relative population
and acreage (see the UFMP
Technical Assessment for
methodology details).

Exhibit 3-12. Planting Priority Score by Salinas Census T ract Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014); City of Salinas GIS Portal 2021; USFS 2020.

PLANTING

PRIORITY
SCORE
By Salinas
Census T ract
City of Salinas − Priority Planting Analysis
Priority Planting Score
60 to 70
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
City of Salinas
Analysis area
City of Salinas − Priority Planting Analysis
Priority Planting Score
60 to 70
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
City of Salinas
Analysis area
30 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
4 STATUS OF

THE URBAN FOREST
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 31
Environmental Services/Economic Benefits | ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/

ECONOMIC BENEFITS
i-Tree Eco (USFS 2020) was used to analyze tree inventory records to determine the value of the environmental services the City’s trees provide. The software uses tree inventory data such as tree species, DSH, health condition, and height to determine the environmental benefits, both in terms of quantity and economic value. The City’s inventory includes 31,870 total trees (City of Salinas 2014), with 31,692 data points containing all data needed for inclusion in the i-Tree model. Carbon sequestration is the amount of carbon annually removed from the air by the City’s trees. Avoided runoff represents the annual quantity of rainwater that is diverted from the stormwater management system by the trees, and air pollution removal includes the amount of annual removal of ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter < 2.5 micrometers (µm) from the air. In addition to these environmental services, Salinas’ tree inventory increases property values; provides shade, food and habitat for wildlife; reduces the urban heat island; and improves public health. These services contribute directly to community members’ quality of life, and discussing their merits is one method to encourage residents and business owners to participate in urban forest programs.

Table 4-1 details the annual amount of carbon sequestered, stormwater diverted, and air pollution removed, and the estimated annual economic benefit values.

T able 4-1. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided by City Managed T ree Inventory Service
Annual
Environmental
Benefit
Annual
Environmental
Impact
Annual
Economic
V alue
Carbon Sequestration
(carbon dioxide removed from air by trees) 361 tons
The carbon removed from the City’s air by the urban forest is equivalent to 812,907 passenger vehicle miles. $61,500 Avoided Runoff 2,612,945 gallons
This benefit is equivalent to the average annual water
usage of 24 American homes. $23,300
Air Pollution Removal
(ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter < 2.5 µm)

9.12 tons
The pollution removed by the City’s tree inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of 4.51 tons of burned coal. $82,900 Sources: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014) and i- T ree Analysis (USFS 2020). 32 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Environmental Services/Economic Benefits The financial value of Salinas’ tree inventory is
presented in Table 4-2. Each tree in Salinas’s
inventory has an average City asset value of $3,155.

The functional value represents the annual value of
the environmental services that the trees provide
($5.29/year). Each tree delivers approximately $56.72
in ecosystem services based on the inventory’s
combined functional and carbon storage values each
year. This value is lower than the California average
of $110.63 (McPherson et al. 2016), which is likely due, in large part, to the age of the inventoried trees, with nearly 88% classified as either immature or young
(see Section 4.4, DSH Distribution Summary). The
quantity of environmental benefits trees provide will
increase as they age. The City can expect that, with
proper maintenance and care of its inventory, the
environmental benefits will continue to increase as
the trees mature.

T able 4-2. Financial Value of City-Managed T rees
V alue Description Asset Amount Per-T ree V alue
Carbon Storage (9,561 tons) Amount of carbon held in trees $1,630,000 $51.43 Structural The costs associated with replacing all trees with a tree of a similar age and size. $100,000,000 $3,155 Functional Value based on the services trees perform $167,700 $5.29 Sources: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014) and i- T ree Analysis (USFS 2020).

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 33
Species Diversity Summary | ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

4.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY SUMMARY
Salinas’ tree inventory consists of 33,820 tree sites, including 31,870 trees (composed of 36 families, 120 genera, and 24 species), 1,448 stumps, and 502 vacant sites. The top 10 most commonly occurring genera in the City’s tree inventory are shown in Exhibit 4-1.

City of Salinas
Inventory
GENUS

DIVERSITY
Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014).

11.4%

9.4%

8.5%

7.3%

7.0%

5.1%

4.6%

3.4%

2.5%

2.4%Camphor
Cinnamomum
Pine
Pinus
Hackberry
Celtis
Ash
Fraxinus
Magnolia
Magnolia
Oak
Quercus
Sycamore & Plane Tree
Platanus
Plum, Cherry & Apricot
Prunus
Sweetgum
Liquidambar
Pear
Pyrus
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Percent of Inventory
Genus
Over 10% Under 10%
Sustainability goal: No genus represents more than 10% of the inventory City of Salinas Inventory − Genus Diversity
The top 10 genus make up 61.7% (20,865 trees) of the City's inventory.

The top 10 genera
make up

61.7%
(20,865 trees) of the
City's inventory.

TOP 10 Genera in the City Inventory
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Top Ten Genera Genus Diversity Exhibit 4-1. T op 10 T ree Genera in the City Inventory

1. Pyrus

2. Liquidambar

3. Prunus

4. Platanus

5. Quercus

6. Magnolia

7. Fraxinus

8. Celtis

9. Pinus

10. Cinnamomum

11.4%

5.5%

9.4%

4.8%

8.5%

3.6%

7.3%

2.7%

7.0%

2.5%
Meets Goal Does Not Meet GoalSustainability Goal: No genus represents greater than 10% of Inventory Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014). 34 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 35
Species Diversity Summary | ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Trees
The top 10 most commonly occurring species in the City’s inventory are shown in Exhibit 4-2.

City of Salinas
Inventory

SPECIES

DIVERSITY
Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014).

The top 10 species
make up

50.1%
(16,939 trees) of the
City's inventory.

9.3%

9.1%

6.5%

5.5%

5.1%

3.6%

3.4%

2.9%

2.4%

2.3%Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii
Camphor tree
Cinnamomum camphora
Raywood ash
Fraxinus oxycarpa
Chinese hackberry
Celtis sinensis
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
Flowering plum
Prunus cerasifera
London plane
Platanus x acerifolia
Callery pear
Pyrus calleryana
Sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
Percent of Inventory
Species
Over 5% Under 5%
Sustainability goal: No species represents more than 5% of the inventory City of Salinas Inventory − Species Diversity
The top 10 species make up 50.1% (16,939 trees) of the City's inventory.

TOP 10 Species in the City Inventory
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Top Ten GeneraSpecies Diversity Exhibit 4-2. T op 10 T ree Species in the City Inventory

1. Sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua

6. Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia

2. Callery pear
Pyrus calleryana

7. Chinese hackberry
Celtis sinens

3. London plane
Platanus x acerifolia

8.Raywood ash
Fraxinus oxycarpa

4. Flowering plum
Prunus cerasifera

9. Camphor tree
Cinnamomum camphora

5. Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora

10. Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii

9.9%

3.8%

9.6%

3.6%

6.9%

3.1%

5.8%

2.5%

5.4%

2.4%
Meets Goal Does Not Meet GoalSustainability Goal: No species represents greater than 5% of Inventory Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014). 36 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 37

4.3 CLIMATE PREPAREDNESS
Over the past century, average maximum temperatures in California have increased between 1.6°F to 2.5°F, and these temperatures are expected to continue to rise over the coming years (WRCC 2018). Longer, more intense periods of drought and more variable periods of precipitation with increased flooding (Swain et al. 2018) will make finding additional irrigation water a challenge, and allocating funding for irrigation improvements for street trees a priority (McBride and Lacan 2018). The City can prepare for these expected changes by selecting and planting species that are predicted to perform well in future climate conditions. There are many considerations when looking at the climate appropriateness of urban tree species. This analysis considers tree species’ water needs using Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) and future climate suitability based on research conducted by McBride and Lacan (2018).

38 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Climate Preparedness
Exhibit 4-3 shows the percent of trees in the inventory that fall into each WUCOLS water use category. WUCOLS classifies plants as very low, low, moderate, or high-water users. WUCOLS water ratings are often part of the guidelines for selecting trees species palettes throughout California. Species that are rated as high or moderate water users will require more water resources to than lower rated species.

Exhibit 4-3. Water Use Rating Distribution of the City’s T ree Inventory Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2015): McBride and Lacan (2018).

City of Salinas Inventory

WATER RATING DIVERSITY
4%32% 56%6%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of Inventory
Water Rating Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Not Appropriate for this Region
Not in WUCOLS Database
City of Salinas Inventory − Water Rating Diversity
Percentages less than 2% are unlabeled.
2%
| 39
In 2018, a climate suitability study
was conducted for street trees in
California. This research picked
one California city to represent
each of the 16 hardiness zones
present in California. Common tree
species in these representative
cities were then compared to
common tree species in cities
with current temperatures equal
to the predicted temperatures
of the representative cities in
2099. A list of species that will be
unsuitable for future climates was
created based on their absence
from warmer cities, professional
opinions, and WUCOLS ratings of
unsuitable or high.

Using results from McBride and
Lacan’s research to compare to
Salinas’ inventory, there are 36
tree species in the City that are
predicted to be heat and water
sensitive in Salinas’ future climate.

These species make up 9,835 trees
and 31% of the City’s inventory.
| 39
40 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Climate Preparedness
Exhibit 4-4 presents the top 10 most commonly occurring of these species. This list indicates the potential for a gradual decline of tree canopy cover over time. Based on this list of species, the City will need to determine which species should remain on its palette and prioritize species that will be able to withstand hotter and dryer weather if future drought conditions persist. | 41

9.9% (3,153 trees)

5.8% (1,860 trees)

5.4% (1,735 trees)

1.6% (524 trees)

1.2% (370 trees)

0.9% (284 trees)

0.7% (236 trees)

0.7% (222 trees)

0.7% (221 trees)

0.7% (216 trees)Crape myrtle
Lagerstroemia indica
Golden rain tree
Koelreuteria paniculata
European white birch
Betula pendula
California sycamore
Platanus racemosa
Deodar cedar
Cedrus deodara
Honey locust
Gleditsia triacanthos
Coast redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
Purple leaf plum
Prunus cerasifera
Sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Percent of Inventory
Species
Top 10 Species in Inventory Unsuitable for Future Salinas Climates City of Salinas Inventory − Climate Resiliency
A total of 36 species (9,835 trees or 30.9%) in the City's inventory are predicted to be unsuitable for future climates.

Note: Research excluded palm species
Exhibit 4-4. T op 10 Species Predicted to be Unsuitable for Salinas’s Future Climate City of Salinas
Inventory

CLIMATE

RESILIENCY
Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2015): McBride and Lacan (2018).

The top
10 species
in Inventory
Unsuitable
for Future
Salinas
Climates
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 41
| 41

4.4 DSH DISTRIBUTION

SUMMARY
The most common and least
invasive method to approximate the
age of a living tree is to measure
the trunk diameter at 4.5 feet
above the ground (DSH). General
age recommendations suggest an
urban forest have a distribution of
immature trees (40%) to replace
failing or aging ones, young (30%)
and middle-aged (20%) trees to
provide the bulk of economic
and environmental benefits, and
relatively fewer mature trees (10%)
that have most of their life behind
them but that provided significant
environmental benefits for many
years (Morgenroth et al. 2020;
Richards 1983). Since trees vary
in maximum stature and growth
patterns, using DSH to determine
age can only be considered an
estimate.

42 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Climate Preparedness
Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014).

The age distribution of Salinas’ tree inventory is presented in Exhibit 4-5. The DSH distribution for the top 10 species in the inventory is presented in Exhibit 4-6.

Exhibit 4-5. DSH Distribution of the City’s T ree Inventory City of Salinas Inventory

DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DIVERSITY
40% 5%7%48%
40% 30% 20% 10%
City
Inventory
Sustainability
Goal
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of Inventory
Age Classification Immature Y oung Middle−aged Mature
City of Salinas Inventory − Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) Diversity Immature: less than 6" DSH, Y oung:6" − 18" DSH, Middle−aged: 18" − 24" DSH, Mature: greater than 24" DSH CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 43
Tree Condition | ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
34% 5%13%48%
42% 57%
44% 3%6%48%
60% 40%
15% 15%68%
54% 8%37%
31% 69%
39% 60%
20% 20%22%38%
10% 5%85%Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii
Camphor tree
Cinnamomum camphora
Raywood ash
Fraxinus oxycarpa
Chinese hackberry
Celtis sinensis
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
Flowering plum
Prunus cerasifera
London plane
Platanus x acerifolia
Callery pear
Pyrus calleryana
Sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of Inventory
Species
Age Classification Immature Y oung Middle−aged Mature
Top 10 Species in Inventory
City of Salinas Inventory − DSH Diversity of Top 10 Species Percentages less than 2% are unlabeled.

Exhibit 4-6. T op 10 Species Predicted to be Unsuitable for Salinas’s Future Climates Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2015): McBride and Lacan (2018).

City of Salinas
Inventory
DSH

DIVERSITY
OF TOP 10

SPECIES
The top
10 species
in Inventory
44 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Tree Condition

4.5 TREE CONDITION
The health composition of Salinas’ tree inventory is shown in Exhibit 4-7.

Exhibit 4-7. Condition Distribution of the City’s T ree Inventory Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014).

City of Salinas Inventory

CONDITION DIVERSITY
43%52% 2%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of Inventory
Condition NA Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Critical Dead City of Salinas Inventory − Condition Diversity
Percentages less than 2% are unlabeled.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 45
Tree Condition | ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

4.6 RELATIVE

PERFORMANCE

INDEX SUMMARY
The Relative Performance
Index (RPI) identifies
which species are doing
well and which may be
having issues. Trees with
an RPI of 1.0 or higher
are performing as well or
better than the average
tree in the inventory. The
average RPI for the City’s
tree inventory is 1.02.

The RPIs of the top 10
most commonly occurring
species in Salinas’ inventory
are shown in Exhibit 4-8.

1.1 0.7

0.7 1.0

1.0 1.1

1.1 0.9

1.1 0.8Evergreen pear
Pyrus kawakamii
Camphor tree
Cinnamomum camphora
Raywood ash
Fraxinus oxycarpa
Chinese hackberry
Celtis sinensis
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
Flowering plum
Prunus cerasifera
London plane
Platanus x acerifolia
Callery pear
Pyrus calleryana
Sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Relative Performance Index (RPI)
Species
Top 10 Species in the City's Inventory
City of Salinas Inventory − Relative Performance Index
Average RPI for City's inventory: 1.02
City of Salinas Inventory

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX SUMMARY
Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014); i- T ree (USFS 2020).

Exhibit 4-8. City’s T ree Inventory Relative Performance Index 46 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Tree Condition

24.7 15.1

14.7 12.6

7.6 7.5

7.1 6.8

5.9 5.6Callery pear
Pyrus calleryana
Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
Blue gum
Eucalyptus globulus
Raywood ash
Fraxinus oxycarpa
Chinese hackberry
Celtis sinensis
Camphor tree
Cinnamomum camphora
Flowering plum
Prunus cerasifera
Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora
London plane
Platanus x acerifolia
Sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua
0 10 20
Importance Value
Species
Tree Stature Large Medium Small

9.3%

6.5%

5.1%

5.5%

2.4%

3.4%

2.9%

0.7%

3.6%

9.1%
0% 3% 6% 9%
Percent of Inventory
City of Salinas Inventory − Importance Value
Top 10 Species by Importance Value

24.7 15.1

14.7 12.6

7.6 7.5

7.1 6.8

9.3%

6.5%

5.1%

5.5%

2.4%

3.4%

2.9%

0.7%

3.6%

9.1%
0% 3% 6% 9%
Percent of Inventory
City of Salinas Inventory − Importance Value
Top 10 Species by Importance Value

4.7 IMPORTANCE

V ALUES

SUMMARY
The importance value of
tree species combines
the percentage of the
species in the population
of City-managed trees
with its corresponding
percentage of leaf area.

The top 10 species with
the highest importance
values are shown in
Exhibit 4-9.

City of Salinas Importance Value
TOP 10 SPECIES BY IMPORTANCE VALUE
Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014); i- T ree (USFS 2020).

Exhibit 4-9. T en Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City’s Inventory

24.7 15.1

14.7 12.6

7.6 7.5

7.1 6.8

9.3%

6.5%

5.1%

5.5%

2.4%

3.4%

2.9%

0.7%

3.6%

9.1%
0% 3% 6% 9%
Percent of Inventory
City of Salinas Inventory − Importance Value
Top 10 Species by Importance Value
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 47
Tree Condition | ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Exhibit 4-9. T en Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City’s Inventory 48 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT | Budget and Funding
5 URBAN FOREST

MANAGEMENT
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 49
Budget and Funding | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT

5.1 BUDGET , FUNDING, AND STAFFING
The City’s 2020-2021 fiscal year included a $1,992,423 for tree management activities and staff salaries. Table 5-1 shows the City’s annual tree management budget by work performed in-house (City staff) and contractors. Of the total annual budget, $1,282,423 was allocated to in-house activities, and $710,000 was allocated to contractor services. It should be noted that some activities that these funds support are not related to trees. However, they are allocated to the Urban Forestry Division to support all labor activities. Annual staff time spent on tree management activities are shown in Table 5-2 . The City has not filled fill two positions for several years, Urban Forestry Crew Supervisor and Tree Trimmer I, which has impacted the quantity of work that can be completed.

T able 5-1. Salinas Annual T ree Management 2020-2021 Budget Budget Line Item FY 2020/2021
In-House Maintenance Activities
T ree planting $50,000
T ree/stump removal and grinding $320,000
Storm clean-up $20,000
Q-alert tree maintenance requests $175,000
Salary and benefits of all Urban Forestry Division Staff* $557,672 Equipment, vehicle maintenance, and other expenditures* $159,751 Contractor Maintenance Activities
Street tree grid pruning $710,000
Maintenance Activities T otal$1,992,423
Note:*Some activities that these funds support are not related to trees. However, they are allocated to the Urban Forestry Division to support all labor activities. 50 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT | Budget and Funding
T able 5-2. Urban Forestry Positions and Funding
Position (no. people in role) FTE equivalent time spent on tree maintenance activities V acant Positions
Urban Forestry Crew Supervisor (1) N /A
Urban Forest Worker II N /A
Filled Positions
Maintenance Manager (1) 0.5
Senior Urban Forest Worker (1) 1
Urban Forest Worker I (2) 2
Urban Forest Worker II (3) 3
Clerical/Office Support (3) 0.4
Subtotal 6.9
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 51
Budget and Funding | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
The estimated funding increases needed to achieve BMPs for Salina’ urban forest are detailed in Table 5-3.

T able 5-3. Estimated Funding Needed to Achieve Best Management Practices Current management practice Best Management Practice (BMP) Current Funding
Funding Needed
to Achieve BMP
(First Y ear)
Funding Gap
Annual Maintenance Activities
No formal tree planting program T ree Planting (1,515 trees annually) $50,000 $444,160 $394,160 No formal establishment care
program
3-Years Establishment Care of Newly
Planted T rees $0 $100,248 $100,248
57 Year pruning Cycle 6 Year Pruning Cycle $900,000 $1,443,751 $543,751 25 T rees removed per year
T ree and Stump Removal
Year 1: 637
Year 20: 971
$320,000 $637,400 $317,400
Annual Maintenance Activity T otals $1,270,000 $5,370,636 $4,100,636 5-Y ear Maintenance Activity
T ree inventory, non-regularly updated T ree Inventory, updated every 5 years $0 $221,220 $221,220 5-Y ear Maintenance Activity T otal $0 $221,220 $221,220 T otal Maintenance Activities $1,270,000 $5,591,856 $4,321,856 52 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT | Staffing and Contractors
Exhibit 5-1. Distribution of Salinas Urban Forestry Funding Sources Source: City of Salinas T ree Inventory (City of Salinas 2014).

City of Salinas

DISTRIBUTION OF SALINAS URBAN FORESTRY FUNDING SOURCES
18%3% 78%
Funding Source Measure G Measure E General Fund
City of Salinas − Funding Sources
Exhibit 5-1 shows the funding sources that contribute to the City’s urban forest budget for FY 2020/2021.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 53
Staffing and Contractors | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT

5.2 ANNUAL SERVICE DATA
Annual service data relating to tree maintenance and assessment are provided in Table 5-4.

T able 5-4. Annual T ree Service Data
T ree Planting Establishment Care T ree Pruning T ree Removal Urban Wood Reuse T ree Inspection and Assessment
Most trees
planted in the
City of Salinas
are through the
Adopt-A- T ree
Program. It is
estimated that
an average of
35 trees are
planted yearly.

An estimated
80 trees were
planted in 2022.

The City does not
currently have funding
dedicated to providing
establishment care and
watering to newly planted
City-managed trees.

Instead, establishment
care and watering are
primarily conducted by
volunteers and through
the City’s Adopt-A-
T ree Program. Some
establishment care
takes place for new
development projects,
but enforcement and
inspection are limited.

City records
show that 2,216
trees were
pruned between
2019 and 2022,
averaging 554
trees per year.

At this pace, the
City’s pruning
cycle is at 57.2
years. The
recommended
pace is 5 to 7
years.

Between 2019
and 2022, the
City removed
103 trees.

The City has a
mulching program.

Currently, the
City of Salinas
does not have
a systematic
framework
in place for
assessing tree
risk.
54 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT
6 CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 55

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

6.1 WORKING GROUP
The City’s UFMP Working Group was formed to bring together City staff, individuals from the environmental field, and community advocates to help advise the UFMP’s development. A list of Working Group members is provided in Table 6 -1. Four Working Group meetings were held between August 2022 and July 2023, and each meeting was facilitated by the consultant team.

T able 6-1. Salinas Urban Forest Management Plan Working Group Members Name Affiliation
Brian Frus City of Salinas
Adriana Robles City of Salinas
Maria Contreras City of Salinas
Victor Baez City of Salinas
Yazmin Ochoa-Flores City of Salinas
Cathy Andrews City of Salinas
Rachel Saunders Big Sur Land T rust
Joanna Devers Community member
Leticia Hernandez Community advocate
Rolando Aguilar Recent college graduate
56 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Public Survey

6.2 PUBLIC SURVEY
An online survey in English and Spanish was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees and to offer a space for public feedback as the City developed its UFMP. The 23-question survey was open between June 2022 through November 2022, and was distributed through various City public outreach activities, such as social media platforms, newsletters, City library, farmers markets, community events, and communications sent by City staff and local community-based organizations. In total, 145 survey responses were recorded. A summary of themes is included in Table 6 -2.

T able 6-2. Summary of Salinas T ree Survey Responses
T opic Responses
Views of trees
as a City asset
• 96% believe that trees contribute to their quality of life • 74% view trees more important than or equally as important as other City-maintained infrastructure • Top two most important benefits of trees: cooling neighborhood homes and improving the environment 96%
of survey respondents view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Salinas CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 57
Public Survey | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
T opic Responses
Public
participation
• Top concerns of respondents to growing trees on their property were damage to infrastructure and the cost to trim trees
• To assist the City with reaching its canopy cover goals, respondents willing volunteer at a community tree planting and plant a tree on their private property
• Respondents believe providing financial support to trim trees and information on tree care and tree trimming would best help them plant and care for trees in their own yard T rees in
public spaces
• 71% believe trees in public spaces are in fair or poor condition • 43% of respondents want to see more trees planted in parks and open spaces, and main streets Opinions on
tree protection
ordinances
• 75% were in support of a tree protection ordinance that protects trees on private property in the same way it protects trees on public property
Goals of the
Urban Forest
Management Plan
• Maintaining the existing trees
• Removing dead, dying, or hazardous trees
74%
view trees more important than or equally as important
as other City-maintained infrastructure
58 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Make A Difference Day

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 59

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

6.3 MAKE A DIFFERENCE DA Y
The consultant team collaborated
with Amor Salinas, a City-led initiative
committed to Citywide beautification,
to execute a community park event
on National Make a Difference Day on
October 22, 2022. The volunteer event was
hosted in three different parks throughout
the City: Laurel Heights Park, Azahel Cruz
Park, and Cesar Chavez Park. During the
event, volunteers repaired and restored
different park elements, including fence
painting, litter cleanup, and sand raking
and tree planting. Approximately 70
volunteers of various ages participated in
UFMP engagement to discuss the benefits
of trees and desires for the future of the
urban forest. This face-to-face UFMP
engagement included interactive graphic
boards, maps, and open dialogue.

Attendees shared the following ideas and
opinion, summarized in T able 6-3.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 61
Make A Difference Day | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
T able 6-3. Summary of Community Engagement Responses
Engage
How do we get more people involved
with Salinas trees?
Grow
Where/how can we get more trees planted
on non-City owned land
• Organize family/teen events about trees
• Provide educational resources about how to
water trees
• Provide school garden projects
• Increase City and community member
collaborations
• Make tree planting presentations at high
schools and middle schools
• Educate the public about tree policies
• Advertise the benefits of trees
• Host events and contests to incentivize tree planting • Reimburse community members who plant trees plantings in yards
• Improve communication between the public and the City tree management practices
• Promote drought-tolerant trees
• City mandates on minimum number of trees planted
• Donate a tree
• Promote tree plantings during homeowners’ landscape
renovations
• Encourage property owners to plant trees on multifamily rental properties
62 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

6.4 POP-UP EVENT
The consultant team held a tabling event at the
Alisal Farmers Market on Tuesday, July 19h, 2022.

The consultant team provided graphic engagement
boards, urban forest fast-facts sheets, flyers for the
urban forest summit event, and hard copies of the
Salinas tree survey at their booth, which provided
an interactive experience for interested community
members. Many community members took this
opportunity to reflect on and share thoughts about
their relationship with trees in their hometown of
Salinas. Participants shared a wide range of opinions,
from “Our city needs to figure out how to keep
trees alive,” to “Trees are too messy.” Public outreach allowed the consultant team to develop connections
with the Salinas community and discuss opportunities
and challenges regarding the UFMP with people of
various backgrounds and age groups.

Several different metrics were collected from
community members through all outreach events.

Exhibit 6-1 illustrates community responses to
the question, “Where does the City need more
trees?” Dudek gathered 145 responses from Salinas
community members from two outreach events.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 63
Pop-up Event | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT62 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Trees
Exhibit 6-1. Community Responses to “Where does the City need more trees?” City of Salinas

COMMUNITY EVENT SURVEY RESULTS
Where does the City need more trees?

20.7%

13.1%

11.0%

8.3%

18.6%

13.8%

6.2%

2.8%

5.5%
Transit Stops
Apartments
Open Spaces
Residential Neighborhoods
Streets/Sidewalks
Commercial
Schools
Parking Lots
Parks
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Percent of Respondents
Location
Where does the City need more trees?
City of Salinas − Community Event Survey Results
Responses from community outreach activities at Make A Difference Day and Alisal Farmers' Market.

64 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

STRATEGIC PLAN
7 CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 65
Strategic Plan | STRA TEGIC PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Salinas UFMP Strategic Plan lays out a roadmap to achieving Salinas’s vision statement for the ideal urban forest.

Guiding Principle Strategy
A sufficiently funded plan The urban forest is sustainably managed through financial investment and staffing.

A maintained living asset
T rees are maintained to improve the health, longevity, safety, and functional capacity of the existing urban forest, and to ensure that the future urban forest can reach its potential to provide the full range of environmental benefits and services A flourishing tree canopy enjoyed by
all
Existing trees are maintained and new trees will be strategically planted to increase canopy cover equitably across Salinas.

Enhanced quality of life for
community members
The quality of life in Salinas is further enhanced by benefits and services provided by the urban forest.

Prepared for climate change The thriving urban forest results in reduced urban heat islands, increased energy efficiency, resilience to pests and diseases, and landscapes that conserve water.

A balance between trees and
infrastructure
T rees are included in the beginning of the planning process to provide landscaped settings and habitat, maximize environmental benefits, and reduce infrastructure conflicts. 66 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRA TEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1:

A sufficiently funded plan
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
The urban forest is
sustainably managed
through financial
investment and
staffing.
1A Apply for state grants and increase nonprofit and other partnerships to increase funding for tree planting and care establishment Ongoing 1B
Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting
Ongoing
1C Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers Ongoing 1D Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City’s trees age and require increased maintenance costs Medium 1E Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop an urban wood reuse program Short
1F Identify opportunities to leverage future development projects to increase resources for urban forest management Medium
1G Annually provide a report on the City’s return on investment from the funding that is allocated to urban forest management Ongoing CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 67
Guiding Principles | STRA TEGIC PLAN

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1:

A Maintained Living Asset
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
T rees are maintained
to improve the health,
longevity, safety, and
functional capacity
of the existing urban
forest, and to ensure
that the future urban
forest can reach its
genetic potential to
provide the full range
of services.
2A Increase number of field crew staff to eight tree workers to address all routine tree management needs and Q-Alert community requests Medium 2B Establish a pruning cycle of 5 to 7 years for all City-managed trees Long 2C Create a tree risk management program that includes risk assessments every 3 to 5 years Medium
2D Update tree planting standards to include irrigation Short 2E Adopt the Recommended Species List (Appendix B) for use by all City departments to guide tree planting. Short
2F Implement an irrigation program that new trees receive adequate water Medium
2G Plant 835 new trees per year over 20 years to achieve 15% canopy cover goals Ongoing
68 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRA TEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
2H Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues Medium 2I
Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for tree removal and milling, to turn removed trees into usable lumber
Short
2J Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City’s tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions Short
2K Conduct a new right-of-way tree inventory Short
2L Update the City’s right-of-way tree inventory every 5 years to ensure the City has accurate information about all its tree assets Ongoing 2M Reapply for T ree City USA status and maintain the City’s designation Ongoing
(continued)
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 69
Guiding Principles | STRA TEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 3:

A Flourishing Tree Canopy Enjoyed By All
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
Existing trees are
maintained, and
new trees will
be strategically
planted to increase
canopy cover
equitably across
Salinas.
3A Achieve a 15% Citywide canopy cover over the next 20 years Long 3B Prioritize planting throughout Salinas census tracts based on the Priority Planting Score and map to increase canopy cover equitably throughout the City Medium 3C Create an annual plan for tree planting, prioritizing empty tree wells, parks, bus stops, and bikeways, where appropriate Ongoing
3D
Tailor tree planting and preservation plans by council district to meet differing needs throughout the City:

Council District 1: private property tree preservation, planting initiatives focused on parks and open spaces
Council District 2: planting initiatives focused on residential areas not impacted by the airport
Council District 3: planting initiatives focused on business engagement Council District 4: planting initiatives focused on parks and business engagement
Council District 5: planting initiatives focused on business engagement Council District 6: public space tree preservation
Short
3E Ensure tree planting programs consider economic impacts on Salinas community members. Ongoing
3F Ensure planting programs are linguistically and culturally appropriate Ongoing 3G Prioritize large stature trees that contribute to more leaf area and importance value Ongoing
70 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRA TEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 4:

Enhance The Quality Of Life For Community Members
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
The quality of life
in Salinas is further
enhanced by the
benefits and services
of the urban forest.
4A
Create a program for community members to participate in tree care and maintenance in their own neighborhoods (i.e., developing a community forester program, community tree care workshops, tree plantings)
Short
4B
Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right-of- way and how to properly care for and water trees
Short
4C Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, and routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting Short 4D
Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, including Sanborn Road, Williams Road, Alisal, and North Salinas
Short
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 71
Guiding Principles | STRA TEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 5:

Prepared for Climate Change
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
The thriving urban
forest results in
reduced urban heat
islands, increased
energy efficiency,
resilience to pests
and diseases, and
landscapes that
conserve water.
5A Decrease the frequency of sweetgum, Callery pear, London plane, and cherry plum for new tree plantings Ongoing
5B Plant trees rated by the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLs) as low and very low Ongoing
5C
Ensure that age classes of trees are sufficiently distributed to ensure environmental benefits continue, by consistently planting 835 trees per year
Ongoing
5D Allocate more resources towards pruning as 87% of inventory will reach mature and middle age at same time Short
5E Monitor low Relative Performance Index (RPI) trees and replace declining trees as necessary Medium
5F Implement updated Citywide tree standards and details Short 5G
Annually review the City recommended tree species list and update it as appropriate to ensure species are suitable for current and future climate conditions, are low water use, will achieve species diversity standards, and will prioritize well-adapted local and regionally native species
Ongoing
72 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRA TEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 6:

A Balance Between Trees And Infrastructure
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
T rees are included in
the beginning of the
planning process to
provide landscaped
settings and
habitat, maximize
environmental
benefits, and reduce
infrastructure
conflicts.
6A
Invest in a community outreach and education program focused on overall benefits of trees; proper establishment care; “right tree, right place”; and mitigating conflicts between trees and infrastructure
Ongoing
6B
Update Municipal Code Chapter 35: T rees and Shrubs per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to strengthen tree replacement, tree protection, and code violations
Short
6C
Update Municipal Code Sections 9-41 and 9-45 per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to clarify developer responsibilities with tree installation
Short
6D
Update Municipal Code Chapter 37 per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to improve the way trees are protected on private property
Short
6E
Update the General plan per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to add tree protection goals, policies, and actions that align with this UFMP
Medium
6F
Update the 2017 Neighborhood Vibrancy-Urban Greening Plan per Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to align canopy cover goals, tree planting standards, and recommended tree species with this UFMP Medium
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 73
Guiding Principles | STRA TEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 6:

A Balance Between Trees And Infrastructure
STRATEGY Action No. ACTION Time Frame
T rees are included in
the beginning of the
planning process to
provide landscaped
settings and
habitat, maximize
environmental
benefits, and reduce
infrastructure
conflicts
6G
Update the 2019 Parks, Rec, and Libraries Master Plan per Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to prioritize park tree planting as described in this UFMP
Medium
6H Update the Alisal Vibrancy Plan to directly address trees and Capital Improvement Projects that align with recommendations in this UFMP Medium 6I
Ensure a City arborist is directly involved in reviewing new development designs, project permits, and removal applications to ensure best arboricultural practices are enforced and trees are protected where possible
Short
6J
Allocate funding to create a staff position or on-call contract for a certified arborist to implement planning policies on private property including code enforcement, site plan review, post-installation inspections Short
74 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
8 CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 75
Ongoing Actions | IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION RESPONSIBLE

PARTY COST
1A Apply for state grants and increase nonprofit and other partnerships to increase funding for tree planting and care establishment. PW $
1B Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. PW, R&C S $ 1C Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers. PW, City $ 1G Annually provide a report on the City’s return on investment from the funding that is allocated to urban forest management. PW $
2G Plant 835 new trees per year over 20 years to achieve 15% canopy cover goals PW $$$$ 2L Update the City’s right-of-way tree inventory every 5 years to ensure the City has accurate information about all its tree assets PW $$$$
2M Reapply for T ree City USA status and maintain the City’s designation PW $ 3C Create an annual plan for tree planting, prioritizing empty tree wells, parks, bus stops, and bikeways, where appropriate PW, R&C S $
3E Ensure tree planting programs consider economic impacts on Salinas community members. PW, R&CS, CD $ 3F Ensure planting programs are linguistically and culturally appropriate PW, R&CS, CD $ 3G Prioritize large stature trees that contribute to more leaf area and importance value PW $$ 5B Plant trees rated by the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLs) as low and very lowPW $ 5C Ensure that age classes of trees are sufficiently distributed to ensure environmental benefits continue, by consistently planting 835 trees per year PW $$$$ 5G
Annually review the City recommended tree species list and update it as appropriate to ensure species are suitable for current and future climate conditions, are low water use, will achieve species diversity standards, and will prioritize well-adapted local and regionally native species PW, CD $
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works; CD = Community Development; R&CS = Recreation and Community Services; City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)

ONGOING ACTIONS
76 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN | Short Term Actions 1-5 Years
ACTION
NO. ACTION RESPONSIBLE

PARTY COST
1E Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop an urban wood reuse program. PW $ 2D Update tree planting standard to include irrigation PW $ 2E Adopt the Recommended Species List (Appendix B) for use by all City departments to guide tree planting. PW, City $
2I Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for tree removal and milling, to turn removed trees into usable lumber PW $ 2J Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City’s tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions. PW $$
2K Conduct a new right-of-way tree inventory PW $$$$
3D
Tailor tree planting and preservation plans by council district to meet differing needs throughout the City:

Council District 1: private property tree preservation, planting initiatives focused on parks and open spaces
Council District 2: planting initiatives focused on residential areas not impacted by the airport Council District 3: planting initiatives focused on business engagement Council District 4: planting initiatives focused on parks and business engagement Council District 5: planting initiatives focused on business engagement Council District 6: public space tree preservation
PW, City $$
4A
Create a program for community members to participate in tree care and maintenance in their own neighborhoods (i.e., developing a community forester program, community tree care workshops, tree plantings).

PW, R&C S $$
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works; CD = Community Development; R&CS = Recreation and Community Services; City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 77
Short Term Actions 1-5 Years | IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION RESPONSIBLE

PARTY COST
4B Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way and how to properly care for and water trees. PW $ 4C Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, and routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting. PW $$
4D
Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, including Sanborn Road, Williams Road, Alisal, and North Salinas.

PW $$
5D Allocate more resources towards pruning as 87% of inventory will reach mature and middle age at same time PW, City $$$$
5F Implement updated Citywide tree standards and details PW $ 6B Update Municipal Code Chapter 35: T rees and Shrubs per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to strengthen tree replacement, tree protection, and code violationsPW, City $ 6C Update Municipal Code Sections 9-41 and 9-45 per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to clarify developer responsibilities with tree installation. PW, City $ 6D Update Municipal Code Chapter 37 per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to improve the way trees are protected on private property. PW, City $ 6J
Ensure a City arborist is directly involved in reviewing new development designs, project permits, and removal applications to ensure best arboricultural practices are enforced and trees are protected where possible
PW, R&CS, CD $$
6K
Allocate funding to create a staff position or on-call contract for a certified arborist to implement planning policies on private property including code enforcement, site plan review, post-installation inspections.

PW, City $$$$
SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works; CD = Community Development; R&CS = Recreation and Community Services; City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 78 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years
ACTION
NO. ACTION RESPONSIBLE

PARTY COST
1D Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City’s trees age and require increased maintenance costs PW, City $$$$
1F Identify opportunities to leverage future development projects to increase resources for urban forest management PW, CD, City $$
2A Increase number of field crew staff to eight tree workers to address all routine tree management needs and Q-Alert community requests PW, City $$$$ 2C Create a tree risk management program that includes risk assessments every 3 to 5 years PW $$$$ 2F Implement an irrigation program that new trees receive adequate water PW $$$$ 2H Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues. PW $$$$
MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works; CD = Community Development; R&CS = Recreation and Community Services; City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 79
Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years | IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION RESPONSIBLE

PARTY COST
3B Prioritize planting throughout Salinas census tracts based on the Priority Planting Score and map to increase canopy cover equitably throughout the City PW $ 5E Monitor low Relative Performance Index (RPI) trees and replace declining trees as necessary PW $$$
6E Update the General plan per recommendations in Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to add tree protection goals, policies, and actions that align with this UFMP PW, CD, City $$ 6F
Update the 2017 Neighborhood Vibrancy-Urban Greening Plan per Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to align canopy cover goals, tree planting standards, and recommended tree species with this UFMP
PW, CD, City $$
6G Update the 2019 Parks, Rec, and Libraries Master Plan per Chapter 5 of the UFMP T echnical Assessment to prioritize park tree planting as described in this UFMP PW, R&CS, City $$ 6H Update the Alisal Vibrancy Plan to directly address trees and Capital Improvement Projects that align with recommendations in this UFMP PW, CD, City $$ MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works; CD = Community Development; R&CS = Recreation and Community Services; City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 80 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN | Long Term Actions 10 Years+
ACTION NO. ACTION RESPONSIBLE

PARTY COST
2B Establish a pruning cycle of 5 to 7 years for all City-managed trees PW $$$$ 3A Achieve a 15% citywide canopy cover over the next 20 years PW, R&CS, CD $$$$ LONG TERM ACTIONS 10 YEARS+
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works; CD = Community Development; R&CS = Recreation and Community Services; City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 81
Long Term Actions 10 Years+ | IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN

82 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

MONITORING PLAN
9 CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 83

VIBRANT CITIES LAB ASSESSMENT
The City can use the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool to monitor the implementation of the UFMP. The tool is used as an assessment to define the City’s current state of a specific area of urban forest sustainability. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the City is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score,” or how far off the current state is from the desired goal. A gap score between 20 to 40 is not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program. Conversely, gap scores of 40+ indicate that a City is still implementing programs and policies to close the gaps and develop a sustainable urban forest.

Public Works, the City Engineer, and the consultant team conducted Salinas’s first assessment on February 2, 2023. Table 9-1 provides the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre- UFMP metrics.

Based on the first assessment, the City has a current score of 11, with a gap score of 73. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool and be retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress. The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding asks to City Council. Since the City first took the assessment, several of the responses that had significant gaps, such as the lack of a UFMP (gap of 5), have already been achieved.

84 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment
T able 9-1. T ree Canopy Goal Summary (1 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Canopy cover
The existing canopy cover for entire
municipality is 50%–75% of the desired
canopy.
1 The existing canopy is >75%–100% of desired. 2 1
Inventory and
assessment
methodology
Complete or sample-based inventory of
publicly owned trees. 1
Systematic comprehensive inventory system of
entire urban forest – with information tailored to
users and supported by mapping in municipality-
wide GIS system. Provides for change analysis.
4 3
Complete, detailed, and spatially explicit,
high-resolution Urban T ree Canopy (UTC)
assessment based on enhanced data
(such as LIDAR) – accompanied by
comprehensive set of
goals by land use and other parameters.
3 Urban tree canopy assessment utilized effectively
to drive urban forest and green infrastructure
policy and practice municipality-wide and at
neighborhood or similar management level
4 1
Publicly owned
trees
Complete tree inventory that includes
detailed tree condition ratings. 2 Complete GIS tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings. 4 2
Publicly owned
natural areas
Ecological structure and function of all
natural areas assessed and documented. 3 Ecological structure and function of all natural areas assessed and documented. 3 0
Private property
trees
Aerial, point-based assessment –
capturing extent and location. 1
Bottom-up sample based assessment, as well
as detailed UTC analysis of entire urban forest,
including private property, integrated into
municipality-wide [multi-agency] GIS system.

LIDAR
and hyper-spectral imaging most helpful.
4 3
Relative
performance
index by species
All six most common species have higher
RPI scores than the average of all species
in community. (>1)
4 All six most common species have higher RPI
scores than the average of all species in
community. (>1)
4 0
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85
Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN
(2 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Use of native
vegetation
Voluntary use of native species on
publicly and privately owned lands;
invasive species are
recognized.
1 Use of native species is encouraged on a project-
appropriate basis in all areas;
invasive species are recognized and discouraged
on public and private lands.
2 1
Align municipal
departments
Municipal departments/agencies
recognize potential conflicts and reach
out to urban forest
managers on an ad hoc basis – and vice
versa.
1 Informal teams among departments and agencies
communicate regularly and collaborate on a
project-specific basis.
2 1
Engage residents
in planning and
implementation
Many active neighborhood groups
engaged in advancing urban forest goals,
but with little or
no overall coordination with municipality
or its partnering NGOs.
2 Proactive outreach and coordination efforts
by municipality and NGO partners resulting in
widespread citizen involvement and structured
engagement among diverse neighborhood
groups.
4 2
Environmental
equity
T ree planting and outreach is not
determined equitably by canopy cover or
need for benefits.
-1
Equitable planting and outreach at the
neighborhood level is guided by strong
resident involvement in low canopy/high need
areas. Residents participate actively in
identifying needs for their neighborhoods,
planning, implementation, and monitoring
4 5
T rees
acknowledged as
vital community
resource
General ambivalence or negative
attitudes about trees, which are perceived
as neutral at best
or as the source of problems. Actions
harmful to trees may be taken
deliberately.
-1
T rees widely acknowledged as providing
environmental, social, and economic services –
resulting in some action or advocacy in support
of the urban forest.
2 3
86 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment
(3 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Engage
large private
landowners and
institutions
Large private landholders are generally
uninformed about urban forest issues and
opportunities.
-1 Landowners develop tree management plans
that advance municipal urban forest goals. 2 3
All utilities work
with municipality,
employ best
management
practices
No utility consideration of the health of
the urban forest resource. -1
Utilities employ best management practices,
recognize potential municipal conflicts, and reach
out to urban forest managers on an ad hoc basis
– and vice versa.
2 3
Green industry
embraces goals,
high standards
Little or no cooperation among segments
of green industry or awareness of
municipality-wide urban forest goals and
objectives.
-1
Specific collaborate arrangements across
segments of green industry in support of
municipality-wide goals and objectives.
2 3
Develop
urban forest
management plan
No urban forest management plan. -1
New or recent urban forest and green
infrastructure management plan which targets
public and private tree planting and protection
based on assessment of anticipated benefits
– and assures these benefits are distributed
equitably among neighborhoods.
4 5
Cooperative
planning
with other
municipalities
Municipalities have no interaction with
each other or the broader region. No
regional planning or coordination on
urban forestry.
-1 Some urban forest planning and cooperation
across municipalities and regional agencies. 2 3
Forestry plan
integrated into
other municipal
plans
Urban forestry plan mentions how it could
meet other municipal objectives or inform
other planning efforts.
-1
Once completed, urban forestry planning team
works with other agencies to align
current and future objectives.
2 3
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87
Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN
(4 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Urban forestry
program capacity
Lack of personnel and/or adequate
equipment severely limits needed
maintenance. Few
resources, if any available to achieve new
goals.
-1
T eam has capacity and will in the future to
achieve all goals of the urban forest management
plan, to maintain the resource over time, and
adapt management as circumstances change.
2 3
Municipality-wide
urban forestry
funding
Ad hoc funding for emergency, reactive
management. 1
Sustained, long-term funding from multiple
municipal, regional, and/or state agencies,
along with private sources to implement a
comprehensive urban forest management plan
and provide for maintenance and adaptive
management as circumstances change.
4 3
Growing site
suitability
Appropriate tree species are considered
in site selection. 1
All trees planted in sites with adequate soil
quality and quantity, and with sufficient growing
space and overall site conditions to achieve their
genetic potential and thus provide maximum
ecosystem services. Where growing conditions
are poor, guidance provided on how to improve
soil volume, quality, other factors.
4 3
T ree
establishment and
maintenance
Some tree planting and establishment
occurs, but with limited overall
municipality-wide planning and post-
planting care.
-1 Planting and post-planting care and maintenance
protocols in place. 2 3
Management of
publicly owned
natural areas
Only reactive management to facilitate
public use, e.g. hazard abatement, trail
maintenance.
1 Management plan in place for each publicly
owned natural area to facilitate appropriate
public use.
2 1
Policies that
foster good
urban forestry on
private lands
No tree protection ordinance, or one
that’s weak and rarely enforced. -1
All relevant municipal policies require or
incentivize adherence by private owners to
standards
incorporated in the plan. Incentives and
sanctions applied when appropriate.
4 5
88 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment
(5 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
T ree protection
policy and
enforcement
Policies in place to protect public trees
and employ industry best management
practices, but
rare or inconsistent enforcement.
1 Integrated municipality-wide policies and
practices to protect public and private trees,
consistently enforced and with penalties
sufficient to deter violations.
4 3
Monitoring No monitoring. -1
Monitoring on a regular basis with rotating
schedule for each area. Monitors are
professionals
or volunteers trained to collect specific data
required by municipality. Multi-year data available
for trend analyses.
2 3
T ree risk
management
Citizens and city staff report tree safety
issues to the forestry department or
manager (e.g., 3-1-1 system, online form,
etc.). System tracks the time between
damage report and mitigation action.
1 Policies and ordinances in place to minimize
tree damage and removal on commercial
developments, and public capital. Protection
measures conform to ANSI A300 standards and
ISA BMPs.
3 2
Urban wood and
green waste
utilization
No utilization plan; wood and other green
waste goes to landfill with little or no
recycling and
reuse.
-1
Comprehensive plan and processes in place to
utilize all green waste one way or another, to the
fullest extent possible.
4 5
T otal Current Score 11 T otal Goal Rating 84
T otal Gap Score 78
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89
Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN

90 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

REFERENCES
CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 91

REFERENCES
Beller E. E., M. N. Salomon, and R. M. Grossinger. 2010. Historical Vegetation and Drainage Patterns of Western Santa
Clara Valley: A Technical Memorandum Describing
Landscape Ecology in Lower Peninsula, West Valley,
and Guadalupe Watershed Management Areas. SFEI
contribution 622. Oakland, California: San Francisco
Estuary Institute. November 2010. https:/ /www.sfei.
org/ sites/default/files/biblio_files/HistoricalEcology_of_ Western_SantaClaraValley_SFEI_111910.pdf.

City of Salinas. 2014. City of Salinas T ree Inventory Data.

Conducted by Davey.

City of Salinas. 2015. Urban Forest Assessment Report. https:/ / www.cityofsalinas.org/our-city-services/public-works/
water-waste-energy/neighborhood-vibrancyurban-
greening/ sidebar/tree-information. Accessed on May 23, 2023
City of Salinas. 2021. City of Salinas Open Data, GIS Portal 2021. https:/ /cityofsalinas.opendatasoft.com/pages/homepage/.

Durham, D. 1998. California’s Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Clovis,
California: Word Dancer Press.

Johnston, R. 1977. The Beginnings of Salinas: Brief History to 1874. 2nd ed. Monterey County Historical Society.

Locke, D.H., B. Hall, J.M. Grove, S. T .A. Pickett, L.A. Ogden, C. Aoki, C.G. Boone, and J.P.M. O’Neil-Dunne. 2021.
“Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy
in 37 US Cities.” npj Urban Sustainability 1, 15. https:/ /doi. org/10.1038/ s42949-021-00022-0.

McBride, J.R., and I. Lacan. 2018. “The Impact of Climate-Change Induced Temperature Increases on the Suitability of
Street T ree Species in California (USA) Cities.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34:348–356.

McPherson, E.G., N. van Doorn, and J. de Goede. 2016.
“Structure, Function and Value of Street T rees in
California, USA.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
17:104–115.

Morgenroth, J., D.J. Nowak, and A.K. Koeser. 2020. “DBH Distributions in America’s Urban Forests—An Overview
of Structural Diversity.” Forests 11(2): 135. doi:10.3390/ f11020135.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2023. CalEnviroScreen 3.4 [online software]. May 18,
2023. https:/ /oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/
calenviroscreen-30.

Richards, N.A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street T ree Population.” Urban Ecology 7(2): 159–171.
92 | CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

REFERENCES
Smith, D. 2004. “Why Affordable Housing is an Environmental Issue.” Culture, Society, and Praxis 2(2): Article 10. https:/ / digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol2/iss2/10.

Swain, D.L., B. Langenbrunner, J.D. Neelin, and A. Hall. 2018. “Increasing Precipitation Volatility in Twenty-First-Century California.” Nature Climate Change 8:427–433. https:/ /www. nature.com/articles/ s41558-018-0140-y.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2020. i- T ree Eco [online software]. https:/ /www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree-eco.

Wolf, K.L. S. T . Lam, J.K. McKeen, G.R.A. Richardson, M. van den Bosch, and A.C. Bardekjian. 2020. Urban T rees and
Human Health: A Scoping Review. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(12):
4371. https:/ /doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124371.

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2018. “California Climate T racker.” Accessed January 10, 2018. http:/ /www. wrcc.dri.edu/monitor/cal-mon/index.html.

CITY OF SALINAS URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 93

REFERENCES

PREPARED BY
Urban Forest Management Plan

Salinas City CouncilFebruary 6, 2024

Salinas City Council
February 6, 2024