HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-26 - Urban Parks and Forestry Board - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM
B. Disclosures
C. Changes to the Agenda
D. Approval of Minutes
D.1 Approve Minutes from June 25, 2026 Urban Parks and Forestry Board Meeting (Overton)
E. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board
THE URBAN PARKS AND FORESTRY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
UPF AGENDA
Thursday, July 23, 2026
General information about the Urban Parks & Forestry Board can be found in our Laserfiche
repository.
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to
comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the
meeting. At the direction of the City Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to
the Board or staff.
Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate
agenda items.
As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the
City on cable channel 190.
For more information please contact Mitch Overton, moverton@bozeman.net
This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You
can join this meeting:
Via Video Conference:
Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.
Click Join Now to enter the meeting.
Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in-
person
United States Toll
+1 346 248 7799
Access code: 934 5616 9186
This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Urban Parks
& Forestry Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public
comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board
cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the
Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful
1
F. Special Presentations
F.1 Staff Update Regarding Sunset Hills Cemetery (Surber)
G. FYI/Discussion
G.1 Work Session: 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan - Review Preliminary Draft
UFMP(Nordquest)
G.2 Director's Update(Overton)
H. Adjournment
of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property
owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three
minutes.
General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page.
This board generally meets the fourth Thursday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that
requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232.
2
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Urban Parks and Forestry Board
FROM:Mitch Overton, Director of Parks and Recreation
Jess Laughlin, Administrative Assistant II
SUBJECT:Approve Minutes from June 25, 2026 Urban Parks and Forestry Board
Meeting
MEETING DATE:July 23, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:Approve Minutes from June 25, 2026 Urban Parks and Forestry Board
Meeting
STRATEGIC PLAN:6.5 Parks, Trails & Open Space: Support the maintenance and expansion of
an interconnected system of parks, trails and open spaces.
BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's
Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all Boards must have minutes taken and
approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at
tthe next scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections identified to
the
minutes before submitting them to the City Clerk's Office.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:As suggested by the UPF Board.
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the UPF Board.
FISCAL EFFECTS:N/A
Attachments:
06.25.26_Minutes.pdf
Report compiled on: July 7, 2026
3
Urban Parks & Forestry Board Meeting Minutes, [06.25.26]
Page 1 of 2
THE URBAN PARKS & FORESTRY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
[06.25.26]
General information about the Urban Parks & Forestry Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository.
A) 00:03:32 Call to Order - 6:00 PM
B) 00:03:37 Disclosures
C) 00:03:47 Changes to the Agenda
D) 00:03:56 Public Service Announcements
E) 00:04:05 Approval of Minutes
E.1 Approve Minutes from May 28, 2026 Urban Parks and Forestry Board Meeting
05.28.26_Minutes.pdf
00:04:14 Motion to approve E) Approval of Minutes
Brandt Berube: Motion
Matthew Kortan: 2nd
Present: Brandt Berube, Joe Cartwright, Steve Lowry, Matthew Kortan, Paige Lisowski, Teri Lumsden,
Sally Schrank
Absent: None
Excused: None
00:04:45 Vote on the Motion to approve E) Approval of Minutes The Motion carried 6 - 0.
Approve:
Brandt Berube
Joe Cartwright
Steve Lowry
4
Urban Parks & Forestry Board Meeting Minutes, [06.25.26]
Page 2 of 2
Matthew Kortan
Teri Lumsden
Sally Schrank
Disapprove:
None
F) 00:04:51 Consent Items
G) 00:05:00 Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and
Jurisdiction of the Board
H) 00:06:27 Special Presentations
H.1 00:06:30 Bi-Annual Sunset Hills Report
I) 00:34:53 Action Items
J) 00:34:58 FYI/Discussion
J.1 00:34:58 Work Session: 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan - Review Public
Survey Results and Preliminary Tree Data
26.06.25 Work Session 3.pptx
J.2 01:48:57 Director's Update
K) 01:58:03 Adjournment
This board generally meets the fourth Thursday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
5
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Urban Parks and Forestry Board
FROM:Mitch Overton, Director
SUBJECT:Staff Update Regarding Sunset Hills Cemetery
MEETING DATE:July 23, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:no action
STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a
mechanism to encourage economic development.
BACKGROUND:The Urban Parks and Forestry Board 2026-2027 Work Plan calls for a bi-
annual staff update about Sunset Hills Cemetery and to provide
recommendations as needed. This is the first of those bi-annual reports to
the Board. The UPF Board will receive a report, ask questions if there are
any, and make any recommendations that are either requested or desired by
the Board.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:None
FISCAL EFFECTS:None at this time
Report compiled on: June 16, 2026
6
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Urban Parks and Forestry Board
FROM:Mitch Overton, Director of Parks and Recreation
Alex Nordquest, Forestry Division Manager
SUBJECT:Work Session: 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan - Review Preliminary
Draft UFMP
MEETING DATE:July 23, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:No Action; Board Member discussion.
STRATEGIC PLAN:6.5 Parks, Trails & Open Space: Support the maintenance and expansion of
an interconnected system of parks, trails and open spaces.
BACKGROUND:The City of Bozeman is currently developing an updated Urban Forest
Management Plan (UFMP), to replace the existing 2016 document. The
Urban Parks & Forestry Board recently adopted this project's Community
Engagement Plan, which details major milestones throughout the year as the
plan develops with input from the Board, relevant city staff, and the
community at large. A significant component of plan development includes
Work Sessions with the Urban Parks & Forestry Board, to discuss and review
key themes of the project's scope.
For this meeting, a draft version of the overall management plan has been
prepared, providing a framework for its design and content. This Work
Session allows for advisory comments, discussion, and review of the draft
version to consider for the final product. An additional Work Session is
planned for the September 24th meeting: Review updates based on public
comments for the Draft UFMP to Final UFMP prior to City Commission
review.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:N/A
FISCAL EFFECTS:The Urban Forest Management Plan is a CIP item allocated within the FY26
Forestry Division budget. Carryover into the FY27 budget year will occur, as
the consultant is billing on a monthly basis throughout plan development.
Attachments:
26.07.09 UFMP Preliminary Draft.docx
7
Report compiled on: July 10, 2026
8
URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN
9
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 i
SIGNATURE PAGE
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN URBAN PARKS AND
FORESTRY BOARD
_____________________ Brandt Berube
Mayor Joey Morrison Joe Cartwright
Deputy Mayor Douglas Fischer Steve Lowry
Commissioner Jennifer Madgic Paige Lisowski
Commissioner Emma Bode Sally Schrank
Commissioner Alison Sweeney Matthew Kortan
Teri Lumsden
Alison Sweeney
Mitch Overton
10
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Urban Parks and Forestry Board
Brandt Berube
Joe Cartwright
Steve Lowry
Paige Lisowski
Sally Schrank
Matthew Kortan
Teri Lumsden
Alison Sweeney
Mitch Overton
City Commission
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Jennifer Madgic
Emma Bode
Alison Sweeney
City of Bozeman
Chuck Winn, City Manager
Melissa Hodnett, Finance Director
Erin George, Community Development Director
Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Director
Shawn Kohtz, Utilities Director
Nick Ross, Transportation and Engineering Director
Mitch Overton, Parks and Recreation Department Director
Alex Nordquest, Forestry Division Manager
Prepared By: Hannah Kuhns (DJ&A) and Matthew Urmson (PlanIT Geo, Inc.)
All photos are from the City of Bozeman unless otherwise noted
11
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 iii
THE MISSION OF BOZEMAN’S URBAN FOREST
The City of Bozeman is committed to
providing a healthy, safe, and aesthetically
pleasing urban forest for its residents and
visitors. By maintaining, managing, and
preserving its trees, the City raises its
citizens’ standard of living and maximizes
the benefits offered by its urban forest.
12
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan (“UFMP” or “Plan”) is an update to the City of
Bozman’s (“City”) 2016 UFMP and a comprehensive, long-term strategy for protecting,
maintaining, and expanding its urban forest. Shaped by data, industry best practices, and
community input, the Plan outlines a clear path toward a greener, healthier, and more resilient
future for the trees of Bozeman.
The City’s urban forest spans all landscapes including trees along streets, parks, open spaces,
trails, waterways, residential yards, and commercial properties. While the Plan primarily focuses
on publicly managed trees, it recognizes that all trees, regardless of ownership, contribute to the
health, sustainability, and benefits of the urban forest. Together, these trees form vital green
infrastructure that supports the community’s well-being and environmental resilience.
PURPOSE, PRIORITIES, AND PROCESS
The Plan is structured around five key topics which all contribute to the health, management, and
future of Bozeman’s urban forest. Each focus topic is part of a holistic approach to proactively
meet the needs of the urban forest while sustainably planning for future growth and expansion.
As Bozeman’s population continues to grow and new developments are built, additional
considerations include planting trees suited to a changing climate and increased pressure from
pests and natural disasters as well as engaging the community, all of which will serve to bolster
the health of the urban forest.
Tree Infrastructure: Assessment of current conditions of Bozeman’s tree inventory data
and canopy coverage, including conducting comprehensive research on urban forestry
and arboriculture related resources, leveraging regional and local resources and
Bozeman-specific datasets to identify key factors influencing the City of Bozeman’s tree
infrastructure.
Staffing and Equipment: Review of current staffing, equipment, and budget capacity
with a focus on maintaining the urban forest in alignment with updated Plan
recommendations, City policy, and operational context
Planning and Development Integration: Coordination of the plan update with existing
local planning, identification of opportunities for development of codes and standards,
and integration of the updated plan with current policies, processes, programs, and
departments. Components for this coordination include third party tree installations, tree
protection zones, interdepartmental collaboration, private property development,
heritage trees, and policy recommendations.
Community Engagement: Engagement opportunities will be reviewed and options
identified for future volunteer initiatives, outreach, and education to support plan
recommendations and ensure transparency of Forestry Division work and priorities with
the public.
Insect, Disease, and Disaster Preparedness: Use of inventory, canopy, and historical
records to guide monitoring, mitigation, and recovery planning for emergencies and
hazards including hardscape conflicts, wildfire, and other disaster scenarios.
13
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 v
The UFMP was developed in 2026 and reflects input from Bozeman staff, the Urban Parks and
Forestry Board, and community members through:
Urban forest inventory reviews and
regular coordination meetings
Staff survey and department
interviews
Engagement with the Urban Parks
and Forestry Board and the City
Commission
Public surveys, stakeholder
discussions, and virtual and in-
person public meetings
GOALS AND STRATEGIC
FRAMEWORK
Based on extensive data analysis,
concurrent planning document review,
coordination meetings with Bozeman City
staff, work sessions with the Urban Parks
and Forestry Board, and diligent community
outreach and engagement, the following
goals were developed to guide the Urban
Forest Management Plan and Bozeman’s urban forest for the next decade, while setting a
foundation for far into the future.
Manage the Urban Forest as Essential Infrastructure: Recommendations relate to
managing Bozeman’s urban forest as a core public infrastructure system through accurate
data, coordinated operations, sustainable funding, and consistent implementation
tracking.
Maintain Safe, Healthy, and High-Performing Public Trees: Recommendations relate
to strengthening proactive risk-based maintenance to improve public safety, extend tree
lifespan, reduce long-term costs, and help Bozeman’s young tree population mature into
future canopy.
Grow a Diverse and Climate-Resilient Canopy: Recommendations relate to the City of
Bozeman’s efforts to increase citywide canopy toward a realistic 20-year target while
improving species diversity, climate adaptability, tree survival, and equitable access to
canopy benefits.
Integrate Trees into Development, Infrastructure, and Water-Conscious Site Design:
Recommendations relate to ensuring trees are planned, planted, protected, and
maintained as part of Bozeman’s growth, capital projects, streetscapes, parks, stormwater
systems, and private development.
Prepare for Pests, Climate Stress, and Disaster Events: Recommendations relate to
building a proactive preparedness framework for emerald ash borer, secondary pests and
THE PLANNING
PROCESS
The development of the updated Bozeman
Urban Forest Management Plan was based
on answering four key questions:
What Do We Have?
What Do We Want?
How Do We Get There?
How Are We Doing?
This structure, termed “adaptive
management”, is commonly used for
resource planning and management and
provides a useful conceptual framework for
managing Bozeman’s urban forest resource
(Miller, 1988).
14
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 vi
diseases, drought, wildfire, severe weather, and other disturbances that could affect
Bozeman’s canopy, public safety, and maintenance capacity.
Build Community Stewardship and Shared Responsibility: Recommendations relate
to expanding public education, partnerships, volunteer programs, and private property
support so residents, businesses, institutions, and community organizations actively
participate in sustaining Bozeman’s urban forest.
Each goal includes actionable strategies, timelines, and targets such as planting at least 871 trees
annually to meet canopy objectives and expanding community programs.
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
The UFMP outlines an implementation roadmap for progressing towards each goal. These
strategies include multiple action targets identified for each actionable strategy associated with
the goals outlined above. Within each actionable strategy, a lead City department and applicable
support departments or divisions are identified for implementation actions. Each actionable
strategy is tied to public trees, private trees, and/or local community partnerships to best achieve
the overarching goal. Additionally, a scale-based relative cost is applied to each actionable
strategy to allow the City to prioritize action targets within each action strategy based on funding,
staff capacity, seasonality, and other factors.
The Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan is both a blueprint and a call to action. With
thoughtful implementation and sustained collaboration, the City can ensure that its trees remain
an equitable and growing part of the urban landscape for generations to come.
15
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 vii
16
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ iv
Purpose, Priorities, and Process ............................................................................................. iv
Goals and Strategic Framework .............................................................................................. v
Implementation Approach ....................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Bozeman History and People ................................................................................................. 1
Population Dynamics .............................................................................................................. 2
Challenges Facing Bozeman’s Urban Forest .......................................................................... 3
Plan Organization ...................................................................................................................... 6
Why is this Plan Important? .................................................................................................... 7
Plan Goals .............................................................................................................................. 8
Why Urban Trees? ....................................................................................................................11
Bozeman’s Urban Forest ..........................................................................................................13
Tree Infrastructure .................................................................................................................14
Tree Inventory Overview .......................................................................................................15
Public Inventoried Tree Population ........................................................................................15
Summary of Tree Inventory Analysis .....................................................................................20
Tree Canopy..........................................................................................................................20
Management of Bozeman’s Urban Forest .................................................................................31
Current Tree Management ....................................................................................................31
Stakeholder Feedback on Current Conditions .......................................................................40
Development and Land Use Changes ...................................................................................43
Resilience of the Urban Forest ..............................................................................................44
Urban Forest Audit ................................................................................................................58
Vision for the Future ..................................................................................................................62
Goals, Strategies, and Actions ..............................................................................................62
Implementation .........................................................................................................................68
Implementation Summary ......................................................................................................68
Resources and Considerations ..............................................................................................84
Assessing Progress ..................................................................................................................97
Tracking Plan Progress (Benchmark Values) ........................................................................97
Report and Revise .................................................................................................................99
17
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 ix
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................99
References ............................................................................................................................. 101
Appendix A: Canopy Goals and Planting Targets .................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: 2026 Urban Forest Audit Results ........................................................................ B-1
18
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 1
INTRODUCTION
In 2025, the City of Bozeman (“City”) committed to updating the City’s 2016 Urban Forest
Management Plan (“UFMP” or “Plan”). The contents of this Plan reflect a shared commitment
from the City, its partners, and the community to manage and grow a sustainable and equitable
urban forest.
This UFMP orients Bozeman’s urban forestry program for success, using a framework of goals,
objectives, actions, and strategies for implementation. Recommendations are based on data
analysis, stakeholder input, an urban forest program audit, benchmarking, best management
practices, and industry standards.
The Plan is intended to be used as a long-range planning document as well as a tool that is
revisited periodically and adapted to reflect changes in Bozeman over time.
BOZEMAN HISTORY AND PEOPLE
Bozeman is located in the Gallatin Valley of southwest Montana and serves as the seat of Gallatin
County. Surrounded by the Bridger, Gallatin, Madison, and Tobacco Root mountain ranges,
Bozeman is recognized for its scenic landscapes, outdoor recreation opportunities, and strong
connection to the natural environment. Its proximity to Yellowstone National Park, extensive trail
systems, rivers, forests, and ski areas has made Bozeman one of Montana’s fastest-growing
communities and an important regional center for tourism, education, and outdoor recreation.
19
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 2
The Gallatin Valley has a long history of human occupation and cultural significance. Indigenous
peoples, including the Crow, Shoshone, Nez Perce, Blackfeet, Flathead, and Sioux, traveled
through and used the region for centuries prior to European settlement. The area later became
an important travel corridor during European westward expansion, including the Bozeman Trail
established in the 1860s by John Bozeman. The City was officially founded in 1864 and quickly
developed as an agricultural and trade center serving southwest Montana.
Bozeman’s identity remains closely tied to agriculture, education, and natural resources. Montana
State University, established in 1893 as the state’s land-grant university, continues to play a major
role in the community through education, research, and innovation. Historically, the Gallatin Valley
was known for productive agricultural lands and was once referred to as the “Sweet Pea Capital
of the Nation” due to extensive pea production in the early 1900s. Today, the annual Sweet Pea
Festival remains one of the community’s signature cultural events.
Bozeman experiences a cool continental climate characterized by cold winters, warm summers,
and significant seasonal variability. Compared to much of eastern Montana, the Gallatin Valley
receives relatively higher precipitation and supports more productive vegetation and tree growth.
However, the community is also experiencing increasing climate-related challenges, including
warmer temperatures, drought, reduced snowpack, wildfires, and changing precipitation patterns.
These environmental changes directly influence the health, composition, and long-term resilience
of Bozeman’s urban forest.
Historically, much of the Gallatin Valley supported limited native tree cover outside of riparian
corridors and waterways. Bozeman’s urban forest therefore represents an intentionally created
and managed community asset rather than a naturally occurring forest system. Maintaining and
expanding this canopy will require continued long-term investment in planting, maintenance,
diversification, and proactive urban forest management.
Understanding these conditions helps guide the Urban Forest Management Plan so future tree
planting, species selection, and management practices reflect local ecological conditions, support
long-term canopy resilience, and sustain the environmental and community benefits trees provide
for generations to come.
POPULATION DYNAMICS
Bozeman’s rapid population growth and continued development are creating both opportunities
and challenges for the City’s urban forest. Since 1970, the population has increased by more than
300%, with continued growth projected through 2045. This expansion is driven by factors such as
economic opportunities, Montana State University, recreation amenities, and regional migration
trends. As population and housing demand increase, more land is needed for residential
development, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and public services. Declining household
sizes have further intensified development pressures by requiring more housing units to
accommodate the same number of residents, resulting in greater land consumption and
infrastructure expansion.
These changing population dynamics directly affect the growth and management of Bozeman’s
urban forest. The City has already established a substantial tree canopy, including more than
28,000 public trees; however, projected residential land demand, ongoing annexations, and
20
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 3
continued expansion into previously undeveloped areas create pressure on existing trees,
wetlands, open space, and wildlife habitat. As Bozeman grows, balancing new development with
the preservation of mature trees and natural resources will be critical to maintaining ecosystem
benefits such as shade, stormwater management, habitat connectivity, and community health.
Looking ahead, urban forest planning must be integrated with land-use and growth strategies.
Increased development density, mixed-use neighborhoods, redevelopment within existing urban
areas, and strategic preservation of trees and open spaces can help reduce impacts on the urban
forest while accommodating anticipated population, housing, and employment growth.
Considerations include protecting existing mature trees during development, expanding canopy
coverage in newly annexed areas, selecting diverse and climate-resilient tree species, and
ensuring adequate resources for long-term tree maintenance as the City’s footprint and population
continue to expand.
CHALLENGES FACING BOZEMAN’S URBAN FOREST
Urban trees in Bozeman face many challenges including pests and diseases, climate change,
pollution, compacted soils, limited growing space, development pressures, vandalism, and
resource constraints. These are issues common to urban forests worldwide. Addressing these
challenges requires strategic planning and proactive care to maximize the benefits trees provide.
Additionally, long-term threats such as climate change, extreme weather, and invasive pests
demand mitigation, adaptation, and recovery strategies to ensure urban forest resilience. This
UFMP outlines maintenance and planting recommendations that support proactive, strategic
planning to safeguard Bozeman’s tree canopy.
Managing Bozeman’s urban forest requires proper and timely care in accordance with best
management practices (BMPs) and industry standards. However, challenges such as limited
financial and operational resources and the increasing impacts of climate change create barriers
to sustaining and expanding the City’s tree canopy. Ensuring a resilient urban forest also depends
on strategic tree planting programs that enhance canopy cover and increase environmental
benefits. Additionally, revitalizing community tree stewardship through education and
engagement is essential for long-term urban forest sustainability. Addressing these internal
challenges will require a combination of policy updates, funding strategies, and community
engagement efforts to effectively protect and grow Bozeman’s urban forest.
A well-funded urban forestry program with dedicated staff and adequate resources is essential
for effective tree maintenance, risk management, and community engagement. The Forestry
Division is well established in the City with collaboration with other City departments and divisions
and regular outreach and engagement with the community. Continued investment in the division
and its efforts will help strengthen stewardship, improve environmental sustainability, and
enhance the long-term health of the City’s urban forest.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is expected to bring rising temperatures, prolonged heat, shifting precipitation
patterns, and increased pest and disease pressures, all of which will impact Bozeman’s urban
forest. Many established trees may struggle to survive over the next 50 to 75 years, requiring
proactive planning to maintain a resilient tree canopy.
The region is already experiencing faster-than-expected warming, as reflected in recent updates
to the USDA Plant Hardiness Zones. Adapting to these changes will require climate-informed
21
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 4
species selection, tree preservation efforts, and strategic urban forestry practices to support long-
term canopy health and community resilience.
PESTS AND DISEASES
When a pest or disease invades an urban area, damaged trees lose their vigor, leaving them
weakened and vulnerable to additional urban threats. Unfortunately, widespread impacts that are
left unaddressed lead to an unhealthy urban forest, requiring expensive maintenance or removal
and the potential for high-risk situations. Every pest and disease impacts tree species differently.
They can travel and adapt quickly, and the threat they pose can vary greatly depending on the
climate. Bozeman’s public tree inventory was cross-referenced with four separate databases
(Montana Department of Agriculture, Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation,
the US Forest Service’s Alien Forest Pest Explorer map, and i-Tree’s Pest and Host Matrix) to
determine which pests and diseases are of greatest concern. This analysis identified pests and
diseases known to be present at the county, state, and regional levels, meaning they are in
proximity to Bozeman but have not been confirmed within City limits. These threats were
evaluated based on their known host species and their potential impact on the inventoried tree
population.
Several high-risk pests and diseases have the potential to impact the City’s urban forest (Figure
1):
Emerald ash borer (EAB) threatens approximately 22% of inventoried public trees,
representing an estimated $13.2 million in replacement value.
Dutch elm disease threatens approximately 8.3% of inventoried trees, with estimated
impacts exceeding $1.56 million.
Large aspen tortrix may affect roughly 9.5% of inventoried trees, representing
approximately $1.86 million in potential losses.
Western spruce budworm threatens approximately 6% of the inventoried population, with
estimated impacts of $4.62 million.
Heterobasidion root disease may impact approximately 2.2% of inventoried trees,
representing an estimated $1.97 million in potential losses.
Spruce beetle threatens approximately 4.8% of inventoried trees, with estimated impacts
of roughly $4.14 million.
To protect Bozeman’s urban forest, pest and disease management must remain dynamic,
proactive, and adaptable to evolving threats, research findings, and available resources. Regular
Figure 1. Emerald ash borer, large aspen tortrix, and spruce beetle (Source: USDA Forest Service,
USDA Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service)
22
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 5
monitoring, early detection, and strategic maintenance are critical for minimizing risks, ensuring
tree health, and safeguarding the City’s green infrastructure for future generations.
DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS
In urban settings, trees must coexist with a dense network of infrastructure, including pavement,
utilities, signage, and buildings. As roots grow in search of water and nutrients, they can displace
hardscape elements such as sidewalks and roads, leading to pavement heaving, safety hazards,
and costly maintenance. Providing sufficient planting strip width and soil volume for trees to reach
maturity is critical to reducing these conflicts while supporting long-term tree health.
Bozeman’s ongoing growth and infrastructure expansion create mounting pressures on the urban
forest. New development often necessitates tree removal to make space for buildings, roads, and
utility corridors. Even trees retained on-site are vulnerable to damage from construction activities.
In the absence of strong regulations and enforcement, poor practices such as those that result in
soil compaction and root disturbance can undermine tree survival and health.
Altered Soils and Tree Health
Urban trees often struggle to grow in soils compacted by construction activities. Healthy soil
should contain about 50% pore space for air and water, essential for root growth. However,
compacted soils often have less than 25% pore space and organic matter combined, making it
difficult for trees to thrive. Addressing soil health through proper soil preparation and management
practices is critical for long-term tree success.
Competition for Space
Conflicts between trees and hardscapes or utilities arise when trees are not given adequate space
for their roots and canopy to grow. In the right-of-way, trees often compete with signage,
streetlights, underground utilities, and overhead power lines. As trees outgrow their space, their
roots can lift sidewalks, leading to costly repairs or even tree removal.
To prevent future conflicts, streetscape design must consider the mature size of trees and
incorporate technologies that allow them to thrive in urban environments. The City has regulations
and BMPs to address these issues. Innovative sidewalk and planting designs can help reduce
tree-infrastructure conflicts while maintaining a healthy, sustainable urban forest. Examples of
these solutions are illustrated in Figure 2.
23
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 6
Figure 2. Streetscape design options to reduce tree-infrastructure conflicts
PLAN ORGANIZATION
This Plan is organized to help the reader understand the importance of an urban forest, how
Bozeman’s urban forest is unique, and what current data and science can tell us to best manage
the urban forest. Five main components were analyzed in this plan, but they are by no means
standalone components, and each contributes to the larger picture of long-term recommendations
over the next ten years as well as annual milestones that are achievable for the Bozeman urban
forest, the Forestry Division, and the community.
Tree Infrastructure: Assessment of current conditions of Bozeman’s tree inventory data
and canopy coverage, including conducting comprehensive research on urban forestry
and arboriculture related resources, leveraging regional and local resources and
Bozeman-specific datasets to identify key factors influencing the City’s tree
infrastructure.
Staffing and Equipment: Review of current staffing, equipment, and budget capacity
with a focus on maintaining the urban forest in alignment with updated Plan
recommendations, City policy, and operational context
Planning and Development Integration: Coordination of the plan update with existing
local planning, identification of opportunities for development of codes and standards,
and integration of the updated plan with current policies, processes, programs, and
departments. Components for this coordination include third party tree installations, tree
protection zones, interdepartmental collaboration, private property development,
heritage trees, and policy recommendations.
Community Engagement: Engagement opportunities will be reviewed and options
identified for future volunteer initiatives, outreach, and education to support plan
24
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 7
recommendations and ensure transparency of Forestry Division work and priorities with
the public.
Insect, Disease, and Disaster Preparedness: Use of inventory, canopy, and historical
records to guide monitoring, mitigation, and recovery planning for emergencies and
hazards including hardscape conflicts, wildfire, and other disaster scenarios.
WHY IS THIS PLAN IMPORTANT?
The trees we plant today are intended for future generations. They are critical infrastructure that
must be preserved and planned for. The City of Bozeman tracks 28,459 public trees (2026) in its
inventory, including street trees and trees in parks and natural spaces. When proactively
maintained, these public trees bring long-term value and benefits to the community to promote a
sustainable and resilient future. This 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan provides a strategic
and systematic framework for the stewardship, enhancement, and use of trees within Bozeman’s
urban areas. It serves as a roadmap to guide decision-making and actions related to the urban
forest while also integrating with City initiatives in support of economic development,
transportation, parks and recreation, urban planning, and the goals of property owners.
Bozeman’s urban forest is a substantial asset and investment, one that requires maintenance to
grow over time, with exponential benefits to the community. A healthy, diverse urban forest offers
many benefits to residents and the ecosystem. Beyond their visual appeal, trees provide a range
of valuable ecosystem services for the City like filtering of air pollutants, slowing the release of
stormwater runoff into the watershed, improving water quality, providing oxygen, reducing energy
costs, offering shade, and creating habitat and food for wildlife.
Research shows that proximity to greens paces is linked to better mental health, improved social
connections, and enhanced physical well-being. Ecological benefits of having trees in an urban
environment, especially one in a location that does not historically have trees, like Bozeman, are
more important than ever.
Purposeful management and maintenance of the urban forest will ensure that Bozeman can
continue to maximize community benefits and sustainably grow the urban forest to obtain the
greatest long-term benefits for all residents.
MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Bozeman is committed to providing a healthy, safe, and aesthetically pleasing urban
forest for its residents and visitors. By maintaining, managing, and preserving its trees, the City
raises its citizens’ standard of living and maximizes the benefits offered by its urban forest.
VISION STATEMENT
Bozeman’s urban forest is an essential component of municipal infrastructure, one that creates
efficiencies and provides long-term benefits to residents and visitors alike. Through sustainable
25
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 8
management by the City and its people, the urban forest creates a high quality of life, a healthier
citizenry, and makes Bozeman a leader of cities in the Mountain West.
PLAN GOALS
The 2016 UFMP established the overarching goal of the plan to “coordinate the management of
Bozeman’s urban forest” and to create a holistic urban forest, which is one that:
Enhances the City of Bozeman through environmental and economic benefits
Is resilient to climate change and invasive pests
Is valued by the community as an essential resource and asset.
In order to achieve a holistic urban forest, seven essential elements, or objectives, were identified,
several of which have been completed within the last ten years, some of which are ongoing, and
all of which this updated Plan builds from based on current tree inventory and canopy cover
conditions (Table 1).
Table 1. 2016 Urban Forest Management Plan goal achievements and link to 2026 Plan
Status* Objective Achievement Link to 2026 Update
Create an urban forester
position to oversee
Bozeman’s urban forest
Hiring of Forestry Division
Manager in 2017
Forestry Division
Manager guided the
2026 Update process.
Plant a new generation of
trees with appropriate
species diversity
As of the 2026 inventory
analysis, young trees (0–6
inches DSH) comprise 59%
of the population, exceeding
the recommended target of
approximately 40%, which
suggests a strong presence
of recent plantings.
Continue to care for,
maintain, and plant
young trees,
prioritizing areas to
enhance tree equity,
mitigate urban heat,
and balance
development
priorities.
Establish as systematic
and coordinated detection
effort for EAB
The 2016 EAB Management
Plan, developed concurrently
with the 2016 UFMP,
outlines priorities for the City
of Bozeman to prepare for
the eventual arrival of EAB
to Montana. Since 2016, the
ash population in Bozeman
has been reduced from 47%
to 22%.
Development of an
updated EAB
Management Plan in
concurrence with the
2026 UFMP update.
Continue to prioritize
treatment,
preservation,
removal, or
replacement to
prepare for the arrival
of EAB by reducing
the ash population to
10% or less of the
publicly managed tree
population over 15
years.
26
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 9
Status* Objective Achievement Link to 2026 Update
Remove trees that are
deemed hazardous, in
poor condition, or in
inappropriate locations
The City has prioritized
hazardous tree removal over
the past decade, especially
in response to large storm
events.
Continue to respond
to hazard tree
situations in real time
while implementing
routine maintenance
and pruning cycles to
reduce hazard tree
risk across the City.
Establish a healthy and
vibrant relationship
between the community
and Bozeman’s Forestry
Division
Since the hiring of the
Forestry Division Manager in
2017, engagement with the
public regarding Bozeman’s
urban forest has increased.
Build on the
momentum of the
2026 UFMP planning
process and prioritize
outreach and
education with the
Bozman community
to bolster tree care for
private trees and
coordinate increased
volunteer efforts to
aid in the
maintenance of City
trees.
Complete and maintain the
tree inventory
Initial tree inventory was
completed in 2018. The
inventory has continued to
be updated and now serves
as a central tool for public
tree management,
maintenance tracking, and
planning.
Continue to maintain
and update the
existing tree inventory
to best inform
management
practices,
maintenance
priorities, and identify
areas for priority
planning efforts.
Implement a proactive
maintenance cycle
Areas for proactive
maintenance are selected
based on field observations,
overgrown conditions, repeat
service requests, or known
maintenance needs. Crews
also address nearby trees
when appropriate while
responding to individual work
requests.
Implement
standardized
maintenance cycles
for young trees and
routine pruning,
respectively.
* = complete = ongoing
Bozeman’s 2026 UFMP is organized around six primary goals which are supported by the 2026
tree inventory analysis, community and stakeholder engagement, internal City staff interviews
and feedback, and current industry standards.
27
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 10
Manage the Urban Forest as Essential Infrastructure: Manage Bozeman’s urban forest
as a core public infrastructure system through accurate data, coordinated operations,
sustainable funding, and consistent implementation tracking.
Maintain Safe, Healthy, and High-Performing Public Trees: Strengthen proactive risk-
based maintenance to improve public safety, extend tree lifespan, reduce long-term costs,
and help Bozeman’s young tree population mature into future canopy.
Grow a Diverse and Climate-Resilient Canopy: Increase the citywide canopy toward a
realistic 20-year target while improving species diversity, climate adaptability, tree survival,
and equitable access to canopy benefits.
Integrate Trees into Development, Infrastructure, and Water-Conscious Site Design:
Ensure trees are planned, planted, protected, and maintained as part of Bozeman’s
growth, capital projects, streetscapes, parks, stormwater systems, and private
development.
Prepare for Pests, Climate Stress, and Disaster Events: Build a proactive
preparedness framework for emerald ash borer, secondary pests and diseases, drought,
wildfire, severe weather, and other disturbances that could affect Bozeman’s canopy,
public safety, and maintenance capacity.
Build Community Stewardship and Shared Responsibility: Expand public education,
partnerships, volunteer programs, and private property support so residents, businesses,
institutions, and community organizations actively participate in sustaining Bozeman’s
urban forest.
28
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 11
WHY URBAN TREES?
Urban forests are crucial to enhancing urban life, offering aesthetic beauty, improved property
values, and community health benefits. They provide essential environmental services like air
purification, stormwater mitigation, cooling shade, and biodiversity support. Economically, trees
increase property values and lower energy costs, while socially, they offer recreational spaces,
boost mental health, and encourage active lifestyles (Figure 3). Bozeman’s UFMP emphasizes
sustaining these benefits. Recognizing urban forests as part of essential green infrastructure,
municipalities invest in urban forestry to create livable communities. As cities expand, enhancing
green infrastructure such as parks, woodlands, and natural areas is vital for maintaining clean air,
water, and overall quality of life. Unlike traditional infrastructure, green infrastructure gains value
and enhances environmental services over time, positioning open spaces and parks as
community necessities.
Decades of research have demonstrated the many environmental benefits of urban forests,
providing valuable guidance for city planners, managers, and advocates. This data supports the
integration of trees into infrastructure, helps address equity gaps, and communicates their value
to the public.
Figure 3. Benefits and services of urban trees
29
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 12
The benefit estimates detailed in Figure 3 were generated using standardized urban forestry
models. While they represent potential ecosystem services, actual outcomes vary by species,
health, site conditions, and local constraints. For example, street trees growing in constrained
spaces with limited soil volume may offer reduced benefits compared to model assumptions. Still,
Bozeman’s street trees play a vital role in sustainability, public health, and urban resilience serving
as essential green infrastructure for the future.
A 2026 tree canopy assessment found that 9.8% of land within Bozeman’s City limits,
approximately 1,302 acres or two square miles, is covered by tree canopy. Complementing the
canopy analysis, a 2026 public tree inventory analysis evaluated the composition and structure
of all publicly managed trees, providing the data needed to quantify the ecosystem services
delivered by Bozeman’s urban forest.
Trees—whether shade, flowering, fruit-bearing, or those with vibrant fall colors—offer diverse
benefits to the urban ecosystem by enhancing tree canopies, parks, and green spaces. While
many environmental benefits are measurable, others are experiential, like the tranquility of a tree-
lined trail.
Bozeman’s urban forest provides numerous social and health benefits. Park and boulevard trees
foster community engagement and a sense of belonging, offering spaces for social activities and
relaxation away from city life’s hustle. Research indicates that urban greenery reduces stress,
improves mental well-being, and promotes physical activity, leading to healthier, happier
communities.
Bozeman’s urban forest significantly
enhances social interactions, well-being,
health, and community engagement,
contributing to a more livable city. Studies
link trees and vegetation in parks to
increased neighborhood safety and social
activity, strengthening social ties among
residents (Kim et al., 2020). Additionally,
Bozeman’s urban forest encourages
environmental education and
volunteering, inspiring residents to learn
about nature, participate in tree planting,
and engage in environmental
stewardship.
Nature encounters in urban areas improve
attitudes, reduce stress, enhance
attention, and boost cognitive
performance (Wolf et al., 2020). Tree
canopies and green spaces encourage
physical activity, with higher green space
percentages near homes correlating with better reported health, especially among the elderly and
lower socioeconomic groups (Ulmer et al., 2016). Residents in greener areas are three times
more likely to be physically active. Urban nature exposure, such as viewing trees from windows
or walking in tree-lined areas, is vital for mental well-being, increasing happiness and reducing
30
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 13
stress (White et al., 2013). Tree cover near schools improves student performance, with children
showing better focus after walks in green areas compared to non-green urban settings (Taylor et
al., 2009).
Trees and green spaces are associated with increased longevity, reduced cancer and heart
disease risk, lower anxiety and depression, enhanced immune function, and reduced stress
hormones. A 2016 study found a 12% lower mortality rate among those with significant greenery
near their homes (James et al., 2016). Additionally, hospital patients with nature views had shorter
stays than those with views of buildings (Mihandoust et al., 2021).
BOZEMAN’S URBAN FOREST
It is critical for Bozeman’s environment, economy, and community well-being that the City act now
to sustainably manage the urban forest. The City has a Community Plan for how Bozeman will
grow and change with development. Just as important, Bozeman’s Climate Plan lays the
foundation and precedent for sustainable management of the City and its assets in the face of
climate change. This UFMP supports and builds on the goals and policies of these plans and
supplements those with vital analyses, studies, metrics, and strategies relating to the City’s
natural environment and specifically, the urban forest.
Bozeman’s UFMP provides the roadmap with goals and supporting recommendations to manage,
grow, preserve, and strengthen the urban forest through invigorated partnerships that align with
City and community priorities. The next section of the Plan, “What Do We Have?”, is an overview
of the current state of Bozeman’s urban forest and will serve as a baseline to measure future
progress. Following the current state of the urban forest is an overview of Bozeman’s priorities for
the urban forest, “What Do We Want?”, identified through community and stakeholder input which
informed the Plan’s goals, strategies, and priority actions. The “How Do We Get There?” section
details the implementation guidelines, and the “How Are We Doing?” section and supporting
resources in the appendices provide additional information and studies to support adaptive
management and monitoring of the UFMP.
Let’s begin by exploring Bozeman’s urban forest.
31
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 14
TREE INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 4. Types of trees
When the term infrastructure is used, roads, bridges, power lines, and storm drains are oftentimes
most recognized. In addition to these staples of city infrastructure, trees lining streets and shading
parks and in backyards are to be included. These trees, collectively known as the urban forest,
provide essential benefits that help Bozeman function (Figure 4). Services generated by trees in
Bozeman provide immense value to the City. Like other city infrastructure, urban trees require
management and maintenance to succeed.
The urban forest is comprised of trees across all city landscapes including streetscapes, parks
and open space, trail and waterway corridors, commercial and residential properties, and others.
While the Plan primarily addresses public trees, trees across all ownership types and the care of
these trees contribute to overall urban forest health, sustainability, and associated benefits. To
present an analysis of the current conditions of Bozeman’s urban forest, tree populations in these
landscapes are characterized by the type of setting and land ownership type (public or private)
and the responsibility for maintenance (City, property owner, or other). Public trees are comprised
of trees along streetscapes, in medians, parks, open space, and natural areas on City-owned
land. The City is primarily responsible for the maintenance of these trees and analyses in the
UFMP focus on the public trees. In the following section, analyses are first summarized for the
public tree population, and private trees are then incorporated into the summary by describing the
citywide urban tree canopy cover.
32
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 15
TREE INVENTORY OVERVIEW
Bozeman’s urban forest is a diverse ecosystem of young and mature trees across various
species, each contributing unique functions and benefits. Cultivating a resilient and diverse urban
forest requires a thorough understanding and management of this tree population. In 2026, an
extensive inventory analysis
reviewed 28,459 trees on public
property.
The inventory collected data to inform
the current structure, characteristics,
and maintenance needs of
Bozeman’s urban forest, guiding
actionable recommendations in this
Plan. It is important to note that this
analysis, conducted in 2026, reflects
a snapshot in time. As tree conditions
are dynamic, ongoing maintenance
and natural changes may have
altered tree condition, size, or
maintenance needs since then.
Additional summaries and analyses
from the 2026 public tree inventory
are provided in a separate report, which includes recommendations for the strategic stewardship
of Bozeman’s urban forest. This Plan centers on City-managed public trees under City jurisdiction,
presenting data on tree composition, structure, and maintenance needs. The insights gained from
this data were integral in shaping the strategies outlined for the sustainable management of
Bozeman’s urban forest.
PUBLIC INVENTORIED TREE POPULATION
Urban forest structure describes the tree population in the City in terms of number of trees (Table
2), species composition, and age and size class and distribution. These summaries assist the
Forestry Division in proper management and planting to facilitate a durable canopy with benefits
distributed throughout the City.
Table 2. Status and count of public trees in the inventory database
Tree Status Count
Alive 23,451
Dead 235
Unknown 4,773
Total Data Points: 28,459
Figure 5. Inventory technician measuring tree diameter
33
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 16
SPECIES DIVERSITY
Species composition data
are essential since the
types of trees present
throughout the City dictate
the amount and type of
benefits produced, tree
maintenance activities
required, budget
considerations, and
influences species
selection for future
plantings.
The 28,459 publicly
managed trees identified in
the inventory consist of 46
unique genera and
approximately 110 different
species and cultivar
classifications (Figure 6).
Of the 46 unique genera,
ash (Fraxinus spp.) comprises the highest amount with 6,376 trees (22%), maple (Acer spp.) with
4,728 trees (17%), and linden (Tilia spp.) with 3,061 trees (11%). Among the approximately 110
unique tree species, green
ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) represents the largest portion, making up 22% (6,165 trees) of the total tree
population. This is followed by littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata) at 7% (2,080 trees) and honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos) at 6% (1,597 trees). The top ten most prevalent species comprise 62% of
the total publicly managed inventoried tree population, indicating a lack of healthy species
diversity. The remaining 38% is composed of other species that are primarily crabapple, Japanese
tree lilac, bur oak, Englemann spruce, and Freeman maple, each with at least 600 trees or more.
SIZE AND RELATIVE AGE DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of public tree ages and size classes influences the structure of the citywide urban
forest and impacts present and future management costs. An unevenly aged urban forest offers
continued flow of ecological benefits and a more uniform workflow allowing managers to more
accurately allocate annual maintenance schedules and budgets.
To optimize the value and benefits of Bozeman’s trees, the urban forest should have a high
percentage of large canopy trees which provide greater ecosystem benefits. On the other hand,
there must be a suitable number of younger, smaller trees in the urban forest to account for and
eventually replace large and mature trees in decline. Having a healthy percentage of young trees
in the urban forest will ensure a sustainable tree population as well as age distribution in future
Figure 6. Composition of public trees by common name
Green ash, 22%
Littleleaf
linden, 7%
Norway maple,
5%
American
elm, 5%
Chokecherry,
4%
Colorado
spruce, 4%
American
linden, 3%
Quaking aspen,
3%
Red maple, 3%
All Others, 38%
34
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 17
years. To compare Bozeman’s urban forest structure to industry-recommended standards, the
“ideal distribution” is used (McPherson et. al, 2011).
Bozeman’s diameter at standard height (DSH) distribution indicates an urban forest that is
younger than an ideal sustainable structure (Figure 7). Young trees (0–6 inches DSH) comprise
59% of the population, exceeding the recommended target of approximately 40%, which suggests
a strong presence of recent plantings but a limited proportion of established canopy. The 6–12-
inch size class (18%) and mid-sized trees (12–18 inches; 9%) are both below ideal levels,
indicating a gap in the transitional size classes needed to develop future mature canopy. Large
trees (18 inches and greater) are also slightly below recommended levels, limiting the full
realization of ecosystem services typically provided by mature trees. This structure highlights the
importance of proactive management to support young trees through establishment and maturity,
ensuring long-term canopy continuity. It is also important to note that this inventory represents a
subset of the City’s total urban forest, and while it provides valuable insight into structural trends
within the public tree population, it may not fully represent the size and age distribution across the
entire citywide canopy. The average DSH of 7.6 inches further reflects the predominance of
younger trees, though the inventory includes very large specimens, with the largest recorded tree
measuring 144 inches in diameter. As a rapidly growing City expanding into unforested areas,
this distribution is explicable and likely to continue.
CONDITION
Tree characteristics and environmental factors affect the management needs for urban trees. An
analysis of the condition can provide an indicator of how well trees are managed and how they
are performing given site-specific conditions. Understanding current and changing conditions
plays an important role in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation. Tree maintenance needs
are assigned for public safety reasons and by tracking these needs, managers are better able to
plan and manage Bozeman’s public trees and the citywide urban forest.
59%
18%
9%8%5%1%
40%
25%
15%
10%
6%4%
0-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in
City Distribution Ideal Distribution
YOUNG ESTABLISHED MATURING
Figure 7. Public tree diameter at standard height distribution compared to the ideal distribution
(Richards, 1993)
35
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 18
The public tree inventory was analyzed to identify potential trends in tree condition and the
management recommendations to improve condition or minimize the deterioration of tree
condition. Each inventoried tree’s health was evaluated by ISA Certified Arborists based on the
condition of the wood and the foliage as well as the structure.
Most trees are in good functional condition, with 2% (464 trees) rated Excellent, 44% (12,619
trees) rated Good, and 29% (8,331 trees) rated Fair. Overall, these results indicate that
Bozeman’s public tree population is generally healthy and capable of providing substantial
ecosystem and community benefits. A smaller portion of the population requires closer monitoring
or management attention. Approximately 5% (1,491 trees) were rated Poor and 2% (546 trees)
were rated Very Poor, indicating structural, health, or site-related issues that may reduce longevity
or increase maintenance needs. These trees should be further evaluated to determine appropriate
mitigation measures such as pruning, treatment, or removal. An additional 1% (235 trees) were
classified as Dead. While these trees no longer provide the same level of ecological services as
living trees, some may be intentionally retained as wildlife habitat where appropriate, while others
should be removed to reduce potential risk. It is important to note that 17% of inventoried trees
(4,773) were recorded with an Unknown condition rating. These trees should be assessed and
updated as soon as possible to improve the accuracy of the City’s tree inventory. Trees with
unknown condition ratings were excluded from several key analyses, which may influence
ecosystem service estimates and performance index calculations.
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX
In addition to understanding the overall condition of the public tree population to inform
management strategies, an analysis of performance was also conducted for the ten most
prevalent tree species using the Relative Performance Index (RPI) approach.
RPI is a comparison of a species’ condition rating of “Good” and the tree population’s “Good”
rating. Using the percent of “Good” trees for a given species divided by the tree population
percentage of “Good” trees gives a value of equal to 1, less than 1, or greater than 1. A value
equal to 1 means the particular species is as healthy as the overall tree population. A value less
than 1 means the species is not as healthy as the overall tree population. A value greater than 1
means the species is healthier than the overall tree population. RPI answers the question of how
well a species is performing in terms of health compared to the entire inventoried population.
For the inventoried tree population, littleleaf linden, chokecherry, Colorado spruce, American
linden, quaking aspen, and red maple are performing above the overall population average, while
honeylocust is performing at the population average. In contrast, green ash, Norway maple, and
American elm are underperforming and are in the poorest condition of the top ten most prevalent
tree species (Figure 8).
36
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 19
Figure 8. Relative performance index
MAINTENANCE NEEDS
Tree maintenance needs within Bozeman’s public tree inventory were evaluated using the CAL
FIRE Urban Forestry Maintenance Standards, a widely recognized framework for prioritizing tree
care and risk mitigation. Under this system, trees are typically assigned to maintenance
categories such as removals, priority pruning (e.g., high, medium, or low priority), young tree
training, and routine pruning. These classifications help urban forest managers systematically
prioritize maintenance activities, allocate resources efficiently, and address public safety
concerns while promoting long-term tree health.
Due to limited maintenance and risk data in the current inventory, full application of these
standards was not possible. Based on the available data, a preliminary classification indicates
that most of Bozeman’s public trees require routine, non-urgent maintenance. Approximately 59%
of the inventoried population falls within the Small Tree Routine Pruning category, 40% falls within
the Large Tree Routine Pruning category, and approximately 1% falls within the Routine Removal
category. This suggests a generally healthy urban forest where ongoing structural and cyclical
pruning, rather than emergency mitigation, represents the primary maintenance need.
Because key maintenance and risk data were not consistently collected, trees could not be
assigned to additional priority categories such as Priority 1 removals, Priority 1 pruning, Priority 2
removals or pruning, or Young Tree Training. Collecting these data during future inventory
updates and routine inspections will allow the City to more fully implement a risk-based
maintenance program, improve workload forecasting, and more accurately project long-term
maintenance costs.
Green Ash
0.70
Littleleaf Linden
1.25
Honeylocust
1.00
Norway Maple
0.89 American Elm
0.86
Chokecherry
1.14
Colorado Spruce
1.39
American Linden
1.02
Quaking Aspen
1.01
Red Maple
1.09
37
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 20
SUMMARY OF TREE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
Understanding the extent, structure, condition, characteristics, and maintenance needs of public
trees enables Bozeman’s team to effectively budget, plan, and address maintenance and planting
needs in a sustainable, safe, and equitable manner. It is essential that the City maintain the data
and routinely update the inventory.
Challenges such as pests and diseases, invasive plant species, climate change, and other threats
to the urban forest can be addressed for private trees by providing resources, education, training,
and other support to property owners to support growing a sustainable and resilient urban forest.
As stated at the beginning of this section, additional summaries and analyses of the public tree
inventory are provided in a separate report, Tree Inventory Summary Report February 2026.
TREE CANOPY
An assessment of tree canopy cover provides the data needed to understand where canopy
exists, where canopy is lacking, and where future planting and preservation can provide the
greatest benefit. Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessments help communities develop goals and
strategies related to tree planting, tree preservation, equity, climate resilience, stormwater
management, public health, and long-term urban forest investment.
For Bozeman, canopy planning must be understood within the City’s local environmental context.
Much of the Gallatin Valley historically supported limited native tree cover outside of riparian
corridors and waterways. As a result, Bozeman’s urban forest is largely an intentionally planted
and maintained community asset rather than a naturally occurring forest system. Sustaining and
expanding canopy will require continued investment in tree planting, establishment care,
maintenance, preservation, species diversification, and replacement.
The canopy assessment completed for this UFMP evaluated existing canopy cover, land cover
composition, planting opportunity, ecosystem benefits, canopy equity, climate considerations, and
future canopy goal scenarios. Because canopy models use different data sources, imagery,
boundaries, and classification methods, the assessment reviewed multiple tools to establish a
defensible planning baseline. The results should be used with the tree inventory, vulnerability
assessment, and EAB Management Plan to guide long-term canopy management, policy
development, public communication, and implementation tracking.
URBAN TREE CANOPY FINDINGS
The Bozeman Tree Canopy Assessment and Goal Setting Report used four tools to evaluate
canopy conditions: i-Tree Landscape, i-Tree Canopy, Tree Equity Score, and the National Canopy
App. These tools produced canopy estimates ranging from approximately 7.2% to 13.5%. For
UFMP planning purposes, Bozeman’s current canopy is best understood as approximately 10%
to 12%, with the National Canopy App estimate of 9.8% recommended as the technical baseline
for future tracking.
Bozeman’s canopy level is generally consistent with semi-arid Intermountain West communities,
where climate, water availability, soils, and historic land cover limit the level of canopy that may
be realistic compared to wetter or naturally forested regions. The assessment identified
substantial theoretical planting opportunity, with approximately 62% of the City classified as
plantable space. However, actual canopy expansion will depend on site suitability, water
38
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 21
availability, soil volume, utility conflicts, development patterns, funding, staffing, and long-term
maintenance capacity.
Recent canopy trends indicate that Bozeman is gaining some canopy through tree maturation
and planting, but these gains are being offset in some areas by development and land conversion.
The National Canopy App analysis found canopy increased from approximately 8.2% in 2017 to
9.8% in 2021, while impervious cover and development pressures remain important constraints
on future canopy growth.
Canopy benefits are not evenly distributed across Bozeman. Priority planting analysis indicates
that future investments should focus on areas where low canopy, high urban heat, vulnerable
populations, and available planting space overlap. The National Canopy App provides block
group-level prioritization, while the Tree Equity Score tool provides a complementary equity lens
for public communication, grant narratives, and comparison with other communities.
The canopy assessment also confirms that existing trees are critical to future canopy stability.
Growth of existing public and private trees is expected to offset a substantial portion of projected
canopy losses over the next 20 years, meaning tree preservation and proactive maintenance are
as important as new planting. This is especially relevant as Bozeman prepares for long-term risks
from EAB, development, drought, heat, wildfire exposure, and other climate-related stressors.
The assessment shows that Bozeman has meaningful room to grow canopy, but planting space
alone does not guarantee canopy expansion. Successful implementation will require protection
of planting sites during development, appropriate species selection, adequate soil volume, water-
efficient establishment practices, long-term maintenance, and participation from both public and
private partners.
Citywide Tree Canopy Benefits
The citywide tree canopy, covering both public and private lands, provides an estimated
annual ecosystem benefit of $626,552 through improved air quality and reduced
stormwater volumes. Specifically, Bozeman’s 1,302 acres of tree canopy capture 86,350
pounds of pollutants annually, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, fine and
coarse particulates, and sulfur dioxide (Table 3).
Table 3. Common pollutants captured by Bozeman's urban forest
Pollutant Quantity (lb)
Carbon monoxide 452
Nitrogen Dioxide 1,753
Ozone 48,417
Fine particulates (PM2.5) 1,743
Coarse particulates (PM10) 27,661
Sulfur dioxide 6,323
The USDA Forest Service’s i-Tree research estimates this pollution removal is valued at
approximately $190,556 annually. Additionally, Bozeman’s trees can absorb about 85.7 million
gallons of stormwater each year, valued at $118,996, and sequester 14.65 million pounds of
carbon, valued at $316,960. Future updates to the 2026 tree canopy assessment should include
further ecosystem benefit calculations and analyses of changes in canopy cover and associated
benefits.
39
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 22
Public Tree Benefits
The inventory of 28,459 publicly managed trees in Bozeman shows these trees provide annual
benefits totaling $95,500 (Figure 9). They capture over 4,054 pounds of air pollutants, sequester
117,700 pounds of carbon, and can prevent more than 1,192,000 gallons of runoff each year. The
replacement value of Bozeman’s public tree population is estimated at $29.1 million, with a carbon
storage value of $1.62 million for the 3,747 tons of carbon stored. On average, the replacement
value and cumulative benefits amount to $1,079 per tree and $522 per capita (based on the 2025
40
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 23
population). Proper management can increase these values, while declining tree health and cover
can reduce them.
Figure 9. Estimated annual benefits of Bozeman's urban forest
41
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 24
Tree Canopy Equity
Tree canopy is often not distributed equitably across city landscapes and ownership types. The
American Forests organization created the Tree Equity Score (www.treeequityscore.org) tool to
measure tree equity across 150,000 U.S. neighborhoods and 486 municipalities in urban areas.
Each community’s Tree Equity Score indicates whether there are enough trees for everyone to
experience the health, economic, and climate benefits that trees provide.
Tree Equity Scores are based on how tree canopy and surface temperature align with income,
employment, race, age, and health factors. A 0-to-100-point system makes the results easy to
understand, with a score of 100 representing tree equity. It is important to note that the Tree
Equity data used in the following charts relies on American Forests’ canopy estimate of 13.5%,
which differs from the UFMP’s technical canopy baseline of 9.8% used for canopy goal setting
and long-term tracking. Because these datasets use different methods and source data, the Tree
Equity results should be used to understand relative canopy distribution and equity patterns, while
the UFMP canopy baseline should be used to measure progress toward Bozeman’s canopy
goals.
Based on the 2026 analysis, Bozeman’s overall Tree Equity Score is 72 out of 100. This score
can help community leaders, tree advocates, and residents consider climate change, public
health, and urban forestry investment through the lens of social equity. It can also help guide
UFMP implementation, support resource allocation, inform technical decisions, and track
progress toward more equitable access to the benefits of trees.
42
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 25
Figure 10 illustrates Tree Equity Scores across Bozeman’s 39 Census Block Groups (CBGs),
revealing generally strong canopy distribution with opportunities for targeted improvement. Two
CBGs achieved a perfect score of 100, while three CBGs scored between 90 and 99, indicating
high levels of canopy coverage and equitable access to tree benefits. Seven CBGs scored
between 80 and 89, further reflecting relatively strong performance. However, 22 CBGs fall below
the commonly recommended Tree Equity Score threshold of 75, including seven of the twelve
CBGs scoring between 70 and 79 and 15 scoring between 0 and 69. These lower-scoring areas
represent important opportunities for Bozeman to prioritize future planting, preservation, and
community investment efforts to improve equitable access to the environmental, economic, and
public health benefits provided by trees. Compared to 10 peer cities used in the regional
Figure 10. Bozeman's tree equity score map
43
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 26
benchmarking analysis, Bozeman’s Tree Equity Score of 72 ranks slightly below the average
score of 78 (Figure 12, Figure 11).
Bozeman’s Tree Equity analysis identifies several important relationships between tree canopy
distribution and socioeconomic, environmental, and public health indicators across CBGs.
Overall, canopy is present throughout much of the community, but the data show that tree benefits
are not evenly distributed. These patterns can help guide future planting, preservation, outreach,
and investment toward areas where additional canopy can provide the greatest community
benefit.
The relationship between canopy distribution and poverty level shows that neighborhoods with
higher poverty rates have, on average, approximately 1.4 times less tree canopy than
neighborhoods with lower poverty rates (Figure 13). This suggests that residents in higher-poverty
areas may have less access to the shade, cooling, stormwater, air quality, and quality-of-life
benefits provided by trees.
38%, 15 CBGs
31%, 12 CBGs
18%, 7 CBGs
8%, 3 CBGs
5%, 2 CBGs
0-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100
Tree Equity Score Ranges
64
71 72 75 79 82 85 89 85
77
Butte-Silver
Bow, MT
Kalispell,
MT
Bozeman,
MT
Missoula,
MT
Great Falls,
MT
Billings, MT Manhattan,
KS
Logan. UT Boulder, CO Bend, OR
Figure 12. Tree equity scores by census block groups
Figure 11. Tree equity score compared to benchmarking city scores
44
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 27
The relationship between canopy distribution and race and ethnicity also shows a measurable
disparity. Neighborhoods with higher percentages of people of color have, on average,
approximately 1.6 times less tree canopy than neighborhoods with higher percentages of people
of color (Figure 14). While Bozeman’s overall demographic composition differs from many larger
cities, this finding indicates that future canopy investments should consider how tree benefits are
distributed across the community and prioritize areas where canopy access is lower.
Figure 14. Comparing tree canopy cover (13.5%) and people of color population (Source: American
Forests Tree Equity Score analysis)
The strongest relationship is between canopy and heat exposure. Cooler neighborhoods have,
on average, approximately 1.9 times more tree canopy than hotter neighborhoods (Figure 15).
This reinforces the role of trees as important climate infrastructure, particularly in developed areas
with higher impervious surface cover, lower shade, and greater exposure to summer heat. As
Bozeman experiences more frequent high-temperature days, strategically increasing canopy in
hotter areas will be important for improving thermal comfort and climate resilience.
8 CBGs, 15.90%8 CBGs, 16.10%
7 CBGs, 11.40%8CBGs, 11.90%8 CBGs, 11.00%
0-20th percentile 20-40th percentile 40-60th percentile 60-80th percentile 80-100th percentile
% of People in Poverty
Canopy Cover by % of People in Poverty Bozeman Canopy Cover Average
8 CBGs, 16.10%
8 CBGs, 14.20%7 CBGs, 12.80%
8 CBGs, 14.70%
8 CBGs, 10.40%
0-20th percentile 20-40th percentile 40-60th percentile 60-80th percentile 80-100th percentile
Canopy Cover by % of People of Color Bozeman Canopy Cover Average
Figure 13. Comparing tree canopy cover (13.5%) and poverty populations (Source: American
Forests Tree Equity Score analysis)
45
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 28
Figure 15. Comparing tree canopy cover (13.5%) and temperature range (Source: American Forests
Tree Equity Score analysis)
The relationship between canopy and health burden is less pronounced. Neighborhoods with
lower health burden scores have, on average, slightly less canopy than neighborhoods with higher
health burdens (Figure 16). This suggests that health burden alone may not be the strongest
predictor of canopy distribution in Bozeman. However, health indicators should still be considered
alongside heat exposure, poverty, planting opportunity, and existing canopy when prioritizing
future investments.
Figure 16. Comparing tree canopy cover (13.5%) and health burden (Source: American Forests Tree
Equity Score analysis)
Together, these findings indicate that Bozeman should use an equity-informed approach to
canopy expansion. Future planting and preservation efforts should prioritize areas where low
canopy overlaps with higher heat exposure, higher poverty, greater concentrations of people of
color, and available planting space. Targeting investments in these areas can help ensure that
4 CBGs, 27%
11 CBGs, 13%21 CBGs, 11%
3 CBGs, 14%
0 CBGs, 0%
<-5°-5° to 0°0° to +5°+5° to +10°>+10°
Canopy Cover by Temperature Range Bozeman Canopy Cover Average
10 CBGs, 10.8%
6 CBGs, 18.5%
9 CBGs, 21.8%
6 CBGs, 12.2%8 CBGs, 11.9%
0-20th percentile 20-40th percentile 40-60th percentile 60-80th percentile 80-100th percentile
Canopy Cover by Health Burden Bozeman Canopy Cover Average
46
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 29
the environmental, economic, and public health benefits of Bozeman’s urban forest are distributed
more equitably across the community.
47
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 30
WHAT DO WE
HAVE?
48
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 31
MANAGEMENT OF BOZEMAN’S URBAN FOREST
CURRENT TREE MANAGEMENT
The City of Bozeman manages its urban forest through a range of policies, regulations, and
programs. Various City departments contribute expertise, resources, and perspectives to support
effective urban forest planning and management.
Bozeman’s 32-year Tree City USA designation, with seven years of Growth Awards, reflects a
sustained commitment to urban forest management and community stewardship. While some
communities in Montana have only recently achieved recognition and others have maintained the
designation for several decades, Bozeman’s long history as a Tree City USA community
demonstrates an established program with opportunities for continued advancement and
innovation.
PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING BOZMAN’S TREES
The City of Bozeman has developed a formal urban forestry program over several decades,
supported by dedicated funding, staff capacity, tree inventory data, and ongoing maintenance
operations. Tree management in Bozeman has evolved from a primarily maintenance-based
function into a more comprehensive urban forestry program that includes public tree care,
inventory management, development review support, community education, volunteer planting
events, interdepartmental coordination, and long-term urban forest planning.
A key milestone occurred in 1996 with the establishment of the Tree Maintenance District, which
created dedicated Forestry funding through a Special Assessment Tax. In 2012, the Forestry
Division moved from Streets Maintenance to the Parks and Recreation Department, reflecting the
growing role of urban forestry as part of Bozeman’s parks, public spaces, and community
infrastructure. The City completed its first Urban Forest Management Plan in 2016, hired its first
City Forester in 2017, and completed a tree inventory in 2018. The inventory has continued to be
updated and now serves as a central tool for public tree management, maintenance tracking, and
planning.
The Forestry Division is responsible for maintaining City-owned trees, including trees in parks,
rights-of-way, and other public spaces. The Division also supports public outreach and education,
collaborates with other City departments, and works with local stakeholders to advance urban
forest stewardship. As Bozeman continues to grow, the Forestry Division’s workload has
increased, including higher demand for tree maintenance, development review support, volunteer
planting events, public inquiries, and emergency response.
Tree-related responsibilities are shared across several City departments. Community
Development is responsible for creating and enforcing development code requirements,
reviewing and approving site plans, and reviewing building permits. The Development Review
Committee reviews plans during the development process and coordinates the acceptance of
new parks and associated trees and infrastructure. The Forestry Division Manager provides tree
maintenance expertise, reviews tree-related issues, supports development reviews where
needed, and coordinates with divisions such as Planning and Water Conservation. Parks
maintenance staff assist with non-specialized tree work, including limited pruning and small
removals that do not require climbing or aerial lift operations. The Streets Division also provides
substantial support during emergency storm response when needed.
49
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 32
As the City moves forward with implementing this updated UFMP, these departments will continue
to collaborate, ensuring that tree management aligns with broader environmental, recreational,
and development goals to sustain and enhance Bozeman’s urban forest.
STAFFING AND EQUIPMENT
Many cities face challenges in maintaining adequate staffing and resources for urban forest
management. While available funding may address immediate needs, long-term initiatives critical
to sustaining the urban forest are often overlooked. Determining and maintaining optimal staffing
levels is essential for program efficiency and depends on several factors, including the number of
public trees, municipal code responsibilities, internal and external expectations, public service
requests, and operational demands. Understaffed programs often struggle with excessive
overtime, low morale, absenteeism, employee burnout, and difficulties in training and relief
coverage.
Bozeman’s Forestry Division includes one Forestry Division Manager, four full-time employees,
one seasonal employee from approximately April through October, and three short-term workers
for approximately 90 days during the summer. In total, up to nine staff members are involved in
Forestry Division operations during the peak season.
Forestry staff are responsible for the majority of public tree maintenance in the City, including
work on park trees, street trees, and other City-owned trees. The Division also supports public
requests, inventory updates, planting, removals, pruning, emergency response, and coordination
with other City departments. While Forestry leads specialized tree work, other departments
provide support when appropriate. Parks maintenance staff assist with non-specialized tree
maintenance, and the Streets Division assists during major storm events or emergency response
operations.
The Forestry Division maintains a practical equipment fleet for municipal tree care, including two
bucket trucks, two chip trucks and chippers, one stump grinder, one log loader, and several
smaller pickup trucks and support vehicles. The City generally maintains a reasonable
replacement cycle for modern vehicles and equipment. Inventory and field data are managed
using iPhones and Field Maps, with tree data displayed through the City’s GIS platforms, including
GeoCortex and Dashboard.
Enhancing efficiencies and capacity within existing workloads can be achieved by clarifying roles,
responsibilities, and workflows among City departments. Periodic reviews of program structure,
staffing needs, and service levels can help streamline operations, improve communication, and
enhance workflow efficiency. Establishing a clear organizational structure with defined operating
procedures will be essential in managing increased service demands while maintaining a
sustainable and resilient urban forest.
BUDGET AND FUNDING
To inform the development of this plan, Bozeman’s urban forestry budget was benchmarked
against national and state averages, as well as comparable cities in Montana. This analysis
provides insight into how the City’s funding aligns with broader trends and highlights opportunities
for growth.
Figure 17and Figure 18 illustrate Bozeman’s total urban forestry budget and per capita spending
compared to regional, state, and national averages (Hauer, et al., 2014). The City's urban forestry
50
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 33
budget is $1,037,919, ranking third highest among nine regional municipalities of similar
population size and proximity. On a per capita basis, Bozeman allocates approximately $17.75
per resident to urban forestry. This is higher than the average of best-matched comparison cities
($12.51 per capita) and slightly higher than the national average ($17.45 per capita), but lower
than the Montana state average ($27.43 per capita).
Figure 17. Comparison of urban forestry budgets to benchmark cities (2024)
Figure 18. Comparison of urban forestry budgets per capita to best match, statewide, and national
averages (2024)
$845,188.57
$1,037,918.80
$754,444.35
$384,757.46
$94,584.81
$1,305,384.76
$936,713.00
$662,334.90
$430,000.00
$2,243,912.92
$794,564.90
$17.75
$12.51
$27.43
$17.45
Bozeman Overall Best Match Averages Statewide Averages National Averages
51
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 34
These findings provide a useful baseline for future planning and investment. Bozeman’s existing
budget supports a range of urban forestry activities, including tree maintenance, planting,
inventory management, and community engagement. As the program continues to mature and
service demands increase, additional resources may strengthen the City’s ability to expand
proactive maintenance, support new planting, respond to emerging pests and climate stressors,
and sustain long-term canopy benefits. Continued evaluation of funding needs alongside regional
and national benchmarks will help ensure Bozeman’s urban forest remains a valued and
sustainable community asset.
PUBLIC TREE MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING
Bozeman’s public tree maintenance program includes both reactive and proactive work. Reactive
requests are received through phone calls, emails, the City’s 311 system, Comcate, referrals from
City departments, and direct conversations with residents while crews are working in the field.
These requests are routed to the Forestry Division Manager or appropriate Forestry staff for
review and response.
Proactive maintenance is often organized by neighborhood or subdivision, with crews completing
boulevard tree pruning within defined service areas. These areas are selected based on field
observations, overgrown conditions, repeat service requests, or known maintenance needs.
Crews also address nearby trees when appropriate while responding to individual work requests.
Most tree work is completed in-house by Forestry staff. Contractors are used selectively for large
or complex removals, small batches of removals, occasional plant health care treatments, Dutch
elm disease or scale insect management, and limited bucket pruning. Contractor work is typically
arranged as needed with local companies available year-round, although coordination can be
challenging in areas with parked vehicles where advance notice, temporary no-parking signage,
or towing procedures are limited.
Tree work varies seasonally. Spring operations focus primarily on planting, winter emphasizes
young tree pruning, and summer includes a broader mix of watering, pruning, removals,
maintenance, and response work. The Forestry Division reports that it typically plants more than
300 trees annually, prunes approximately 2,000 to 3,000 trees per year, completes roughly 300
bucket-pruning operations, and removes approximately 300 to 500 trees annually.
Tree City USA reporting from 2022 through 2024 generally aligns with these estimates. During
that period, Bozeman planted an average of approximately 303 trees per year, pruned
approximately 1,988 trees per year, and removed approximately 303 trees per year. Planting and
removal totals were balanced over the three-year period, with 908 trees planted and 908 trees
removed. However, annual results varied, with removals exceeding plantings in 2022 and 2024
and plantings exceeding removals in 2023.
These trends indicate that Bozeman is generally replacing removed trees at a one-to-one rate,
but continued tracking will be important to ensure replacement planting keeps pace with removals,
supports canopy goals, and accounts for future losses from pests, drought, storms, and
development pressure. As the UFMP is implemented, the City should continue formalizing risk-
based maintenance priorities, improving inventory data, expanding proactive pruning cycles, and
strengthening coordination among Forestry, Parks, Public Works, Community Development, and
other departments involved in tree management.
52
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 35
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION
Bozeman’s urban forestry program is supported by a growing network of public education,
volunteer partnerships, and community stewardship efforts. The City uses a combination of
mailers, doorhangers, social media, and website content to communicate with residents about
tree care, boulevard tree responsibilities, planting, watering, mulching, and other urban forestry
topics. These materials help clarify the shared role of the City and residents in maintaining
Bozeman’s public trees.
The City’s Street Tree Guide is an important public education resource. In addition to identifying
approved tree species, the guide provides information about tree care practices and relevant City
policies. Each year, the City also distributes a “Leaf It To Us” flyer to residents, summarizing
Forestry Division and resident responsibilities for the care of boulevard trees. Doorhangers are
used to provide general tree information, newly planted tree care guidance, and watering and
mulching reminders.
Volunteer participation and partnership support have become increasingly important to
Bozeman’s urban forestry efforts. The Gallatin Watershed Council serves as the City’s primary
nonprofit partner for volunteer coordination, including tree planting, mulching, watering, and
related stewardship events. Through this partnership, Gallatin Watershed Council can coordinate
with smaller volunteer groups, local businesses, and community members to support urban
forestry projects. The organization also assists the Forestry Division with grant funding
opportunities and implementation.
This partnership has gained momentum through Branch Out Bozeman, a formalized collaboration
between the Forestry Division and Gallatin Watershed Council focused on tree planting,
stewardship, education, and community engagement. Branch Out Bozeman provides an
important framework for expanding volunteer participation, leveraging community partnerships,
and increasing public awareness of the value of trees.
Figure 19 shows that Bozeman reported 120 volunteer hours through Tree City USA in 2024. This
exceeds the average for best-matched comparison cities (54 hours) and is slightly below the
Montana statewide average (127 hours) but remains lower than the national average (285 hours).
These findings indicate that Bozeman has an active volunteer foundation and strong partnership
opportunities, while also highlighting room to expand community stewardship as the urban
forestry program continues to grow.
53
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 36
Figure 19. Comparison of volunteer hours to best match, statewide, and national averages
The City also engages the public through wood waste reuse and mulch distribution. One of the
Forestry Division’s most popular and newer services is free mulch, made from clean wood chips
generated during tree maintenance operations. Each winter, the City also accepts Christmas trees
and chips them for mulch. In some cases, logs are provided to high school wood shops or local
woodworkers for reuse. While there is public interest in firewood, the City has identified legal and
operational concerns with informal distribution. As Bozeman’s urban forest continues to grow and
mature, additional wood utilization strategies may provide opportunities to reduce waste, support
local reuse, and better integrate wood recovery into the urban forestry program.
120
54
127
285
Bozeman Overall Best Match Averages Statewide Averages National Averages
54
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 37
Overall, Bozeman’s public engagement efforts reflect a strong foundation of communication,
education, and partnership. Continued investment in outreach materials, volunteer coordination,
Branch Out Bozeman, and wood reuse opportunities will help strengthen community stewardship
and support the long-term success of the UFMP.
TREE-RELATED PLANS AND REGULATIONS IN BOZEMAN
Evaluating the alignment of existing policies and plans in Bozeman with urban forest management
elements ensures a strong connection between programs that manage the urban forest and the
initiatives that support them. Proper alignment reduces the risk of wasting resources and enables
key projects that support urban forestry goals.
Plans and ordinances cannot effectively exist in isolation. Cross-examining various plans,
documents, and codes brings to light any projects or initiatives that misplace resources or create
conflicting priorities. The information discovery process reviewed and indexed documents, plans,
and codes to develop an aligned UFMP.
Relevant Plans and Studies
Bozeman has a robust Community Development Department that oversees many of the City’s
planning efforts. Additional departments like Parks and Recreation and Strategic Services provide
actionable plans that are directly or indirectly related to the management of the urban forest.
Twenty-eight local documents, plans, and resources were gathered and reviewed to support the
development of this updated Plan. The following planning documents are directly relevant to the
55
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 38
UFMP’s goals and should be considered concurrently when making decisions regarding the
sustainable management of Bozeman’s urban forest.
Bozeman Community Plan: The community plan is a policy document guiding further
growth and community development in Bozeman, setting forth Bozeman’s policy for land
use and development. Tree planting and tree protection are integral parts of this process
and should be considered alongside new development and redevelopment within
Bozeman City limits.
Bozeman Health Subarea Plan: This amendment to the Bozeman Community Plan
covers approximately 500 acres of land on the eastern edge of Bozeman. This area is
owned and managed by Bozeman Health with the goal of responsible stewardship of the
land while upholding their mission to improve community health and quality of life. Future
land use planning and private development in this area will benefit from several
processes identified in this Plan for encouraging private tree retention and planting;
aligning design standards with canopy, diversity, and climate goals; and coordinating
tree planning with capital and infrastructure projects.
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan: This plan serves as a neighborhood plan for
the City, reinforcing ideas of the citywide Community Plan and building on its growth and
projection assumptions. New street trees are one of several ways that the Downtown
area has extended streetscape improvements. Trees provide shade, reduce heat island
effects, and reduce the visual scale of the street to reduce vehicle speeds. Proper
management of trees, especially during redevelopment, is essential to maintaining the
overall characteristic of the Downtown area.
Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan: This plan covers an area of approximately 106
acres, of which 61 acres are within Bozeman City limits and 45 acres are in
unincorporated Gallatin County. Integration of goals identified in this UFMP will help the
City responsibly expand the development of this neighborhood within the 61 acres within
the City of Bozeman to ensure that individual trees are protected while the overall tree
canopy is aligned with the goals for sustainably building and maintaining Bozeman’s
urban forest.
Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District: This plan prioritizes conservation of neighborhood
character and preservation of historic properties. Design guidelines for properties include
street trees and traditional landscaping as elements to preserve historic character of a
neighborhood. Alignment with the UFMP will ensure current industry standards are
applied when protecting trees during redevelopment as well as identify appropriate
species for planting efforts when mature trees require replacement due to age, structural
deficiencies, or storm damage.
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation and Active Transportation Plan: This plan
identified a vision and realistic, actionable goals for the City’s parks, trails, and recreation
facilities. The Forestry Division, with support from the Parks Division, manages trees in
City parks. Goals to create safe and enjoyable places to recreate, steward and sustain
natural resources, like trees, across parks and trails systems, and grow staff and
capacity to benefit the community directly align with goals identified in this Plan. Synergy
between these two plans and Parks and Forestry Division staff will support successful
management of the City’s recreation areas and open spaces and the trees that live
there.
56
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 39
Transportation Master Plan: This plan serves as a comprehensive guide for the
development of and investment in Bozeman’s transportation systems. A well-planned
transportation system can make the difference between successful growth and good
quality of life, of which trees play a large component. A thoughtful and integrated
approach to tree planning associated with transportation infrastructure updates,
improvements, or expansions should be proactively included in future development to
align the goals of this Plan with the successful development of Bozeman’s expanded
transportation infrastructure. This includes considerations for tree protection during
construction, retention of large, healthy trees, incorporation of planting plans specific to
Bozeman-preferred tree species, and ongoing outreach to the community for feedback
and input.
Bozeman Climate Plan: The climate plan provides a vision and guiding principles to
help ensure relevance throughout Bozeman’s 30-year journey to carbon neutrality.
Resiliency goals like conserving natural resources, strengthening infrastructure to
withstand natural hazards, and increasing social cohesion align with the goals of this
Plan. Trees are vital infrastructure in Bozeman and proper management of the urban
forest will aid Bozeman in its goals for climate resiliency through appropriate species
selection, routine maintenance, and planting considerations for a changing climate.
State of Montana EAB Response and Readiness Plan: While not a Bozeman-specific
plan, EAB response and readiness at the state level is vital to Bozeman’s success at
preparing for the arrival of EAB. The plan was developed in 2025 by Montana
Department of Natural Resources & Conservation, Montana Invasive Species Council,
Montana State University Extension, and Montana Department of Agriculture. The
primary function of the plan is to outline the coordinating agencies’ preparedness and
planning for an introduction of EAB and identify stakeholder groups prior to an EAB
detection and response. Integrating the updated 2026 EAB Management Plan for
Bozeman and the priority recommendations for the next ten years will ensure that
Bozeman is proactively preparing for the inevitable arrival of EAB to the state of
Montana.
Tree Ordinances in Bozeman
The City’s municipal code provides the foundation for urban forest management by establishing
the authority, standards, and administrative structure for managing trees in public spaces and
rights-of-way. Chapter 16, Article 5 designates the City Forester as the lead authority responsible
for administering forestry programs, managing the forestry division, enforcing regulations,
developing professional standards, and maintaining arboricultural specifications. It also requires
the development and maintenance of a Master Street Tree Plan, which guides species selection,
planting locations, tree spacing, utility conflict avoidance, maintenance practices, and the City’s
cost-share tree planting program. All tree planting, removal, maintenance, and protection activities
within public areas must conform to the Master Street Tree Plan and adopted arboricultural
standards, creating a consistent framework for urban forest stewardship across the City.
The code also functions as a management and protection tool by establishing permitting
requirements, maintenance responsibilities, hazard mitigation procedures, and enforcement
mechanisms. Permits are required for most tree planting, removal, and trimming activities in public
rights-of-way, while standards regulate tree spacing, clearances over streets and sidewalks,
prohibited practices such as tree topping, and protection measures during construction. Property
57
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 40
owners are responsible for maintaining street trees adjacent to their properties and preventing
hazardous or nuisance conditions. The City Forester has authority to inspect properties, order
corrective actions, abate hazardous trees, and recover associated costs when necessary. In
addition, the code establishes funding mechanisms through the Tree Maintenance District,
requires professional qualifications and licensing for tree service contractors, and mandates
replacement or compensation when public trees are damaged or removed. Together, these
provisions guide day-to-day urban forest operations, protect public safety, preserve community
tree assets, and support long-term management of Bozeman’s urban forest.
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON CURRENT CONDITIONS
Meaningful internal and external engagement was essential to the development and success of
Bozeman’s updated UFMP. For the majority of 2026, the City conducted a comprehensive
engagement process involving public meetings, staff surveys, stakeholder interviews, public
questionnaires, board meetings, commission meetings, and targeted outreach. These efforts
were used to gather valuable input from residents, businesses, and community partners, providing
insight into urban forestry priorities, challenges, and opportunities.
The feedback helped shape a plan that reflects the needs and values of the community while
building broad support for its implementation. Continued engagement not only fosters
transparency and shared ownership but also strengthens the City’s ability to manage and grow a
resilient and inclusive urban forest.
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
Staff Survey
The staff survey for the City of Bozeman’s Urban Forest Management Plan was conducted over
a four-week period from March 27 to April 23, 2026. The questionnaire was distributed to 23
individuals across City departments and divisions, and 17 staff members responded, representing
a response rate of approximately 74%. Participants represented 11 departments or divisions, with
the largest number of responses coming from the City Manager’s Office, Community
Development Department, and Parks Division.
Respondents also represented a range of institutional knowledge and experience with the City.
Approximately 18% of respondents had worked for the City for one to three years, 35% for four
to six years, 12% for seven to ten years, and 35% for more than ten years. This range of
experience provided useful insight into how Bozeman’s urban forestry operations are understood
across departments and where additional coordination, communication, or clarification may be
needed.
Overall, staff feedback supported the need for an updated UFMP. Respondents identified several
areas for improvement including increased public awareness about tree care, stronger
interdepartmental coordination, clearer education about urban forest management
responsibilities, and the need to view the urban forest as a citywide system rather than focusing
only on individual trees. Staff also emphasized that individual trees often generate significant
public interest and that continued engagement with public entities should remain part of the
planning process.
Tree planting and maintenance were also major themes. Staff identified a need for clear planting
metrics to guide tree planting efforts, particularly in parks, and expressed support for accelerating
tree planting in parks, neighborhoods, and along streets. Several responses also pointed to the
58
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 41
need to distinguish park trees from street trees when gathering public feedback and to continue
coordination with the Parks Division to better clarify responsibilities for street trees, park trees,
and their maintenance.
Interdepartmental coordination was another recurring priority. The range of responses suggests
an opportunity to improve internal education among departments that interact with trees, including
clarification of urban forest management practices, maintenance responsibilities, and response
procedures. Collaboration between the Forestry Division and Parks Division will be especially
important as the City continues refining tree planting, maintenance, and long-term management
responsibilities.
Staff also identified several policy-related needs. These include clarifying areas of code
enforcement and responsible parties, improving staff and public understanding of the realities and
limitations of private property regulations, and developing a clearer strategy for private tree
management for both existing homeowners and new development. These findings reinforce the
need for a UFMP that provides clear guidance; supports practical implementation; and balances
tree preservation, canopy growth, private property considerations, infrastructure needs, and
Bozeman’s broader community priorities.
Staff Interviews and Departmental Meetings
Interviews with City staff from various departments and divisions were conducted during regular
coordination meetings for the project and used to follow up on insight received during the staff
survey.
Staff feedback emphasized a strong interest in improving urban forest management through more
formalized inspection, maintenance, and tracking systems. The Forestry Division currently relies
on ESRI tools, FieldMaps, and Geocortex, but staff noted limitations in connecting inspections,
risk assessments, maintenance scheduling, and storm response activities. There was broad
support for establishing documented inspection and maintenance cycles based on tree condition
and risk, using industry-standard practices such as ISA TRAQ assessments when warranted.
Staff recognized that implementing a citywide inspection program would require significant time
and resources but felt that creating digital records and linking maintenance activities to risk
management, liability documentation, and insurance claims would improve accountability and
long-term decision-making.
A recurring theme was the need for greater organization and prioritization of maintenance work.
Staff supported adopting standardized maintenance and removal classifications and developing
a geographic or grid-based pruning cycle similar to systems already used for streets and utilities.
While current maintenance practices are largely reactive and observation-based, employees saw
value in creating documented, proactive schedules that can be tracked over time. At the same
time, staff emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility to respond to storms, hazard trees,
and resident service requests. Concerns were raised about workforce capacity, particularly the
challenge of expanding pruning and inspection programs while continuing to manage high annual
removal rates and emergency response needs.
Staff also highlighted the importance of improving coordination across City departments and
development processes. Participants noted that information related to tree planting, development
projects, tree protection zones, and inspections often falls through the cracks despite the success
of the Development Review Committee. There was strong support for better communication
59
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 42
between Forestry, Building, Engineering, and Planning staff, as well as exploring ways to integrate
forestry review into existing development workflows. Staff expressed concern that increased
review and enforcement responsibilities could require additional personnel, equipment, and
administrative support, underscoring the need to fully evaluate implementation costs when
recommending new programs.
Regarding development and tree protection, staff discussed opportunities to improve oversight of
third-party tree installations and post-development compliance while recognizing significant
resource limitations. Participants generally agreed that treating public trees more like
infrastructure could strengthen standards and review processes, although doing so would require
additional staffing and organizational support. Staff favored practical, lower-cost approaches such
as educational materials, updated planting guidance, tree protection graphics, and outreach tools
that could help developers, contractors, and residents better understand planting, spacing, and
maintenance requirements. There was also interest in clarifying the City's authority and limitations
regarding private property trees and explaining those limitations more clearly to the public.
Overall, staff engagement reflected strong support for a realistic, phased ten-year UFMP that
balances industry standards with operational capacity. Employees acknowledged that achieving
recommended canopy, planting, pruning, and inspection goals will require additional resources,
improved tracking, stronger community partnerships, and selective use of contractors. Staff
emphasized the importance of transparency in tree removal decisions, public education, and
community engagement, particularly as the City works through challenges such as aging trees,
severe weather impacts, EAB preparedness, and long-term canopy expansion goals. The general
sentiment was that the Forestry Division is performing well with existing resources, and the Plan
should provide flexible pathways for scaling operations over time while maintaining a high level
of public service and stewardship.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Public Survey
The public survey for Bozeman’s Urban Forest Management Plan was conducted from May 18 to
June 8, 2026. Survey availability was advertised through the Engage Bozeman webpage, email
list, and social media, and it was also highlighted in a public meeting at the beginning of the survey
period. The survey received 137 responses, with an average of 117 responses per question. Most
respondents were long-term residents, homeowners, and over age 55, indicating that future
outreach should continue seeking input from younger residents, renters, and other community
groups.
Survey responses showed strong support for maintaining existing trees while also increasing new
tree planting. Participants placed high value on trees for shade, heat reduction, health, walkability,
community character, air quality, and wildlife habitat. Concerns focused primarily on mature tree
removals, tree maintenance, infrastructure conflicts, and the need to ensure that new plantings
are well-suited to Bozeman’s climate and site conditions.
Public priorities included maintaining healthy and safe public trees, planting more trees where
space allows, improving species selection, increasing resilience to pests and climate stress, and
expanding education on tree care. More than 90% of respondents supported using a
recommended species list focused on trees suited to Bozeman’s climate, soils, and growing
conditions.
60
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 43
Opinions were more mixed regarding City involvement with private trees. Some respondents
supported permits, incentives, or code changes to preserve mature trees, while others expressed
concern about private property rights. These findings support a balanced UFMP approach that
emphasizes public education, voluntary stewardship, strategic planting, mature tree preservation,
and clear policy guidance.
Commission Meetings
[To be updated after mid-process meeting and prior to the draft release to the public]
Community Engagement
The UFMP update relied on a comprehensive community engagement process designed to keep
residents informed, provide meaningful opportunities for input, and ensure transparency
throughout Plan development. Recognizing Bozeman’s strong community interest in natural
resources and urban forestry, the City committed to a good-faith engagement effort that invited
residents to help shape the framework that will guide urban forest management decisions over
the next ten years. Public participation was intended not only to gather feedback on local priorities,
concerns, and opportunities, but also to educate the community on urban forest management
best practices, current challenges, and long-term goals for Bozeman’s urban tree canopy.
Community engagement occurred throughout the planning process and included four primary
opportunities for direct public involvement: two virtual meetings and two in-person meetings. The
process began with a virtual kickoff meeting that introduced the project, outlined engagement
opportunities, and provided information on the planning timeline. An in-person meeting followed
to present the plan framework, identify key focus areas for updates, and launch a public survey.
As draft recommendations develop, a second virtual meeting will be held to present the Draft
UFMP and open a formal public comment period. The engagement process will conclude with an
in-person open house that provides residents an opportunity to review draft recommendations,
ask questions, and submit comments. Project updates and discussion regularly occurred during
Urban Parks and Forestry Board meetings, creating ongoing opportunities for public observation
and input.
The engagement process was integrated into a broader planning effort that included technical
analysis, coordination with City staff and the Urban Parks and Forestry Board, and review of
existing urban forest conditions. Community feedback helped inform Plan priorities, canopy goals,
tree maintenance strategies, planting initiatives, and future management recommendations.
Following public review and comment, the Plan will be refined and finalized before presentation
to the City Commission for consideration and adoption. This collaborative approach ensures that
the updated UFMP reflects both technical expertise and community values while providing a
transparent roadmap for urban forest stewardship over the coming decade.
DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE CHANGES
Bozeman’s urban forest is being shaped by the same growth pressures influencing land use,
housing, infrastructure, and public services across the City. The Bozeman Community Plan
describes the City as a rapidly growing regional center, with growth driven by factors such as
access to recreation, Montana State University, employment opportunities, and continued
development in the Gallatin Valley. The Community Plan also emphasizes that guided growth is
necessary to protect Bozeman’s identity, quality of life, and environmental resources.
61
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 44
Continued growth is expected over the UFMP planning horizon. The 2025–2045 Population and
Housing Forecast projects that, if current growth trends continue, Bozeman could add
approximately 28,800 residents by 2045, reaching an estimated population of 87,400. Even under
a constrained growth scenario, Bozeman is projected to add approximately 19,600 residents by
2045. These projections indicate that development pressure, redevelopment, and infrastructure
expansion will remain major factors influencing the urban forest.
As Bozeman grows, tree preservation, planting space, soil volume, irrigation, and long-term
maintenance must be integrated into development and infrastructure planning. New housing,
streets, utilities, parks, stormwater facilities, and commercial areas will create both risks and
opportunities for canopy expansion. Without clear standards and coordinated review, trees may
be lost to construction, limited rooting space, utility conflicts, drought stress, or inadequate
establishment care. With proactive planning, however, growth can help expand canopy cover
through improved street tree requirements, tree-friendly site design, park planting, development
review, and replacement planting.
Bozeman is already advancing growth-related implementation efforts through updates to land
development standards, water conservation planning, multimodal transportation work, zoning
updates, and cross-department coordination. These efforts provide an opportunity to align the
UFMP with broader City planning so trees are treated as part of essential infrastructure rather
than as an afterthought.
Managing development and land use change sustainably will require balancing housing,
infrastructure, water conservation, and tree canopy goals. The UFMP should support this balance
by strengthening tree-related standards, improving coordination between Forestry, Community
Development, Public Works, Parks, Water Conservation, and GIS, and ensuring that new
development contributes to a healthier, more resilient urban forest.
RESILIENCE OF THE URBAN FOREST
SPECIES DIVERSITY
A resilient urban forest is one that can withstand environmental stressors, pests, and disease
while continuing to provide essential ecological benefits. Biodiversity is a key factor in urban forest
resilience, and the 10-20-30 rule serves as a guideline for achieving a balanced tree population
(Figure 20). This rule states that no single species should comprise more than 10% of the total
tree population, no single genus should exceed 20%, and no single family should make up more
than 30%. A diverse urban forest reduces the risk of widespread loss from pests and disease,
supporting long-term sustainability.
62
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 45
Figure 20. The 10-20-30 rule
Analysis of Bozeman’s public tree inventory indicates that family-level diversity remains within
recommended limits, but species- and genus-level concentrations present areas of concern. Ash
exceeds both the 10% species threshold and the 20% genus threshold, creating increased
vulnerability to EAB and other ash-specific stressors. Maples currently represent 17% of the
inventoried population, approaching the recommended 20% genus limit, although no individual
maple species exceeds the 10% species threshold. These findings highlight the need to further
diversify future planting. Expanding tree selection beyond the Fraxinus and Acer genera will
reduce reliance on a small number of dominant taxa and improve Bozeman’s resilience to pests,
diseases, climate stress, and other long-term urban forest risks.
TREE SIZE AND AGE DISTRIBUTION
A balanced distribution of tree ages and sizes is essential for maintaining long-term canopy cover
and managing urban forest maintenance costs. Bozeman’s public tree inventory indicates an
urban forest that is younger than an ideal sustainable structure. Trees between 0- and 6-inches
DSH make up 59% of the inventoried population, exceeding the recommended target of
approximately 40%. This reflects strong recent planting and reinvestment but also means much
of Bozeman’s future canopy benefit is still developing.
The 6–12-inch and 12–18-inch size classes are below ideal levels, indicating a gap in the
transitional trees needed to support future mature canopy. Larger trees, those 18 inches DSH
and greater, are also slightly below recommended levels. Because mature trees provide the
greatest shade, stormwater, carbon, and community benefits, preserving existing large trees while
helping young trees reach maturity will be essential.
63
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 46
Moving toward a more resilient urban forest will require continued young tree structural pruning,
establishment care, and protection of existing mature trees. Regular inventory updates will help
the City track changes in size distribution, identify maintenance needs, and ensure today’s young
trees become tomorrow’s canopy assets.
TREE HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES
Sustaining a healthy and resilient urban forest in Bozeman will depend on proactive maintenance,
early intervention, and consistent monitoring. The 2026 public tree inventory indicates that most
of Bozeman’s public trees are in fair or better condition, but ongoing care will be essential to help
young trees mature, preserve existing canopy, and reduce future maintenance costs.
Trees identified for removal should be addressed as a priority, particularly where they present
safety concerns, limited long-term value, or conflicts with infrastructure. Trees in poor condition
should be further evaluated to determine whether they can recover through targeted pruning, soil
improvement, mulching, irrigation, structural support, or other site-specific maintenance. Early
intervention is especially important in Bozeman, where drought stress, compacted soils, limited
planting space, narrow boulevards, overhead utilities, and harsh winter conditions can contribute
to decline.
Inventory findings also highlight the importance of using maintenance data to guide future planting
decisions. Species with lower RPI scores may be less suited to Bozeman’s urban conditions or
more vulnerable to pests, disease, drought, poor soils, or other stressors. Tracking these trends
over time will help the City refine its approved tree list and prioritize species that perform well in
Bozeman’s high-elevation, semi-arid climate.
Maintaining an updated tree inventory and implementing structured inspection and pruning cycles
will support data-driven decision-making and adaptive management. Expanding homeowner
education will also be important since private trees make up a large portion of Bozeman’s overall
canopy. Together, proactive public tree maintenance, informed species selection, and private tree
care outreach will help improve the health, safety, and resilience of Bozeman’s citywide urban
forest.
MOVING TOWARD A RESILIENT URBAN FOREST
To ensure long-term sustainability, Bozeman must prioritize diversifying tree species, maintaining
a balanced age structure, and implementing proactive maintenance strategies. Regular
monitoring of large trees will help balance the risks and benefits associated with mature
specimens, while targeted tree preservation efforts will sustain vital canopy coverage. Addressing
deferred maintenance and implementing best practices for young tree care will prevent future
structural issues and reduce long-term costs.
Moving forward, enhanced data collection, preventive maintenance, and strategic tree planting
will strengthen the resilience of Bozeman’s urban forest, ensuring it continues to provide
environmental, social, and economic benefits for future generations.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is already impacting Bozeman’s urban forest, and its effects will only intensify in
the coming decades. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, shifting precipitation patterns, and
stronger storms will stress both new and established trees. These environmental changes will
reduce water availability, alter plant communities, and create favorable conditions for pests and
64
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 47
diseases. Without a long-term, proactive strategy, Bozeman risks higher maintenance costs,
increased tree failures, and significant environmental and public safety impacts.
Many established and native trees may struggle to survive over the next 50 to 75 years due to
warmer winters, shifting precipitation patterns, and increased threats from pests and diseases.
Ensuring a resilient urban forest requires long-term planning and proactive species selection to
adapt to these changing conditions.
Bozeman is currently classified in USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 4b (-2°F to -20°F) (Figure 21), but
projections indicate a shift to Zone 5b (-15°F to -10°F) to 6b (-5°F to 0°F) by the end of the century.
It is important to note that hardiness zones are based solely on average minimum winter
temperatures, not on overall climate conditions such as summer heat extremes, precipitation, or
humidity. For example, Seattle and Tucson share the same hardiness zone, despite their vastly
different rainfall patterns, elevation, and growing conditions.
While hardiness zones serve as a useful reference for winter cold tolerance, they do not account
for drought stress, heatwaves, or extreme weather events—all of which influence tree survival.
To ensure the long-term resilience of Bozeman’s urban forest, species selection must consider a
broader range of climate factors beyond winter temperatures. Identifying trees that can tolerate
both higher heat and changing precipitation patterns will be essential to sustaining the
City's canopy and enhancing urban climate resilience.
65
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 48
Figure 21. USDA plant hardiness zone map of the northwest region (Source: USDA)
To better understand future climate conditions, the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science (UMCES) has developed a tool that models projected climate shifts.
According to their research, under worst-case emissions scenarios, Bozeman’s 2080 climate will
resemble present-day Boise City, Oklahoma (Figure 22). While Boise City shares some temperate
conifer species with Bozeman, its ecosystem is primarily temperate grasslands, savannas and
shrublands. This suggests that the City will experience significant shifts in plant communities,
requiring careful planning to select resilient tree species that can tolerate future conditions.
66
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 49
Figure 22. Bozeman and its projected future climate analog, Boise Cite, Oklahoma (Source:
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Urban Heat
Bozeman, like many cities, is experiencing rising urban heat due to climate change. The urban
heat island effect occurs when buildings, roads, and other hard surfaces absorb and retain heat,
increasing local temperatures (Figure 23). Reduced tree canopy and higher emissions further
intensify these effects, posing health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations.
Without intervention, urban heat will increase tree stress and mortality, slowing growth and
reducing air quality. The impacts of heat on trees include:
Increased stress on trees: Urban heat adds additional stress to trees already facing air
pollution, drought, and pests stressors, making it more difficult for trees to survive and
thrive.
Reduced tree growth: Urban heat can slow down tree growth, which can lead to a
decline in the overall health of the urban forest.
Increased tree mortality: Urban heat increases the risk of tree loss, which can lead to
gaps in the urban forest.
Reduced air quality: Urban heat tends to hold pollutants in the atmosphere, worsening
air quality. This places an additional burden on trees’ air purifying capabilities while also
having a negative impact on human health and the environment.
67
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 50
Changes in plant communities: Urban heat can lead to changes in the composition of
plant communities, as some species are more tolerant of heat than others. This can lead
to a loss of biodiversity in the urban forest.
Figure 23. Illustration of the urban heat island effect
Adapting to Changing Plant Communities
As Bozeman’s climate changes, the City will need to plan for an urban forest that can tolerate
warmer temperatures, longer drought periods, shifting precipitation patterns, and increased pest
pressure. Tree species selected today should be expected to perform under the conditions
Bozeman is likely to experience over the next several decades, not only the conditions that have
historically shaped planting decisions.
Many species traditionally planted in Bozeman, particularly cold-adapted conifers, spruce
species, birches, and certain maples, may experience increasing stress as summers become
warmer and drier. While these species may continue to perform well in specific sites, future
planting should place greater emphasis on drought-tolerant hardwoods, heat-tolerant shade
trees, climate-adapted oaks, and resilient Great Plains and Interior West species.
Plant hardiness zones remain useful for identifying trees that can survive minimum winter
temperatures, but they do not account for summer heat, drought, soil conditions, wind exposure,
irrigation availability, pest pressure, or urban site constraints. As a result, Bozeman should use
hardiness zones as only one screening tool, paired with local inventory performance, climate
projections, site conditions, and observed tree health.
To support a more resilient urban forest, Bozeman should:
Diversify future plantings to reduce reliance on vulnerable species and genera.
Monitor species performance over time using inventory data and field observations.
68
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 51
Prioritize trees with demonstrated tolerance to drought, heat, urban soils, and variable
moisture conditions.
Gradually reduce reliance on species showing increased decline, pest vulnerability, or
poor long-term performance.
Coordinate with communities in warmer, drier continental climates to better understand
species’ performance and management strategies.
Adapting to changing plant communities does not require an immediate shift away from all
historically successful species. Instead, Bozeman should take a phased approach that preserves
healthy, high-value trees while expanding the future planting selection. This strategy will help
maintain canopy continuity, reduce vulnerability to climate-related stress, and support long-term
urban forest resilience.
Water Efficiency in a Changing Climate
Water management is already an important consideration for Bozeman’s urban forest and will
become increasingly important as temperatures rise, drought periods lengthen, and seasonal
precipitation patterns become less predictable. Although Bozeman receives more moisture than
some parts of eastern Montana, its high-elevation, semi-arid climate creates natural limits on tree
establishment and long-term canopy expansion. As the climate changes, efficient irrigation and
water-conscious landscape design will be essential to sustaining healthy trees.
Newly planted trees require consistent watering during establishment, and even mature trees may
need supplemental irrigation during extended drought or extreme heat events. Without adequate
water during critical periods, trees are more likely to experience leaf scorch, canopy dieback,
reduced growth, pest susceptibility, and premature decline.
To support water efficiency and tree health, Bozeman should:
Promote deep, infrequent watering to encourage deeper root growth and improve
drought tolerance.
Monitor public trees for drought stress, including leaf scorch, early leaf drop, thinning
crowns, and canopy dieback.
Use efficient irrigation practices and smart irrigation technology where feasible to reduce
water waste.
Prioritize mulch, soil health, and adequate rooting space to improve water retention and
reduce tree stress.
Encourage water-efficient landscapes that reduce unnecessary turf and reserve
irrigation capacity for trees.
Water-efficient landscapes can function as small-scale watersheds by capturing and filtering
stormwater, reducing runoff, improving soil moisture, and supporting pollinators and wildlife.
Replacing non-essential turf with native grasses, wildflowers, low-water shrubs, and drought-
tolerant plantings can reduce irrigation demand, green waste, and long-term maintenance needs
while improving the success of nearby trees.
Programmable spaces such as athletic fields, gathering areas, and high-use parks may still
require turf grass. However, many non-programmable areas, including medians, park edges,
schoolyards, institutional landscapes, commercial properties, and residential yards, may be better
suited for xeric or water-efficient planting designs. These landscapes can help reduce water use
69
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 52
while supporting urban forest goals by improving soil conditions, increasing habitat value, and
making more water available for trees during establishment and drought periods (Figure 24).
Figure 24. Comparison of traditional landscapes and sustainable landscapes (Source: The Garden
Project, Santa Monica, CA)
A study from Santa Monica, California, compared sustainable and conventional landscapes and
found that the sustainable landscape used 89% less water, produced 70% less green waste, and
required 80% fewer maintenance hours. While Bozeman’s climate, soils, and vegetation differ
from coastal California, the findings demonstrate the broader value of water-efficient landscape
design in reducing resource use and maintenance demands.
For Bozeman, water-efficient landscaping should not be viewed as a replacement for trees, but
as a strategy to support them. By reducing irrigation demands from non-essential turf and
improving soil moisture retention, the City and community can reserve limited water resources for
trees, particularly during establishment, drought, and heat events. This approach will help
Bozeman grow a more resilient urban forest while conserving water and adapting to changing
climate conditions.
Wildfire Risk
Wildfire represents a moderate but increasing risk to Bozeman, particularly at the wildland–urban
interface (WUI) along the City’s periphery. Recent trends indicate increased fire activity across
Montana due to warmer temperatures, earlier snowmelt, and drier fuels. While Bozeman’s urban
core is less directly exposed, ember transport can ignite vegetation and structures within
developed areas. For the urban forest, wildfire risk is influenced by vegetation density, species
flammability, and fuel continuity. Trees in unmanaged or transitional areas can contribute to ladder
fuels, while drought-stressed trees increase ignition potential. Although widespread canopy loss
within the City is unlikely under current conditions, wildfire risk is expected to increase over time,
particularly in edge areas and along open space interfaces. This has important implications for
species selection, defensible space planning, and fuel management.
70
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 53
Tree species composition plays a key role in wildfire behavior, especially near the WUI. Highly
flammable species are typically characterized by resinous foliage, dense branching structure, low
moisture content, and the accumulation of fine fuels, all of which increase ignition potential and
fire intensity. Based on Bozeman’s tree inventory, several genera present in the urban forest are
considered moderate to highly flammable, including spruce (Picea spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), fir
(Abies spp.), and arborvitae (Thuja spp.). While these species do not dominate the citywide urban
forest, they are present in meaningful numbers and may contribute to localized fire risk,
particularly in areas adjacent to open space, natural vegetation, or unmanaged landscapes.
Conifer species common in the region can act as ladder fuels and support crown fire behavior
under dry conditions. In addition, drought stress, accumulation of dead material, and lack of
maintenance can further increase flammability.
Overall, tree flammability is a site-specific risk factor rather than a citywide constraint. Strategic
management, such as selecting appropriate species, reducing fuel continuity through pruning,
removing dead material, and carefully placing higher-flammability species can significantly reduce
wildfire risk. Incorporating lower-flammability, climate-adapted species into future planting efforts
will further enhance urban forest resilience and support defensible space objectives.
Severe Weather
Severe convective storms, including high winds, hail, and lightning, occur periodically in the
Bozeman area and represent a recurring hazard. These events are typically episodic but can
result in significant localized damage.
For the urban forest, wind and heavy snow are primary drivers of branch and whole-tree failure,
particularly in structurally weak species or poorly maintained trees. Hail can damage foliage and
young bark, while lightning can cause immediate tree mortality. Although not increasing as clearly
as drought or heat, storm-related impacts remain a consistent operational risk, reinforcing the
need for proactive pruning and risk management.
Bozeman typically experiences significant winter snowfall, including heavy, wet snow events
capable of causing limb breakage and structural failure. Trees with poor structure, included bark,
or dense canopies are particularly vulnerable. While this hazard is seasonal and generally
consistent, variability in snow type and timing may increase over time. Snow loading tends to
disproportionately affect broadleaf deciduous species with retained foliage or weak branch
architecture, as well as conifers with dense crowns.
Bozeman’s climate also includes extreme winter temperatures and frequent freeze-thaw cycles,
which can cause frost cracking, winter desiccation, and root damage, especially in newly planted
or non-adapted species. Projected warming trends may reduce extreme cold events but increase
variability in winter conditions, potentially introducing new stressors for trees sensitive to
fluctuating temperatures. This hazard is expected to remain relevant, though its impacts may shift
over time.
URBAN TREE PESTS AND DISEASES
Tree pests and diseases are a natural part of ecosystems, but their impact is being intensified by
climate change. In urban environments, where trees already face stressors such as compacted
soil, pollution, and limited growing space, pests and diseases exacerbate decline. While some
pests and diseases can attack even healthy trees, stressed trees are particularly vulnerable.
71
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 54
Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and shifting seasonal patterns create conditions that
accelerate the spread and severity of infestations.
Tree pests in Bozeman fall into two categories: native and invasive. Native pests, such as the
western spruce budworm, large aspen tortrix, and spruce beetle, are commonly found in
surrounding natural areas. These pests typically follow cyclical population growth but can infiltrate
the urban forest through the WUI, open spaces, and the transportation of firewood or woody
debris. Regular monitoring of these populations, using data from the Montana Department of
Agriculture and the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation, is essential for
proactive urban forest management.
Invasive pests, however, pose an even greater risk as native trees have not evolved natural
defenses against them. One highly destructive invasive species, EAB, is advancing toward
Bozeman. EAB has already caused billions of dollars in damage across North America, wiping
out entire ash tree populations. Early detection, preparedness, and management strategies will
be crucial to protecting the City’s urban forest. Strengthening tree health through diverse
plantings, proactive maintenance, and pest-resistant species selection will help mitigate future
threats and increase the resilience of Bozeman’s tree canopy.
Emerald Ash Borer
EAB (Agrilus planipennis) is an invasive wood-boring
beetle that attacks ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) and has
caused widespread ash mortality across North America
since its discovery in Michigan in 2002 (Figure 25). EAB
has not yet been confirmed in Montana, but detections
in nearby states, including South Dakota, Oregon, and
Colorado, indicate a growing regional risk.
Ash trees make up approximately 22% of Bozeman’s
inventoried public tree population, with an estimated
replacement value of $13.2 million. This concentration
makes EAB the most significant potential pest threat to Bozeman’s urban forest. Adult beetles
create distinctive D-shaped exit holes, but the most damaging stage of life is the larva, which
tunnel beneath the bark and disrupt water and nutrient movement. Untreated ash trees typically
decline and die within several years of infestation.
Because EAB can spread long distances through the movement of infested firewood, logs,
nursery stock, and untreated ash material, early detection and public
education are critical. Bozeman should continue preparing for EAB
through ash inventory updates, monitoring, public outreach, phased ash
reduction, preservation of selected high-value ash trees, and
replacement planting with diverse non-host species.
Dutch Elm Disease
Dutch elm disease is a destructive fungal disease caused by Ophiostoma
ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. The disease spreads through elm bark
beetles and root grafts between nearby trees, disrupting water
movement and causing progressive canopy decline (Figure 26).
Figure 25. Emerald ash borer (Source:
USDA Forest Service)
72
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 55
Symptoms often begin as wilting or “flagging” in the upper canopy and can lead to tree death if
not managed.
Elms remain an important part of Bozeman’s urban forest. Dutch elm disease threatens
approximately 8.3% of the City’s publicly managed tree population, representing an estimated
replacement value of $1.56 million. Management should focus on early
detection, sanitation pruning, prompt removal of infected trees where
necessary, preventive treatment for high-value elms where appropriate,
and continued use of disease-resistant elm cultivars in future plantings.
Large Aspen Tortrix
Large aspen tortrix (Choristoneura conflictana) is a native
defoliating moth that primarily affects quaking aspen (Figure
27). Larvae feed within rolled leaves, causing thin crowns,
skeletonized foliage, and visible defoliation. Outbreaks often
rise and collapse naturally, and healthy trees can typically
recover after a single defoliation event.
In Bozeman, large aspen tortrix threatens approximately 9.5%
of the inventoried urban forest, with an estimated replacement
value of $1.86 million. While this pest is not generally as
severe as EAB or Dutch elm disease, repeated defoliation
combined with drought, poor site conditions, or other stressors
can contribute to decline. Monitoring aspen health and reducing site stress will help limit long-
term impacts.
Western Spruce Budworm
Western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis)
is a native defoliator of Douglas-fir, true firs, and spruce
species (Figure 28). Larvae feed on new foliage and
reproductive structures, reducing growth and vigor.
Severe or repeated outbreaks can cause top kill,
predispose trees to secondary pests, and contribute to
mortality, particularly in stressed or young trees.
Approximately 6.1% of Bozeman’s inventoried tree
population is vulnerable to western spruce budworm,
representing an estimated replacement value of $4.62
million. Management should emphasize monitoring,
maintaining tree vigor, reducing drought stress, and
using targeted treatment only where high-value trees or
public safety concerns warrant intervention.
Figure 26. Dutch elm
signs and symptoms
Figure 27. Mature aspen tortrix
larvae (Source: USDA Forest
Service)
Figure 28. Western spruce budworm
caterpillar (Source: Montana State
University)
73
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 56
Heterobasidion Root Disease
Heterobasidion root disease, formerly known as annosus
root disease, is a fungal disease that affects a variety of
conifers, including fir, pine, spruce, and hemlock (Figure
29). The disease spreads through airborne spores and
root-to-root contact, causing root decay, canopy
thinning, decline, mortality, and potential structural
instability.
In Bozeman, heterobasidion root disease may affect
approximately 2.2% of the inventoried tree population,
with potential losses estimated at $1.97 million. Because
symptoms can be difficult to identify until decay is
advanced, management should focus on monitoring
high-value conifers, evaluating trees with thinning
crowns or basal decay, minimizing unnecessary
wounding, and addressing trees that present elevated risk in parks, rights-of-way, and other public
spaces.
Spruce Beetle
Spruce beetle is a native bark beetle that primarily attacks
Engelmann spruce and may also affect Colorado blue spruce, both
of which occur in Bozeman’s urban forest (Figure 30). The beetle
is most likely to infest stressed, windthrown, damaged, or mature
spruce trees, but populations can increase rapidly during
outbreaks. Infested trees may show boring dust, fading foliage, and
groups of declining or dead trees.
Approximately 4.8% of Bozeman’s inventoried tree population is
vulnerable to spruce beetle, representing an estimated
replacement value of $4.14 million. Early detection, prompt
management of storm-damaged or declining spruce, and reducing drought stress are important
strategies for limiting future impacts.
Invasive Tree Species
Invasive plant species often thrive in disturbed urban environments due to their rapid growth, high
reproductive capacity, and lack of natural predators. These characteristics allow them to
outcompete native vegetation, alter ecosystem processes, and reduce biodiversity. Within
Bozeman’s tree inventory, three species, Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), common
buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), are identified as invasive or
of management concern. Although these species represent a small portion of the inventoried
trees, their actual presence across the broader urban forest is likely greater due to natural spread
and establishment in unmanaged areas.
The classification and regulation of invasive species vary across state and local authorities,
including the Montana Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Program, Gallatin Conservation
District, Montana State University Extension, and the Montana Weed Control Association. Some
species are actively regulated while others are monitored or managed at the local level. To reduce
ecological impacts, the City should continue to track invasive tree species, prohibit future
Figure 29. Fruiting bodies of
heterobasidion root disease in tree
cavity (Source: Pacific Northwest
Pest Management Handbooks)
Figure 30. Spruce beetle
(Source: Colorado State
Forest Service)
74
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 57
plantings where appropriate, and implement monitoring and removal strategies to limit their
spread and protect native plant communities.
Russian Olive
Russian olive is a deciduous tree native to Europe and
Asia that was historically planted in North America for
windbreaks and erosion control. It reproduces through
both seed and root suckers and is highly adaptable to
drought and poor soils. However, Russian olive has
proven to be highly invasive in riparian areas and open
landscapes where it can outcompete native vegetation,
alter nutrient cycling, and reduce habitat quality for
native plant and wildlife communities (Figure 31).
Russian olive is listed as a Priority 3 regulated weed in
Montana, making it illegal to intentionally plant or
distribute. Bozeman’s tree inventory recorded 32
Russian olive trees, though the species likely occurs more widely along waterways and disturbed
areas. Continued monitoring and removal of existing trees, combined with restoration planting of
native species, will help reduce its long-term ecological impact.
Common Buckthorn
Common buckthorn is a shrub or small tree native to Europe
and western Asia that was introduced to North America as an
ornamental hedge plant. It spreads aggressively through bird-
dispersed seeds and can form dense thickets that shade out
native vegetation and inhibit natural forest regeneration (Figure
32). Once established, buckthorn can significantly alter
understory plant communities and soil conditions.
Although only one buckthorn tree was recorded in the City’s
inventory, its presence elsewhere in the urban forest is likely
underreported. Buckthorn is listed as a Priority 2A noxious
weed in Montana, meaning management efforts focus on
eradication or containment where populations are limited. Early
detection and removal of new occurrences are critical to preventing broader establishment.
Siberian Elm
Siberian elm is a fast-growing deciduous tree native
to Asia that was widely planted across the United
States for shelterbelts and erosion control (Figure
33). The species produces large quantities of wind-
dispersed seeds and readily colonizes disturbed sites
such as roadsides, vacant lots, and riparian areas.
Although tolerant of drought and poor soils, Siberian
elm often develops weak branch structure and can
become weedy in urban and natural environments.
Figure 31. Russian olive (Source:
Colorado Department of Agriculture)
Figure 32. Common buckthorn
(Source: Montana Weed Control
Association)
75
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 58
Bozeman’s tree inventory recorded 17 Siberian elm
trees, though its presence in the broader landscape
is likely greater due to its aggressive reproductive
strategy. While Siberian elm is currently classified in Montana as a non-native species rather than
a regulated noxious weed, it is listed as invasive in many other states throughout the Great Plains
and western United States. The City should consider monitoring and gradually removing Siberian
elm where feasible, while prioritizing restoration with native or climate-adapted tree species.
URBAN FOREST AUDIT
To develop a UFMP that reflects the community of Bozeman, 28 local documents, plans, and
resources were gathered and reviewed by applying the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban Forest
Sustainability and Management Audit’s Discovery Matrix. This matrix includes a total of 11 urban
forest categories, each containing a multitude of supporting elements. All of Bozeman’s resources
were reviewed and assessed for each of the categories and supporting elements.
The primary objectives of the audit are to:
Provide program direction to increase efficiency;
Conduct a gap analysis of management practices and urban forest health;
Provide strategic direction to improve the health of the urban forest; and
Optimize management for environmental justice and equitable distribution of resources.
AUDIT PROCESS FOR BOZEMAN
The process of analyzing the urban forest involved extensive information and document gathering
and research to identify policies, practices, programs, and standards pertaining to categories of
urban forest sustainability and management as defined by Clark et al. (1997), Kenney et al.
(2011), and the Forest Service.
Each element was ranked or scored based on the consultants’ evaluations in 2026 for the UFMP.
All available documents and plans were reviewed and tallied in the audit worksheet as part of the
information discovery phase. Based on the evaluation of the documents and outcomes of all
planning processes (i.e., research, City staff interviews, urban forest benchmarks, data analyses,
and community engagement) each subcategory within the 11 categories was “ranked” using the
system shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Audit ranking categories, description, and assigned point value
Ranking Description Points
Not Practiced Doesn’t exist or not practiced 0
In Development In development as part of or aside from this
Plan 1
Adopted Practice Routinely practiced 2
The points were then totaled for an overall rating to provide a summary of the City’s level of
achieving each category of urban forest management and sustainability.
This audit or “gap analysis” provides a data-driven approach to growing and shaping different
aspects of the City of Bozeman’s urban forestry program. It also enables effective monitoring of
the Plan’s strategies, as audit categories can be revisited at key intervals during Plan
implementation to measure progress and adapt strategies accordingly. The Implementation
section includes guidance and strategies for completing updates to the audit as progress is made
Figure 33. Siberian elm (Source: Colorado
Department of Agriculture)
76
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 59
in the City’s urban forestry program. It is recommended that the City’s Urban Parks and Forestry
Board or the Forestry Division Manager complete a bi-annual audit to inform any alterations to
actions and strategies.
BOZEMAN’S AUDIT SCORE
Bozeman scored 74% in terms of urban forest sustainability and management, as defined
by the U.S. Forest Service, partners, and planning consultants. This score is above the average
of 62% from 27 comparable audits completed by the consulting team and reflects Bozeman’s
established urban forestry program, dedicated staffing, inventory system, and continued
investment in public tree management. While Bozeman’s overall score indicates a relatively
advanced level of service, opportunities for improvement remain. Categories scoring below the
City’s overall audit score include Professional Capacity and Training, Inventories, Urban Forest
Management Plans, and Disaster Planning. Targeted improvements in these areas will help the
City strengthen program consistency, improve long-term planning, and continue advancing
toward a more resilient and sustainable urban forest.
An evaluation of Bozeman's practices across 129 subcategories, organized under 11 main
categories, shows that the City meets adopted common practice in 77 of these areas, which is
about 60%. Another 29% of the subcategories, totaling 38, are currently in the process of being
developed. Bozeman scored 192 out of a potential 258 points. This equates to a performance
score of 74%.
INTERPRETING THE URBAN FOREST AUDIT SCORE
The Urban Forest Audit System should serve as a baseline assessment from which progress can
be measured, and strategies can be adjusted using an adaptive management approach. The
26
10
9
8
16
15
14
6
47
25
16
2
8
3
0
10
9
4
8
13
5
4
Management Policy and Ordinances
Professional Capacity and Training
Funding and Accounting
Decision and Management Authority
Inventories
Urban Forest Management Plans
Risk Management
Disaster Planning
Standards and BMPs
Community
Green Asset Evaluation
Points Achieved
Points Missed
Figure 34. Bozeman's urban forest audit results, 2026
77
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 60
scores resulting from the evaluation are informative but should not be considered a definitive
assessment or a reason for excessive action due to a currently low score or inaction due to a high
score. Figure 34 provides an interpretation of the scores for the City to consider when
implementing the Plan’s corresponding actions.
78
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 61
WHAT DO WE
WANT?
A Vision for the Future: Bozeman’s urban forest is an
essential component of municipal infrastructure, one that
creates efficiencies and provides long-term benefits to
residents and visitors alike. Through sustainable
management by the City and its people, the urban forest
creates a high quality of life, a healthier citizenry, and
makes Bozeman a leader of cities in the Mountain West.
79
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 62
VISION FOR THE FUTURE
This section provides guidance and recommendations for the City of Bozeman to continue to
provide high levels of service now and into the future over the next 10 years. The Urban Forest
Management Plan’s recommendations include those that may only take a few months and others
that will require a coordinated effort that may need to continue beyond the 10-year timeframe.
GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
Bozeman’s UFMP establishes a strategic framework for protecting, enhancing, and expanding
the City’s urban forest as a vital component of Bozeman’s natural green infrastructure. The
strategies and recommendations outlined in this Plan are grounded in current data, shaped by
staff and community input, and informed by best practices in urban forest sustainability.
These strategies reflect Bozeman’s shared values and priorities such as preserving canopy cover,
advancing equitable access to green space, improving day-to-day operations, and integrating
trees into the City’s broader planning efforts. Together, they chart a practical course for ensuring
the health, resilience, and inclusivity of Bozeman’s urban forest.
CANOPY COVER GOALS
Bozeman’s 2026 UTC assessment shows that 9.8% of the City is currently covered by tree
canopy, with an additional 62% of land area offering potential for future planting. Using these
baseline datasets and accounting for development patterns, land-use constraints, and planting
feasibility across neighborhoods, the City has established a realistic, data-driven canopy target.
Bozeman’s canopy goal is to increase citywide canopy cover from 9.8% to 12% by 2046,
representing an approximate 2% gain over 20 years. This target selected based on the
National Canopy App baseline estimate of 9.8% canopy cover and reflects realistic growth, local
site conditions, peer-city benchmarks, and the opportunities available in Bozeman’s diverse
residential, commercial, and natural areas.
Achieving this increase will require a sustained commitment to both preserving existing canopy
and planting strategically across public and private property. Modeling indicates that reaching
this goal will require planting approximately 871 trees per year, totaling 17,420 new trees
over the 20-year period. At least 30 percent of these plantings should occur on public land, with
the remainder supported through private planting, partnerships, and incentives.
Long-term success will depend on coordinated implementation, protecting mature trees,
prioritizing planting in high-need locations, and ensuring a reliable supply of climate-adapted
species through local nursery partnerships. With intentional planning, cross-departmental
collaboration, and community involvement, Bozeman’s canopy goal is both achievable and
essential for sustaining and enhancing the City’s environmental resilience and quality of life.
GOAL FRAMEWORK
This Plan’s implementation framework provides a structured, actionable approach for guiding
Bozeman’s urban forestry work. Each strategy describes a long-term outcome the City seeks to
achieve, while the associated actions translate those aspirations into measurable steps towards
a healthy, sustainable urban forest.
Designed to be collaborative, flexible, and grounded in reality, the framework aligns the efforts of
multiple City departments, external partners, and private property owners around common goals.
80
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 63
It emphasizes coordination, shared responsibility, and adaptability—recognizing that urban forest
management must evolve alongside Bozeman’s changing needs, resources, and environmental
conditions.
Bozeman’s UFMP is organized around six primary goals:
Manage the Urban Forest as Essential Infrastructure: Manage Bozeman’s urban forest
as a core public infrastructure system through accurate data, coordinated operations,
sustainable funding, and consistent implementation tracking.
Maintain Safe, Healthy, and High-Performing Public Trees: Strengthen proactive risk-
based maintenance to improve public safety, extend tree lifespan, reduce long-term costs,
and help Bozeman’s young tree population mature into future canopy.
Grow a Diverse and Climate-Resilient Canopy: Increase the citywide canopy toward a
realistic 20-year target while improving species diversity, climate adaptability, tree survival,
and equitable access to canopy benefits.
Integrate Trees into Development, Infrastructure, and Water-Conscious Site Design:
Ensure trees are planned, planted, protected, and maintained as part of Bozeman’s
growth, capital projects, streetscapes, parks, stormwater systems, and private
development.
Prepare for Pests, Climate Stress, and Disaster Events: Build a proactive
preparedness framework for emerald ash borer, secondary pests and diseases, drought,
wildfire, severe weather, and other disturbances that could affect Bozeman’s canopy,
public safety, and maintenance capacity.
Build Community Stewardship and Shared Responsibility: Expand public education,
partnerships, volunteer programs, and private property support so residents, businesses,
institutions, and community organizations actively participate in sustaining Bozeman’s
urban forest.
In support of these goals, the Plan includes specific recommended strategies, actions, and
implementation guidance to create an achievable and measurable work plan. These
recommendations reflect citywide priorities and community feedback and respond to key needs
identified during the planning process including tree risk management, resilience planning, and
improved coordination across programs and partners. By establishing clear priorities and tracking
progress over time, this framework ensures that Bozeman’s urban forest remains healthy,
resilient, and well-integrated into the City’s broader environmental and planning goals.
Goal 1: Managing the Urban Forest as Essential Infrastructure
Build the data, funding, coordination, and accountability systems needed to manage Bozeman’s
trees as a long-term public asset (Table 5).
What We Heard
Staff want clearer coordination, stronger data systems, and consistent goals across departments.
Community feedback also showed a need for clearer reporting on the condition, value, and
direction of Bozeman’s urban forest, including how progress is tracked over time and
communicated to the public.
81
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 64
Recommended Actions
Action 1.1: Maintain and improve the public tree inventory.
Action 1.2: Use urban forest data to guide annual work planning and budgeting.
Action 1.3: Strengthen interdepartmental coordination.
Action 1.4: Track UFMP implementation and report progress.
Action 1.5: Evaluate urban forestry service levels and resource needs.
Action 1.6: Update canopy assessments on a regular cycle.
Action 1.7: Integrate urban forest data into broader City planning and reporting.
Action 1.8 Maintain Tree City USA designation and pursue SFI and UCFS accreditation.
Goal 2: Maintaining Safe, Healthy, and High-Performing Public Trees
Strengthen proactive, risk-based maintenance so Bozeman’s young and maturing public trees
can provide long-term canopy benefits (Table 6).
What We Heard
Residents and staff emphasized the importance of maintaining existing trees so that they remain
healthy, safe, and long-lived. Outreach and engagement identified pruning, inspections, mature
tree removals, infrastructure conflicts, and clearer maintenance responsibilities as important
issues for the UFMP to address.
Recommended Actions
Action 2.1: Formalize risk-based maintenance categories.
Action 2.2: Align pruning cycles with industry standards.
Action 2.3: Increase pruning and maintenance capacity.
Action 2.4: Prioritize young tree establishment and structural care.
Action 2.5: Maintain contractor readiness for specialized and surge work.
Action 2.6: Support staff training and professional development.
Action 2.7: Strengthen staffing capacity to support urban forestry operations.
Goal 3: Growing a Diverse and Climate-Resilient Canopy
Expand canopy toward a realistic 20-year goal while improving species diversity, survival, climate
adaptation, and equitable distribution of benefits (Table 7).
What We Heard
Residents and staff support maintaining and increasing Bozeman’s tree canopy, with new planting
focused in parks, neighborhoods, streets, and areas with fewer trees or greater heat exposure.
Participants also emphasized the importance of species diversity, native and climate-adapted
trees, shade, cooling, wildlife habitat, and long-term tree survival.
Recommended Actions
Action 3.1: Implement actions to achieve a 2% canopy increase, reaching 12% by 2046.
82
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 65
Action 3.2: Increase species and genus diversity.
Action 3.3: Update the approved tree list for climate resilience.
Action 3.4: Prioritize planting in high-benefit areas.
Action 3.5: Improve tree establishment success.
Action 3.6: Replace removals with diverse, climate-adapted species.
Goal 4: Integrating Trees into Development, Infrastructure, and Water-Conscious Site
Design
Ensure trees are planned, protected, and supported as Bozeman grows and redevelops (Table
8).
What We Heard
Staff and residents identified development, infrastructure conflicts, water availability, and tree
preservation as key issues. Participants expressed support for clearer standards, better tree
protection during development, improved planting site design, and guidance that balances trees
with housing, infrastructure, water conservation, and private property considerations.
Recommended Actions
Action 4.1: Promote incentives and partnerships that encourage private tree retention and
replanting.
Action 4.2: Update tree-related standards and guidance.
Action 4.3: Strengthen tree preservation regulations and development processes.
Action 4.4: Align design standards with canopy, diversity, and climate goals.
Action 4.5: Consolidate guidance into a City Tree Manual.
Action 4.6: Improve soil volume and rooting conditions.
Action 4.7: Promote water-conscious landscape design.
Action 4.8: Coordinate tree planning with capital and infrastructure projects.
Action 4.9: Develop a Heritage Tree Program.
Goal 5: Preparing for Pests, Climate Stress, and Disaster Events
Reduce vulnerability to EAB, secondary pests, drought, wildfire, storms, and other disturbances
through proactive monitoring, planning, and response (Table 9).
What We Heard
Staff and residents want Bozeman’s urban forest to be more resilient to pests, disease, drought,
severe weather, and climate change. Feedback highlighted concerns about ash management,
dead or declining trees, drought-tolerant species, measured replacement planting, and the need
for proactive planning before major canopy loss occurs.
Recommended Actions
Action 5.1: Implement the EAB Management Plan.
83
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 66
Action 5.2: Monitor priority pests and diseases.
Action 5.3: Strengthen climate stress response.
Action 5.4: Improve disaster preparedness and recovery planning.
Action 5.5: Coordinate with regional and technical partners.
Action 5.6: Develop wood handling, disposal, and utilization guidance.
Goal 6: Building Community Stewardship and Shared Responsibility
Expand education, partnerships, volunteer programs, and private property support so the broader
community helps sustain Bozeman’s urban forest (Table 10).
What We Heard
Staff and residents desire expanded education opportunities, stronger partnerships, more
volunteer programs, and additional support for planting and maintaining trees on private property.
Recommended Actions
Action 6.1: Expand urban forestry education and outreach.
Action 6.2: Strengthen Branch Out Bozeman and community partnerships.
Action 6.3: Support private property owners and HOAs.
Action 6.4: Partner with schools, Montana State University, and major landowners.
Action 6.5: Engage residents and businesses through volunteer programs (Tree Ambassadors /
Stewards / Adopt-a-Tree).
Action 6.6: Develop private tree stewardship resources and programs.
Action 6.7: Provide qualified tree care resources for residents.
Action 6.8: Celebrate community tree stewardship.
Action 6.9: Strengthen urban forestry advisory capacity.
Action 6.10: Communicate tree-related policy and code changes.
84
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 67
HOW DO WE GET
THERE?
85
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 68
IMPLEMENTATION
The UFMP provides Bozeman with an updated coordinated framework for managing, growing,
and sustaining its urban forest. Successful implementation will rely on an adaptive management
approach—one that uses ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment to ensure strategies
remain effective as conditions, resources, and community priorities evolve.
Implementation should be led by Bozeman’s Forestry Division, with support from an
interdepartmental team that includes Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Community
Development, Water Conservation, GIS/Asset Management, Stormwater, Communications, and
other departments involved in tree-related work. Each department will continue managing its
respective responsibilities, while coordinated implementation will help align development review,
capital projects, maintenance, planting, public outreach, water conservation, and emergency
response with UFMP goals. The Urban Parks and Forestry Board should also be used as an
advisory body to review progress, support public engagement, and provide input on major tree-
related policies or initiatives. Community support and participation will be essential to the success
of the UFMP. The City will continue to partner with community members to ensure actions are
implemented equitably and reflect shared priorities.
Through this shared structure, the City can track progress, refine practices over time, and ensure
that actions in the UFMP are implemented collaboratively, efficiently, and transparently. This
team-based, adaptive approach will help Bozeman build a resilient, high-performing urban forest
that meets the needs of a growing community.
IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
Each implementation matrix is organized by Action, action targets, and estimated cost. Action
targets represent sequential or parallel steps needed to achieve each strategy.
Action: The overarching strategy or recommendation guiding urban forest management
efforts
Action Targets (1-3): Key milestones or steps associated with each action. These outlie
near-term tasks, mid-term deliverables, or long-term commitments needed to achieve
the strategy.
o Short-term: Action expected within 1-3 years.
o Mid-term: Action expected within 4-6 years.
o Long-term: Action expected withing 7-10 years.
o Ongoing: Continuous implementation throughout the UFMP timeframe.
Cost Symbols: Relative costs are identified by $ (low cost), $$ (moderate cost), and
$$$ (high cost).
o Low cost ($): Achievable with existing staff and minimal additional funding.
o Moderate cost ($$): Requires supplemental funding, new tools, or limited
contracted services.
o High Cost ($$$): Requires new staffing, major capital investment, or long-term
contracted services.
Each implementation matrix identifies the primary City Department or Division responsible for
coordinating or implementing the action. Supporting Departments or Divisions are identified to
assist as needed. Departments and Divisions are represented by the following abbreviations:
86
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 69
FD: Forestry Division
PRD: Parks and Recreation Department
PW: Public Works
CD: Community Development Department
WCD: Water Conservation Division
GIS: GIS / Asset Management Division
FIN: Finance Department
COM: Communications
CMO: City Manager’s Office
HR: Human Resources
External partnerships with local and regional entities are essential to the success of Plan
implementation. The following external entities have been identified:
GW: Gallatin Watershed Council
MSU: Montana State University and extension offices
BOB: Branch Out Bozeman
PFC: Parks & Forestry Commission
MDA: Montana Department of Agriculture
DNRC: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Local Schools: School districts and education partners
Community Orgs: Local nonprofits, stewardship groups, neighborhood associations,
nurseries
ISA: International Society of Arboriculture
Tree responsibilities are identified by icons.
Implementation matrix tables are each associated with a specific goal, broken down by action
strategies, which are supported by three action targets. These tables are meant to be high-level
and easily digestible overviews of action targets associated with each goal. The Resources and
Considerations section further expands upon each strategy to guide the City as it weighs
implementation options for the management of Bozeman’s urban forest over the next decade.
PUBLIC
TREES
City-led actions for
trees on public land.
PRIVATE
TREES
Actions for trees on
private property where
owners hold primary
responsibility, supported
by City guidance or
permitting.
PARTNERSHIP
Actions jointly carried
out by the City and
community partners
including residents,
developers, nonprofits,
schools, or regional
agencies.
87
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 70
Table 5. Goal 1 implementation matrix: managing the urban forest as essential infrastructure
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 1.1 Maintain and
improve the public tree
inventory.
Refine inventory fields and
standardize drop-down
menus for key data,
including species
identification, maintenance
priority, risk rating, work
type, etc.
Update inventory
records as trees are
planted, pruned,
inspected, treated,
removed, or replaced.
Review inventory
completeness
annually and identify
data gaps for future
updates.
FD
(support:
GIS, PRD,
PW)
$$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Action 1.2
Use urban forest data
to guide annual work
planning and
budgeting.
Use inventory and
maintenance data to identify
annual pruning, removal,
planting, and inspection
needs.
Incorporate canopy,
ecosystem service,
pest, and risk data into
annual budget
requests.
Compare funding
needs using per-tree,
per-capita, canopy,
and service-level
benchmarks.
FD
(support:
GIS, FIN,
PRD, PW,
CMO)
$
Short-term Ongoing Mid-term
Action 1.3 Strengthen
interdepartmental
coordination.
Integrate UFMP
implementation into existing
interdepartmental meetings
or establish dedicated
check-ins.
Develop shared tools
for tracking urban
forestry projects, data,
and grants.
Include UFMP
updates in annual
departmental and
management reports.
FD
(support:
PRD, PW,
CD, WCD,
GIS, FIN,
COM,
CMO)
$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Action 1.4
Track UFMP
implementation and
report progress.
Develop a simple UFMP
implementation tracking
template.
Track annual progress,
including trees planted,
removed, pruned,
inspected, volunteer
hours, pest monitoring,
canopy updates, and
funding needs.
Prepare an annual
UFMP progress
summary for staff,
leadership, and public
communication.
FD
(support:
PFC)
$
88
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 71
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Action 1.5 Evaluate
urban forestry service
levels and resource
needs.
Define current service levels
for planting, pruning,
removals, inspections, pest
monitoring, and emergency
response.
Identify staffing,
equipment, contractor,
training, and funding
gaps.
Develop minimum,
standard, and
enhanced service-
level options to guide
future budget
decisions.
FD
(support:
PRD, FIN)
$$
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Action 1.6 Update
canopy assessments
on a regular cycle.
Establish a canopy
assessment update cycle of
approximately every three to
five years.
Complete the next
canopy assessment
update and compare
results to the 9.8%
baseline.
Use canopy updates
to evaluate progress
toward the 12% goal
and refine planting
priorities.
FD / GIS
(support:
PRD, CD,
PFC)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Action 1.7 Integrate
urban forest data into
broader City planning
and reporting.
Use tree inventory and
canopy data to support
development review, capital
projects, grant applications,
and infrastructure planning.
Integrate tree and
canopy data into
planning for
stormwater,
transportation, parks,
climate resilience, and
redevelopment.
Evaluate
opportunities to
incorporate urban
forest data into
broader green
infrastructure or
financial reporting.
FD
(support:
GIS, CD,
PW, PRD,
WCD, FIN,
CMO)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Action 1.8 Maintain
Tree City USA
designation and pursue
SFI and UCFS
accreditation.
Continue meeting Tree City
USA requirements, including
ordinance, budget, Arbor
Day, and responsible tree
board or department.
Prepare UCFS
accreditation materials,
including inventory,
standards, staffing,
policies, work tracking,
and UFMP records.
Evaluate SFI and
UCFS requirements,
identify gaps, and
develop a phased
accreditation
readiness plan.
FD
(support:
PRD, FIN,
COM, PFC)
$
89
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 72
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Ongoing Short-term / Ongoing Mid-term
Table 6. Goal 2 implementation matrix: maintaining safe, healthy, and high-performing public trees
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 2.1
Formalize risk-
based
maintenance
categories.
Define standard
maintenance and risk
categories for removals,
pruning, inspections, and
follow-up work.
Update tree records using
the adopted maintenance
categories during
inspections and routine
work.
Use maintenance and
risk categories to
prioritize annual work
planning, budgeting,
and emergency
response.
FD
(support: GIS,
PRD)
$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Action 2.2
Align pruning
cycles with
industry
standards.
Establish a three-year
young tree pruning cycle
and seven-year routine
pruning cycle as planning
targets.
Use inventory data to
estimate annual pruning
needs by size class and
maintenance category.
Adjust pruning cycles
over time based on
staffing, budget, risk,
and tree condition.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, GIS)
$$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 2.3 Increase
pruning and
maintenance
capacity.
Compare current pruning
production with
recommended cyclical
maintenance needs.
Identify staffing, seasonal
support, contractor, and
equipment options to
increase annual pruning
output.
Increase pruning
capacity over time to
reduce backlog and
support proactive
maintenance.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, FIN, HR)
$$$
90
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 73
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Action 2.4
Prioritize young
tree establishment
and structural
care.
Identify young trees
requiring establishment
care, watering, mulching,
staking adjustments,
clearance pruning, or
structural pruning.
Incorporate young tree
care into annual work
plans and volunteer
stewardship opportunities.
Track young tree
survival and structural
care needs to improve
long-term
performance.
FD
(support: PRD,
GWC, BOB,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Ongoing Mid-term
Action 2.5 Maintain
contractor
readiness for
specialized and
surge work.
Identify tree work best
suited for contractors,
including large removals,
complex pruning, plant
health care, and
emergency response.
Develop or maintain on-
call contractor options for
storm events, pest
response, and workload
surges.
Review contractor use
annually to assess
cost, response time,
and service
effectiveness.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, FIN)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Action 2.6 Support
staff training and
professional
development.
Identify training needs,
certification goals, and
continuing education
priorities for all staff
interacting with trees.
Support ISA, TRAQ,
safety, equipment, pest
management, and tree risk
training.
Track certifications,
training hours, and
professional
development needs as
part of annual program
review.
FD
(support: HR,
MSU, ISA)
$$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
91
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 74
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 2.7
Strengthen staffing
capacity to
support urban
forestry
operations.
Establish an internship
program with local
universities and colleges,
focusing on landscape
architecture,
environmental sciences,
and forestry to support
urban forestry initiatives.
Increase seasonal or part-
time urban forestry
positions to support
increased workload and
demonstrate the need for
dedicated full-time staff in
future budget cycles.
Develop long-term
budget proposals for
full-time urban forestry
staff, ensuring
requests align with the
biennial budgeting
process and are
supported by
performance data.
FD/HR
(support: FIN,
PRD, MSU,
local schools)
$$$
Short-term Short/Mid-term Mid-term/Ongoing
Table 7. Goal 3 implementation matrix: growing a diverse and climate-resilient canopy
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 3.1
Implement actions
to achieve a 2%
canopy increase,
reaching 12% by
2046.
Establish a structured
planting program
targeting 871 new trees
per year, not including
mitigation plantings.
Expand partnerships with
nurseries, nonprofits,
developers, and community
groups to support planting
and maintenance.
Track survival rates,
canopy growth, and
adjust planting
priorities annually.
FD
(support: GIS,
PRD, WCD,
BOB, GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 3.2 Increase
species and genus
diversity.
Set species and genus
diversity targets to
reduce vulnerability to
pests, disease, drought,
and climate stress.
Prioritize underrepresented,
climate-adapted species in
City planting, replacement
planting, and development
review.
Review inventory
diversity trends every
three to five years and
adjust planting
priorities.
FD
(support: CD,
PRD, WCD,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Ongoing Mid-term
92
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 75
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 3.3 Update
the approved tree
list for climate
resilience.
Review the approved
tree list for drought
tolerance, heat tolerance,
pest resistance, water
needs, and local
performance.
Add, remove, or reprioritize
species based on observed
performance and projected
climate suitability.
Revise the list every
three to five years
based on performance,
availability, and climate
projections.
FD
(support:
WCD, CD,
PRD, MSU,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 3.4
Prioritize planting
in high-benefit
areas.
Identify and map canopy
gaps using Tree Equity
Score and UFMP data.
Develop an annual planting
program focused on high-
need areas.
Evaluate whether
planting investments
are improving canopy
distribution and public
benefits.
FD
(support: GIS,
CD, PRD,
BOB, GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Action 3.5 Improve
tree establishment
success.
Update planting,
watering, mulching,
staking, soil preparation,
and post-planting care
standards.
Track survival and
establishment issues for
newly planted public trees.
Use survival data to
refine species
selection, site
preparation, watering,
and maintenance
practices.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, BOB,
GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Ongoing Mid-term
Action 3.6 Replace
removals with
diverse, climate-
adapted species.
Replace removed public
trees where feasible
using species matched to
site conditions, available
growing space, and long-
term canopy goals.
Use ash removals and
other planned replacements
to reduce reliance on
vulnerable or
overrepresented genera.
Track replacement
planting by species,
location, survival, and
contribution to canopy
and diversity goals.
FD
(support: GIS,
PRD,
Community
orgs)
$$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
93
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 76
Table 8. Goal 4 implementation matrix: integrating trees into development, infrastructure, and water-conscious site design
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 4.1 Promote
incentives and
partnerships that
encourage private
tree retention and
replanting.
Assess and pilot
incentive tools such as
development bonuses,
expedited permits, or
reduced fees.
Strengthen
collaborations with
nonprofits, regional
agencies, and
businesses for planting
and stewardship.
Explore sustainable
funding mechanisms (fee-
in-lieu, development fees,
partnerships, voluntary
funds).
CD
(support: FD,
BOB, GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 4.2 Update
tree-related
standards and
guidance.
Review standards
related to street trees,
boulevard trees, parking
lots, landscaping,
replacement planting,
and tree protection.
Identify needed updates
to standards, code
language, details, or
guidance documents.
Adopt and train staff on
updated tree-related
standards and
procedures.
CD/FD
(support: PRD,
PW)
$$
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Action 4.3
Strengthen tree
preservation
regulations and
development
processes.
Implement code
improvements based on
policy audit and best
practices.
Evaluate and refine
development review and
inspection procedures.
Require arborist-prepared
Tree Protection Plans
and integrate a
standardized checklist.
CD
(support: FD,
PRD, PW,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Short-term Short-term
94
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 77
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 4.4
Align design
standards with
canopy, diversity,
and climate goals.
Integrate Right Tree,
Right Place, soil volume
minimums, and utility
coordination into design
standards.
Update technical
manuals and
construction details.
Adopt updated standards
and provide
interdepartmental staff
training.
FD/CD
(support: PRD,
PW,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Mid-term
Action 4.5
Consolidate
guidance into a City
Tree Manual.
Compile all existing
standards, policies, and
procedures into a single
document.
Incorporate ANSI A300
and ISA BMP standards
for planting, pruning,
preservation.
Publish a digital,
interactive version for
staff, developers, and
residents.
FD/CD
(support: PRD)
$$
Short-term Short-term Short-term
Action 4.6 Improve
soil volume and
rooting conditions.
Evaluate soil volume
and rooting space
standards for streets,
boulevards, parking lots,
parks, and constrained
sites.
Develop or update
standards for
uncompacted soils,
adequate rooting area,
structural soils,
suspended pavement,
or larger planting areas.
Apply updated standards
to public projects and
relevant private
development projects.
CD / PW
(support: FD,
PRD)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Mid-term / Ongoing
Action 4.7 Promote
water-conscious
landscape design.
Coordinate with Water
Conservation to align
tree planting with
drought response,
irrigation efficiency,
mulch, soil health, and
reduced non-essential
turf.
Develop guidance for
water-efficient
landscapes that support
tree establishment,
long-term canopy
health, and habitat.
Integrate water-conscious
tree guidance into public
outreach, development
standards, and City
projects.
WCD
(support: FD,
PRD, COM,
Community
orgs)
$$
95
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 78
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Action 4.8
Coordinate tree
planning with capital
and infrastructure
projects.
Identify upcoming
transportation, utility,
stormwater, park,
streetscape, and
redevelopment projects
with tree impacts or
planting opportunities.
Include Forestry review
early in project scoping
and design.
Track tree preservation,
planting, removals, and
replacement outcomes
associated with capital
projects.
PW
(support: FD,
PRD, CD,
GIS)
$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Action 4.9 Develop a
Heritage Tree
Program.
Define heritage tree
criteria based on size,
species, age, condition,
history, ecological value,
location, community
significance, and owner
consent requirements.
Create a nomination,
review, recognition, and
promotion process
using tools such as a
registry, online map,
signage, storytelling,
education, and
community events.
Evaluate whether
voluntary recognition
should be paired with
future incentives,
technical assistance, or
preservation guidance.
FD/CD
(support:
COM, PFC,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Table 9. Goal 5 implementation matrix: preparing for pests, climate stress, and disaster events
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 5.1
Implement the
Emerald Ash Borer
Management Plan.
Use the EAB
Management Plan to
guide monitoring, ash
evaluation, treatment
decisions, phased
removals, replacement
planting, and outreach.
Identify high-value ash
trees for preservation,
monitoring, treatment, or
phased replacement.
Update EAB
actions as regional
detections, funding,
treatment options,
and ash condition
change.
FD
(support: GIS,
PRD, COM, MDA,
DNRC, MSU)
$$
96
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 79
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 5.2 Monitor
priority pests and
diseases.
Monitor for EAB, Dutch
elm disease, spruce
beetle, western spruce
budworm, large aspen
tortrix, Heterobasidion
root disease, and
emerging pests.
Integrate pest and
disease observations
into inspections,
inventory updates,
contractor scopes, and
staff training.
Review pest and
disease trends
annually and adjust
response priorities.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, MDA, MSU,
DNRC, Community
orgs)
$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Action 5.3
Strengthen climate
stress response.
Track drought stress,
heat injury, winter injury,
storm damage, and other
climate-related tree
impacts.
Develop tree care
guidance for drought
stages, watering
priorities, mulch, species
selection, and public
messaging.
Use climate stress
observations to
refine planting,
maintenance, and
species selection
strategies.
FD
(support: WCD,
PRD, COM, MSU,
DNRC)
$
Ongoing Short-term Mid-term
Action 5.4 Improve
disaster
preparedness and
recovery planning.
Develop protocols for
storm response, wildfire-
related impacts, large-
scale pest mortality,
debris management,
inspections, and public
communication.
Identify contractor,
staffing, equipment, and
communication needs
for emergency tree
response.
Review and update
disaster response
protocols after
major events or
every five years.
FD
(support: PW,
PRD, COM, PFC)
$$
Mid-term Mid-term Long-term /
Ongoing
97
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 80
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 5.5
Coordinate with
regional and
technical partners.
Maintain coordination with
MDA, DNRC, MSU
Extension, Gallatin
County, neighboring
communities, local
arborists, and federal
resources.
Share pest, disease,
climate, and disaster
preparedness
information with staff
and partners.
Participate in
regional training,
monitoring, or
response
coordination as
opportunities arise.
FD
(support: MDA,
DNRC, MSU,
Community orgs)
$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Action 5.6 Develop
wood handling,
disposal, and
utilization guidance.
Establish guidance for
handling ash debris, pest-
infested wood, mulch,
logs, firewood, and
reusable wood products.
Identify feasible reuse
options such as public
mulch, habitat logs,
school woodshop
donations, local
woodworking
partnerships, and City
project materials.
Update wood
utilization practices
as pest risks,
firewood
regulations, storage
capacity, and
partnership
opportunities
change.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, MDA, DNRC,
Local schools,
Community orgs)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Table 10. Goal 6 implementation matrix: building community stewardship and shared responsibility
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 6.1 Expand
urban forestry
education and
outreach.
Develop accessible tree
education materials for
distribution through
schools, libraries,
community centers, and
City outreach channels.
Partner with schools,
libraries, and community
organizations to
incorporate urban
forestry into youth
programs, workshops,
volunteer events, and
hands-on learning.
Provide multilingual or
translated outreach
materials and
programs where
appropriate to improve
access and
participation.
FD / COM
(support: Local
Schools, MSU,
BOB, GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$
98
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 81
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Action 6.2
Strengthen
Branch Out
Bozeman and
community
partnerships.
Continue coordinating
with Gallatin Watershed
Council through Branch
Out Bozeman.
Use the partnership to
support planting,
mulching, watering,
stewardship events,
grant opportunities, and
education.
Track partnership
outcomes, including
trees planted,
volunteer hours,
events, and grants.
FD
(support:
GWC, BOB,
Com, Local
schools, MSU,
Community
orgs)
$$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Action 6.3
Support private
property owners
and HOAs.
Develop guidance for
residents, HOAs, and
property managers on
species selection,
planting, pruning,
watering, pest
management, and
mature tree care.
Provide outreach
through neighborhood
associations, HOAs,
online resources,
workshops, and direct
engagement.
Evaluate interest in
incentives, cost-share,
or technical assistance
for private tree
planting and care.
CD
(support: COM,
FD Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Mid-term
Action 6.4 Partner
with schools,
Montana State
University, and
major
landowners.
Identify priority partners
and sites for tree
planting, education,
monitoring, research,
and stewardship.
Develop pilot projects
with schools, MSU,
institutions, or major
landowners.
Expand successful
partnerships to
support canopy goals
beyond City-managed
property.
FD
(support: MSU,
Local schools,
Community
orgs, BOB,
GWC)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
99
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 82
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 6.5 Engage
residents and
businesses
through volunteer
programs (Tree
Ambassadors /
Stewards / Adopt-
a-Tree).
Develop a pilot volunteer
program with defined
roles and training
materials.
Recruit and train
volunteers and business
partners to support
planting and
maintenance.
Track volunteer
participation and
highlight success
stories through City
communications.
FD
(support: BOB,
GWC, COM,
Community
orgs)
$$
Mid-term Mid-term Ongoing
Action 6.6
Develop private
tree stewardship
resources and
programs.
Create private tree care
resources focused on
planting, watering,
mulching, pruning, pest
identification, and when
to call an arborist.
Pilot stewardship support
such as tree care
workshops, young tree
care assistance, or
private property planting
support.
Evaluate feasibility of
a Citizen Pruner-style
or neighborhood tree
steward program.
FD
(support: COM,
CD, PFC,
BOB,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Action 6.7
Provide qualified
tree care
resources for
residents.
Develop neutral
guidance to help
residents identify
qualified tree care
providers, such as ISA
Certified Arborists or
licensed contractors.
Review legal and
communication
considerations to avoid
implying City
endorsement unless
formal criteria are
adopted.
Update the resource
guidance periodically
and share it through
City outreach
channels.
FD
(support: COM,
Community
orgs, ISA)
$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
100
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 83
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 6.8
Celebrate
community tree
stewardship
Develop recognition
criteria for individuals,
neighborhoods,
businesses, schools,
volunteers, and partner
organizations that
support Bozeman’s
urban forest.
Create an annual
stewardship award to
recognize contributions
to tree planting, care,
education, preservation,
and community
partnerships.
Promote award
recipients and
stewardship examples
through City
communications,
events, and
community outreach.
FD
(support: COM,
PFC, BOB,
GWC, Local
schools,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Long-term Ongoing
Action 6.9
Strengthen urban
forestry advisory
capacity.
Assess the capacity of
the Parks and Forestry
Commission to support
UFMP implementation,
tree-related
engagement, and
advisory review.
Identify whether
additional urban forestry
expertise, subcommittee
support, or a separate
stakeholder group is
needed to address
workload or technical
gaps.
Define the advisory
structure’s role in
UFMP implementation,
public engagement,
policy review,
partnership
coordination, and
annual progress
reporting.
FD / PRD
(support: PFC,
COM,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Action 6.10
Communicate
tree-related policy
and code
changes.
Develop a
communication plan to
explain proposed tree-
related code updates,
UFMP
recommendations, and
the reasons for potential
policy changes.
Create accessible
materials that summarize
code changes, public
benefits, property owner
responsibilities, and
implementation steps.
Provide public
engagement
opportunities and
ongoing updates
before and after major
tree-related policy or
code changes are
adopted.
CD / COM
(support: FD,
PRD, PFC,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
101
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 84
RESOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the strategies and targets outlined in the tables above, multiple other resources and
considerations can and should be incorporated into the implementation of the 2026 UFMP. While
each consideration may not be applicable to the achievement of every goal, review and use of
the following resources should occur prior to embarking on strategies and targets to reach goals.
IMPROVED COORDINATION
Effective urban forest management depends on clear communication, defined roles, and
coordinated workflows. Regular internal meetings—held at a frequency that balances
collaboration with productivity—should provide a forum to review progress, address challenges,
and plan next steps. Establishing clear responsibilities across departments ensures that all
aspects of urban forest management, from planting to maintenance and emergency response,
are consistently covered.
Documenting current workflows is essential to improving efficiency. Visual tools such as process
maps can clarify responsibilities, while a centralized digital platform can consolidate critical data,
including tree inventories, maintenance schedules, and stakeholder feedback. Implementing a
project management tool further enhances coordination by tracking tasks, deadlines, and
progress in real time.
Annual workflow reviews should assess effectiveness, integrate new technologies, and
incorporate staff and stakeholder feedback. Updates should be accompanied by staff training to
ensure smooth adoption. Maintaining a shared record of lessons learned and best practices helps
institutionalize knowledge and avoid repeating past challenges.
Finally, integrating community and partner feedback into internal reviews keeps the City’s
approach adaptive, transparent, and aligned with public needs while fostering a more efficient
and collaborative urban forest management system.
STAFFING FOR A GROWING URBAN FOREST
Adequate staffing and resources are essential for sustaining Bozeman’s urban forest and
delivering consistent, high-quality service to the community. Effective urban forest management
depends on trained, qualified, and dedicated staff who can maintain pruning cycles, perform
planned removals, care for new plantings, and respond promptly to emergencies and resident
requests.
The goals, strategies, and recommendations outlined in this plan provide a framework for
evaluating operational capacity, identifying resource gaps, and supporting future budget or
staffing requests. Aligning workforce levels with the plan’s implementation timeline will help
ensure that programs such as maintenance cycles, canopy expansion, and community
engagement are implemented effectively and sustainably.
For certain forestry tasks, particularly ground-level or young tree pruning, the City could consider
alternative staffing models to supplement existing in-house capacity. The Forestry Division
manages nearly all pruning and routine maintenance within its areas internally, with five in-house
certified arborists leading operations. Seasonal laborer or intern positions and partnerships with
volunteer groups or local nonprofits could further support routine maintenance, reduce costs, and
provide workforce development opportunities.
102
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 85
More specialized and high-risk services, such as hazard tree removal and emergency response,
should continue to be managed through contracts with certified and experienced tree care
professionals.
Investing in adequate staffing and collaborative resource models supports Bozeman’s broader
commitments to public safety, climate action, and environmental equity, ensuring that the City’s
urban forest remains a resilient, healthy, and well-managed community asset.
TREE MANAGEMENT AND PRIORITIZATION WORKBOOK
A Tree Management and Prioritization Workbook was developed and provided to the City as part
of this Plan update to support proactive maintenance planning. This tool complements the Public
Tree Inventory Summary, which includes examples of recommended maintenance activities and
schedules. Using these resources, qualified City staff can evaluate proposed removals, address
issues when feasible, and plan for natural tree mortality and ongoing monitoring based on priority,
budget, location, and risk.
The Tree Management and Prioritization Workbook supports maintenance planning but cannot
address all citywide needs; therefore, increased public engagement is essential to raise
awareness of property-owner responsibilities and encourage routine care to promote tree health,
longevity, and safety.
A routine pruning cycle, organized by City grid or planning boundaries, should be implemented
so all public trees are pruned on a five- to seven-year rotation. Routine pruning should include:
Clearance pruning: Removing branches obstructing streets, sidewalks, signs, or
buildings.
Crown cleaning: Removing dead, dying, or diseased branches.
Structural pruning: Eliminating weakly attached or co-dominant stems.
Aesthetic pruning: Shaping trees in accordance with natural growth patterns.
The CAL FIRE standards proposed for Bozeman’s urban forest maintenance program classify
trees by management type (large tree, small tree, or young tree training). However, these
categories can be difficult for non-specialists to apply. To simplify implementation, the Tree
Management and Prioritization Workbook organizes trees by DSH rather than age or species.
Industry standards identify trees smaller than 6 inches in diameter to be treated as young and
scheduled for training pruning, while larger trees are assigned appropriate maintenance tasks.
This method ensures consistent, data-driven management across all inventory records and
supports the recommendations outlined in this section. Based on the inventory analysis for
Bozeman, trees smaller than 10 inches in diameter will be used as the cutoff for training pruning,
as identified in the Tree Management and Prioritization Workbook.
Regular monitoring is vital to identify high-priority maintenance needs and respond to emerging
risks. The workbook provides annual activity counts based on the inventoried tree population,
prioritizing all high-risk removals and pruning over a three-year cycle. Critical removals and
pruning should be completed within the first two years to reduce public risk and provide clear
program cost estimates.
Standing Tree Work Contracts
The City of Bozeman’s Public Works and Parks & Recreation Departments currently maintain
standing contracts with tree care providers to support large tree removals and specialized
103
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 86
maintenance needs. Expanding the use of these pre-approved contracts for routine maintenance
can help the City address workload demands when internal capacity is limited, ensuring timely
and consistent tree care.
Standing contracts streamline service procurement, reducing delays associated with emergency
bidding and enabling faster, safer responses to priority maintenance and storm events. They also
support proactive management by allowing the City to plan and budget for regular pruning, hazard
mitigation, and debris removal in advance of urgent needs.
To remain effective, standing contracts should:
Clearly define scope, pricing, and performance standards consistent with ANSI A300
and ISA best practices.
Be renewed and competitively bid on a regular cycle to maintain cost efficiency.
Be incorporated into annual budget planning to ensure funds are available when
additional support is needed.
By maintaining and strategically expanding standing contracts, Bozeman can supplement staff
capacity, enhance public safety, optimize the balance between in-house and contract work, and
ensure the long-term health and resilience of its urban forest.
Routine (Proactive) Pruning of Established Public Trees
Designed to create structurally sound trunk and branch architecture, maximize the lifespan of a
healthy tree, and manage potential tree risks, this “routine pruning” or “proactive / programmed
pruning” will sustain a tree’s benefits to the longest extent possible until the tree ideally reaches
a natural point of senescence, a process of deterioration that occurs as trees age. Proactive or
programmed pruning is typically implemented citywide or in prioritized maintenance corridors on
a rotation of five to seven years depending on the tree species, density of trees, frequency of
pedestrians and vehicles, available budget, and other factors. This means that each tree in the
proactive pruning cycle is pruned for clearance, risk, health, and/or structure at least once within
the programmed cycle (e.g., five to seven years). The goal for mature trees is to develop and
maintain a sound structure to minimize risks such as branch failure. This task is easier provided
a good structure was established earlier in the tree’s life. When properly executed, pruning can
provide a variety of benefits, including reduced risk of branch and stem breakage, better clearance
for vehicles and pedestrians, improved health and appearance, enhanced view, and increased
storm resilience.
Proactive pruning should be a prominent component of Bozeman’s public tree management
program. Proactive pruning plans as well as tree risk mitigation should complement the City’s
overall tree management program goals, align with the UFMP, and should be fully integrated with
tree planting, plant health care, and emergency response programs to grow an equitable and
resilient urban forest.
The level of care or maintenance performed on a planted tree is linked to tree establishment,
survival, growth, condition, and longevity. Survival, growth, and condition are closely connected
to one another and to the structure of a tree (size, leaf area) and of the urban forest (canopy
cover, diversity, age distribution). As a result, tree structure impacts the functions provided by the
urban forest and ultimately the level of benefits generated by the tree. Thus, suboptimal
104
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 87
maintenance may lead to decreased benefits produced by the urban forest. The benefits lost are
the “costs” of not maintaining trees.
To ensure sustainable urban forest management, the City should evaluate pruning needs
annually, track public tree care demands, and adjust staffing and resource allocations accordingly.
Maintaining a five- to seven-year pruning cycle will require strategic investment in personnel,
contracts, and equipment to meet long-term urban forestry goals.
Young Tree (Structural) Pruning
Young tree pruning is performed to improve tree form or structure; the recommended length of
young tree pruning cycles is three years since young trees tend to grow at faster rates (on
average) than more mature trees. The young tree cycle differs from a routine pruning cycle in that
these trees generally can be pruned from the ground with a pole pruner or pruning shear.
The objective is to increase structural integrity by pruning for one dominant leader in most cases
for most tree species. Young tree pruning is species-specific, since many trees may naturally
have more than one leader. For such trees, young tree pruning is performed to develop a strong
structural architecture of branches so that future growth will lead to a healthy, structurally sound
tree. In addition to training pruning, young trees may also require additional maintenance such as
added or amended mulch, watering, added or removed stakes and ties, and/or clearance of debris
and litter. These needs can potentially be addressed during young tree pruning.
Trees included in the young tree pruning cycle are generally less than six inches DSH, per industry
standards. For Bozeman’s urban forest, young trees are identified as less than ten inches DSH.
These younger trees sometimes have branch structures that can lead to potential problems as
the tree ages. Potential structural problems include codominant leaders, multiple limbs attaching
at the same point on the trunk, crossing/interfering limbs, or dead/diseased/damaged limbs. If
these problems are not corrected, they may worsen as the tree grows, increasing risk and creating
potential liability.
Mitigation Plantings
In addition to new plantings needed to achieve Bozeman’s canopy goal, mitigation plantings are
essential to offset tree removals, routine maintenance, and natural annual mortality. Initial
mitigation needs were calculated using the priority removals identified in the Tree Management
and Prioritization Workbook, with additional requirements based on the projected annual loss of
both existing and newly planted trees. A 1% annual mortality rate was applied to the live
inventoried tree population and new mitigation plantings, consistent with recommended
maintenance assumptions in the workbook.
These estimates should be regularly updated to reflect changes in the City’s urban forest
structure, removals, and planting activities, ensuring that mitigation efforts remain accurate and
aligned with Bozeman’s long-term canopy and management goals.
MESSAGING AND COMMUNICATION
Effective communication begins with a few consistent messages repeated across multiple
channels. The City’s outreach should focus on:
Value of Bozeman’s Urban Forest: Highlight canopy benefits, current conditions, and
how trees enhance quality of life, climate resilience, and property values.
105
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 88
How to Get Involved: Promote ways residents can help, such as volunteering,
donating, or planting trees through Arbor Day and community events.
Tree Threats and Care: Provide guidance on identifying pests, proper pruning, and
maintenance to extend tree lifespan and prevent removals.
Transparency in Tree Management: Inform residents about planned removals,
replanting, and maintenance work to foster trust and understanding.
Tailor messages to specific audiences, schools, faith-based organizations, businesses, and
developers so each group understands how urban forestry aligns with their values and can
contribute meaningfully.
Use multiple communication platforms to reach diverse audiences:
Social Media and Web Content: Maintain up-to-date urban forestry information on the
City’s website, use partner channels to expand outreach, and consider targeted paid
social media campaigns for key initiatives, events, or public education messages.
Events and Presentations: Share UFMP goals and updates through community
events, neighborhood meetings, and local business networks.
Surveys and Feedback: Conduct periodic surveys to understand resident priorities and
measure program effectiveness.
Annual Urban Forestry Report: Publish an annual summary highlighting
accomplishments, metrics, and next-year goals.
Interpretive Signage: Install signage identifying tree species and program initiatives to
increase visibility and community pride.
Tree Care Incentive Programs: Implement community-based support initiatives such
as tree vouchers, water bag giveaways, and a Tree Care Support Program to encourage
tree planting and proper maintenance on public and private property.
Public education remains a core strategy. Hosting workshops, producing simple care guides, and
distributing tree care door hangers at planting events can improve maintenance practices and
long-term tree health.
Engaging Property Owners in Tree Care
In Bozeman, approximately 56% of properties are rentals, a number expected to increase
citywide. This trend, along with an influx of new homeowners, presents challenges for urban forest
sustainability, as tree care responsibilities are often overlooked or misunderstood. Without proper
guidance and proactive maintenance, trees on rental and newly purchased properties are at
greater risk of neglect, improper care, or premature removal.
A practical first step is partnering with realtors and real estate companies to provide homebuyers
with clear information on tree care best practices, responsibilities, pruning guidelines, and
retention strategies. The City can also use community social media platforms, local rental
networks, and partnerships with groups such as Bozeman Tenants United to share educational
materials tailored to property owners, tenants, and new residents.
Some municipalities, such as small mountain ski towns in Colorado, have successfully used
similar outreach strategies to promote responsible tree care in rental-heavy areas. Implementing
these low-cost, high-impact solutions can help bridge the gap while longer-term policy and
infrastructure solutions are developed.
106
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 89
Partnerships and Collaboration
Bozeman already has a strong foundation for collaboration through Branch Out Bozeman, a
partnership between the City’s Forestry Division and the Gallatin Watershed Council that supports
tree planting, stewardship, volunteer coordination, education, and grant opportunities. Continued
investment in this partnership can help expand community involvement in tree planting, watering,
mulching, young tree care, and public outreach.
Strong community partnerships are the foundation of effective urban forest management. The
City should continue fostering collaboration among residents, nonprofits, schools, businesses,
and regional partners to expand capacity and shared stewardship. Partnerships with institutions
such as Montana State University and the Gallatin Valley Sunrise Movement can support
research, training, and innovation, while collaboration with master gardeners, extension offices,
and local nurseries can expand community reach and guide species selection for private property
plantings.
Additional regional and community partnerships will further strengthen implementation of the
UFMP. Regional and technical partners will also be important as Bozeman prepares for EAB,
drought, wildfire, and other emerging urban forest risks. Coordination with the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana Department of Agriculture, and
neighboring communities can help the City track pest and disease issues, share technical
guidance, coordinate outreach, and respond to regional threats. Continued coordination with
these partners will enhance on-the-ground project delivery, support education and outreach
programs, and build long-term community investment in Bozeman’s urban forest.
Building on momentum from the UFMP engagement process, the City should continue to
empower residents to take part in implementation, through volunteer tree planting, monitoring,
and education programs. Recognizing volunteer contributions and hosting annual appreciation
events will sustain enthusiasm and long-term involvement.
Bozeman’s Tree Ambassador Program
Establish a Tree Ambassador Program to expand community capacity. Volunteers would receive
training in tree identification, planting, and care from arboriculture professionals, then assist with
tree-related education and planting events.
Ambassadors could also support monitoring, young tree care, and participatory science projects
such as tracking pests or canopy changes through tools like i-Tree or Project Budburst.
Partnerships with local schools, youth programs, and organizations would expand reach and
strengthen volunteer engagement.
By fostering civic pride and environmental stewardship, this program builds long-term community
ownership of Bozeman’s urban forest.
EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Ensuring all neighborhoods benefit equitably from Bozeman’s tree canopy is a core principle of
this plan. Addressing deferred maintenance, prioritizing planting in lower-canopy areas, and
partnering with trusted local organizations will improve canopy equity, community trust, and
neighborhood resilience.
These actions also support broader climate and environmental justice initiatives by increasing
resilience in frontline communities disproportionately affected by heat, poor air quality, and limited
107
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 90
access to green space. Expanding canopy cover in these areas helps mitigate health disparities
and promotes more equitable access to the environmental and social benefits of trees. This
equity-focused approach also strengthens eligibility for state and federal funding opportunities
that prioritize climate resilience, public health, and environmental justice outcomes.
Outreach materials should be multilingual and culturally responsive, with early engagement to
inform planting priorities and species selection. Ongoing communication, transparent reporting,
and proactive follow-up will maintain accountability and ensure the benefits of a healthy, resilient
urban forest are shared citywide.
CITY CODE AND ORDINANCES
A healthy and resilient urban forest depends on clear, consistent, and enforceable policy. In many
cities, tree-related requirements are spread across multiple code sections, which can create
confusion for applicants, staff, and property owners. Bozeman’s existing tree ordinances provide
important direction for public tree management, development landscaping, maintenance
responsibilities, and hazard abatement, but they should be reviewed periodically to reflect urban
growth, changing climate conditions, emerging pests, and evolving urban forestry best practices.
Regular code updates can help align City standards with the UFMP’s goals for canopy
preservation, tree planting, climate resilience, water-conscious site design, and long-term
maintenance. Code modernization should focus on improving clarity, consistency, and
implementation, while balancing tree preservation with housing, infrastructure, private property
considerations, and reasonable development expectations.
Bozeman’s current tree-related code provides a strong foundation. The City has clear Forestry
Division authority over public tree programs, requires ISA certification or equivalent credentials
for tree service businesses, maintains street tree permitting requirements, requires landscaping
and tree planting in new development, and includes provisions for nuisance or hazardous trees.
These strengths should be retained and strengthened as the UFMP is implemented.
The ordinance review also identified opportunities to better align Bozeman’s code with the City’s
canopy, climate resilience, development, and tree preservation goals. Future updates should be
phased, legally reviewed, and paired with public education so residents, developers, City staff,
and property owners understand the purpose, benefits, and practical requirements of any
proposed changes.
Key considerations include:
Tree preservation and private tree strategy: Bozeman currently requires mature trees
over 6 inches DSH to be mapped during development submittals, but this functions
primarily as disclosure rather than a protected-tree standard. Future updates could
evaluate whether to establish clearer protected tree, heritage tree, or removal-
notification provisions, with appropriate exemptions for hazard trees, utilities, emergency
work, and reasonable property use.
Tree protection during construction: Existing code requires protective barriers around
public trees during construction, but does not define critical root zone, dripline, tree
protection zone dimensions, fencing specifications, or signage requirements. Future
standards should define these terms and require consistent tree protection practices for
public projects and applicable private development.
108
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 91
Planting standards and site design: Bozeman has strong baseline planting
requirements, including approved species lists, minimum planting sizes, street tree
spacing, development landscaping requirements, and utility clearance standards.
However, the review found only partial standards for minimum soil volume and rooting
space. Future updates should strengthen requirements for soil volume, planting area
width, uncompacted soils, structural soils, suspended pavement, irrigation feasibility, and
long-term tree establishment.
Maintenance standards and industry best practices: The City has clear authority
over street trees and a pest and nuisance abatement framework, but current code does
not directly reference ANSI A300, ANSI Z133, or ISA BMPs. Future updates should
incorporate these standards by reference in the City Tree Manual, arboricultural
specifications, or related code language to improve consistency in pruning, planting,
preservation, risk management, and worker safety.
Mitigation, replacement, and in-lieu options: Bozeman’s code includes replacement
or valuation requirements for damaged or removed public trees, but mitigation for private
trees is limited mainly to required landscaping. Future updates could evaluate
proportional replacement requirements, on-site replacement, off-site planting, or in-lieu
contributions where preservation or replanting is not feasible. These tools should be
designed carefully to support canopy goals without creating unnecessary barriers to
housing, infill, or reasonable redevelopment.
Enforcement and clarity: The ordinance review found that Bozeman has inspection
authority, restitution provisions, license revocation authority, and nuisance abatement
tools, but fine and fee schedules could be clarified. Future updates should ensure
requirements are enforceable, administratively feasible, and clearly tied to responsible
parties (e.g., department, division), review procedures, appeals, and corrective actions.
Canopy goals and performance tracking: Bozeman’s current code does not require
canopy assessments or reference an adopted canopy goal. As the UFMP is
implemented, the City should consider whether future code, design standards, or
administrative guidance should reference the UFMP canopy goal, canopy assessment
cycle, and performance tracking framework.
Overall, code updates should follow a phased approach: first clarify standards and
responsibilities, then improve tree protection and planting site design, and finally evaluate more
complex tools such as private tree notification, mitigation, incentives, or heritage tree provisions.
This approach allows Bozeman to advance tree preservation and canopy goals while maintaining
flexibility, legal defensibility, and public trust.
TREE REMOVAL NOTIFICATIONS AND PERMITS
The 2026 canopy assessment revealed that most of Bozeman’s tree canopy is on residential
property. While the City manages trees in rights-of-way, parks, and other public spaces, achieving
meaningful tree preservation requires addressing removals on private land. Many communities
regulate tree removal through permit systems, but these programs come with challenges,
including enforcement complexities, staffing needs, administrative costs, and varying levels of
public support.
Montana’s Constitution recognizes both the right to acquire, possess, and protect property and
the right to a clean and healthful environment. It also states that, in enjoying these rights, all
109
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 92
persons recognize corresponding responsibilities. This creates an important planning context for
tree preservation in Bozeman: private property regulations must be carefully developed, legally
defensible, and clearly connected to public benefits such as environmental quality, public health,
climate resilience, and mitigation of canopy loss.
For this reason, any future private tree preservation strategy should be phased, data-driven, and
supported by public education before regulatory requirements are considered. A practical
approach is to follow the Report → Notify → Build Capacity → Regulate framework. This
sequence allows the City to first understand where canopy loss is occurring, notify and educate
property owners, develop tools and resources that support voluntary tree preservation, and then
evaluate whether targeted regulations, incentives, or mitigation requirements are appropriate.
The first phase should focus on voluntary tree removal reporting, allowing the City to track private
tree removals, establish baseline data, and raise awareness about the benefits of tree retention.
This system would help identify trends in tree loss while promoting responsible tree management.
Public education should emphasize the role of trees in climate resilience, community well-being,
and property value enhancement.
To ensure long-term success, the City must build internal capacity before introducing regulatory
measures. This includes studying neighboring cities with private tree removal permits,
strengthening staff expertise through arborist training and certifications, and establishing
interdepartmental coordination for enforcement. A critical component of this phase is the
registration of tree care companies as official businesses within the City. Only registered tree
service providers should be allowed to operate within City limits, ensuring compliance with best
management practices and future regulations.
If tree loss continues at unsustainable levels despite notification and capacity-building efforts, the
City should consider implementing a tree removal permit system. However, this should only occur
if previous measures prove insufficient and the City has established the enforcement capacity
necessary for successful implementation. Any permit system should include clear exemptions,
streamlined processes, and appropriate penalties for noncompliance. Cities such as Seattle
provide useful models, where penalties for unauthorized tree removals are strictly enforced, and
only licensed and registered tree care companies are permitted to work within City limits.
By adopting a phased approach, Report → Notify → Build Capacity → Regulate, Bozeman can
proactively protect its urban forest while balancing community needs and administrative feasibility.
Registering tree companies ensures that only qualified professionals conduct removals, reducing
improper tree cutting and increasing accountability. Through education, data collection, strategic
regulation, and industry oversight, the City can implement an effective and sustainable tree
protection framework that preserves canopy cover for future generations.
PLANNING FOR URBAN FOREST RESILIENCE
The City should begin integrating urban forest resilience planning into broader municipal policies,
public health, and emergency preparedness efforts. While some aspects of resilience may not
require stand-alone plans, trees and the urban forest should be incorporated into all future
planning initiatives. Strengthening resilience through proactive strategies will ensure that the
urban forest remains a vital, sustainable asset for the community.
110
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 93
Urban Forest Storm Resilience Planning
Severe weather events pose a significant threat to trees and the broader urban forest. Developing
an Urban Forest Storm Resilience Plan will provide critical guidance on preparedness, response,
and recovery strategies to manage and mitigate storm impacts. Such a plan will:
Strengthen City protocols to assess and address storm-related tree damage.
Offer educational resources for residents, helping to address concerns about tree safety
following major weather events.
Support long-term tree retention by promoting proper storm-resistant planting and
pruning techniques.
Align with the City's broader emergency response plans, improving coordination with
county and state agencies.
Strengthen eligibility for emergency funding from FEMA and other disaster relief
programs.
Tree Pest and Disease Management
Proactive pest and disease management is essential for protecting Bozeman’s urban forest,
reducing long-term maintenance costs, and limiting sudden canopy loss. This UFMP update is
accompanied by an EAB Management Plan, which provides specific guidance for EAB
monitoring, preparedness, phased ash management, treatment considerations, replacement
planting, wood handling, and public communication.
Beyond EAB, Bozeman should use the pest and disease assessment completed through this
UFMP update process to monitor priority threats such as Dutch elm disease, spruce beetle,
western spruce budworm, large aspen tortrix, Heterobasidion root disease, and other emerging
issues. Ongoing monitoring, early detection, species diversification, sanitation practices, regional
coordination, and public reporting will help the City respond before pest or disease concerns lead
to widespread decline or costly emergency removals.
Together, the EAB Management Plan, pest and disease assessment, and UFMP implementation
actions provide Bozeman with a coordinated framework for protecting its investment in tree
planting, maintenance, canopy sustainability, and long-term urban forest health.
Addressing Invasive Species
While invasive species may not require a stand-alone management plan, the City should
implement a targeted strategy to track and control their spread. Key actions include:
Monitoring and updating the prohibited species list to prevent further introduction of high-
risk species.
Providing public education and online resources for proper removal and replacement of
invasive trees.
Expanding tree inventory efforts beyond street trees to better understand the extent of
invasive species in parks, natural areas, and private properties.
Coordinating with local nurseries to limit the sales of prohibited species.
Urban Forestry’s Role in Wildfire Mitigation
The role of urban forestry in wildfire mitigation is an evolving field that warrants further exploration.
While wildfire risk management is traditionally overseen by Sustainability and Community
Resiliency, urban foresters, tree ambassadors, and master gardeners are often regarded as key
111
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 94
vegetation management experts. In Bozeman, wildfire risk is generally low, with mitigation efforts
being most relevant for residents near greenbelts or the WUI. Although wildfire prevention is not
a primary concern for most residents, City staff regularly receive inquiries on this topic and should
remain informed on best practices and evolving risks to provide accurate guidance when needed.
Adhering to defensible space best practices is one of the most impactful actions homeowners can
take on private property, and these guidelines should be reiterated to the public any time planting
locations on private property are discussed.
Integrating Urban Forestry into Climate Resilience Planning
Urban forestry plays a critical role in climate resilience and sustainability. The City should ensure
that trees are included in all climate adaptation and sustainability initiatives, recognizing their
ability to:
Reduce urban heat island effects.
Improve air quality and carbon sequestration.
Enhance stormwater benefits and soil stabilization.
Support biodiversity and ecological health.
By proactively incorporating urban forest resilience planning into City policies, Bozeman can
safeguard its tree canopy, enhance community preparedness, and maximize the long-term
benefits of its urban forest.
GRANTS
Grants can help Bozeman supplement existing urban forestry funding, close resource gaps, and
advance UFMP implementation. While the City has dedicated urban forestry funding, outside
grants can support priority projects such as tree planting, inventory updates, canopy
assessments, pest preparedness, wood utilization, public education, workforce training, and
climate resilience.
At the state level, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)
Urban and Community Forestry Program is the most directly applicable funding source. DNRC
grants can support local governments, nonprofits, tribal governments, universities, and
community partners with projects such as tree inventories, urban forest management plans,
strategic planting, tree care, best practices, and education and outreach. DNRC also offers
smaller tree planting grants, including opportunities tied to Arbor Day and Tree City USA
participation.
Additional state and federal funding may support related priorities such as wildfire preparedness,
hazardous fuels reduction, conservation education, riparian restoration, drought resilience, and
landscape-scale restoration. National opportunities through the USDA Forest Service Urban and
Community Forestry Program, Arbor Day Foundation, American Forests, and other nonprofit
partners may also support tree planting, tree equity, workforce development, community
engagement, and stewardship projects.
Competitive applications are often strengthened by partnerships. Bozeman is well positioned to
pursue collaborative grants with Branch Out Bozeman, Gallatin Watershed Council, Bozeman
Tree Coalition, Montana State University, Gallatin County, local schools, neighborhood
associations, HOAs, conservation partners, and community organizations. These partners can
112
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 95
provide volunteer time, outreach support, technical expertise, matching funds, or in-kind
contributions.
To improve grant readiness, Bozeman should maintain a list of priority UFMP projects with
estimated costs, responsible parties, timelines, maps, and measurable outcomes. Strong
candidate projects include high-benefit planting areas, young tree establishment and watering
support, EAB preparedness, ash replacement planting, canopy updates, wood utilization pilots,
public education campaigns, staff training, and volunteer stewardship programs. Aligning grant
requests with measurable benefits such as canopy growth, heat reduction, stormwater
management, habitat, public health, and climate resilience will improve competitiveness and
demonstrate the value of continued investment in Bozeman’s urban forest.
WOOD WASTE UTILIZATION
Wood waste utilization is an important opportunity for Bozeman as the City continues routine tree
maintenance and prepares for future phased removals related to EAB, drought stress, storm
damage, and other tree health concerns. The City already makes beneficial use of clean wood
chips through its mulch program, which provides material for residents and City staff while
supporting soil moisture retention, weed suppression, and tree health.
As removal volumes increase over time, Bozeman should explore additional wood utilization
options that move suitable material beyond mulch and disposal. Potential opportunities include
habitat logs in parks and natural areas, school woodshop donations, partnerships with local
woodworkers or sawmills, lumber or slabs for City projects, and limited firewood reuse where
pest, liability, and tracking concerns can be addressed.
Several communities provide useful models. Harrisonburg, Virginia developed an Urban Wood
Utilization Program to recover trees removed because of storms, disease, development, or end-
of-life decline and redirect usable material away from the landfill. Harrisonburg has partnered with
Rocktown Urban Wood and other local collaborators to turn salvaged wood into lumber, furniture,
workshops, and community education projects. Harrisonburg also used wood chips from removed
ash trees in a bioreactor project that supports water quality goals, demonstrating how urban wood
can serve both waste reduction and environmental functions.
Grand Junction, Colorado also provides relevant examples through the broader urban wood
network model, which connects municipalities, arborists, mills, craftspeople, and community
partners to turn removed trees into usable lumber, furniture, and other products rather than relying
only on mulch or landfill disposal. For Bozeman, a similar approach could begin with a simple
sorting and partnership system that identifies which material is suitable for mulch, habitat use,
lumber, woodworking, firewood, or disposal.
A practical first step is to develop wood handling and utilization guidance that distinguishes
between clean wood, pest-risk material, ash debris, logs with reuse potential, and material
requiring disposal or containment. This guidance should be coordinated with the Montana
Department of Agriculture, Montana DNRC, Solid Waste, local arborists, schools, woodworkers,
and potential milling partners. Over time, Bozeman can manage wood utilization to reduce waste,
support local reuse, strengthen public education, and preserve a tangible connection between
community trees and the places they grew.
113
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 96
HOW ARE WE
DOING?
114
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 97
ASSESSING PROGRESS
The UFMP equips the City of Bozeman with a comprehensive framework to measure progress,
adapt to changes in the environment, and respond to shifting resources. Each goal in the plan
aligns with industry standards, best practices, and stakeholder priorities. The objectives within the
plan are designed to improve public tree management and ensure the sustainability of the citywide
urban forest. As goals are pursued, various metrics should be used to evaluate success, monitor
progress, and make necessary adjustments.
The City should leverage the expertise of its Forestry Division, Urban Parks and Forestry Board,
and an interdepartmental team to manage the monitoring of Plan implementation. This group
should work in collaboration with relevant partners to ensure effective execution.
While the UFMP outlines a strategic vision for the City’s urban forest, the specific actions and
strategies for implementation will be determined by the City upon adoption. This will ensure a
focused approach to action steps while providing flexibility as the City addresses challenges and
opportunities over time. Over time, as the Plan’s initial strategies are implemented and its
successes demonstrated, opportunities may arise to secure additional funding, partnerships, or
staffing to support longer-term actions and expand the impact of the Plan.
TRACKING PLAN PROGRESS (BENCHMARK VALUES)
Staff can measure plan progress by regularly using multiple tools and methods to track changes
in key metrics outlined in the UFMP benchmark table (Table 11). Checking the Tree Equity Score
through American Forests provides a snapshot of equity improvements, while periodic updates to
the canopy assessment help monitor citywide tree cover changes over time. Maintaining an up-
to-date tree inventory is essential, as it allows seamless data export to i-Tree for detailed
ecosystem benefits analysis and valuation.
Table 11. Benchmark values
2026 Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Cover
Tree Equity Score (2024) 72 out of 100
UTC 9.8%
Public Tree Counts (Inventory as of 2026)
Total Public Trees Total: 28,459
Tree Benefits (2026 Estimates)
Citywide (UTC Assessment) 2026: $626,552 (total annual)
Ecosystem benefits of Public
Trees (inventoried)
2026: $1,715,500 (annual benefits and total carbon
storage)
Asset Value of Public Trees
(inventoried)
$29.1 million ($1,023 per tree average)
Tree And Budget Distribution (2026)
Public Trees per Capita
(inventoried)
2.1
Budget per Capita $17.75
Budget per Public Tree
(inventoried)
$36.47
Urban Forestry Staff (FTE) 5 (2026)
Total Public Trees per Forestry
Staff
5,692
115
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 98
Management Activities (2026)
Public Trees Pruned To be recorded at the end of the year
Public Trees Removed To be recorded at the end of the year
Public Trees Planted To be recorded at the end of the year
Number of Volunteers and/or
Hours
To be recorded at the end of the year
Urban Forest Audit System (Total Score of 2026): 74%
Management Policy and
Ordinances
93%
Professional Capacity and
Training
56%
Funding and Accounting 75%
Decision and Management
Authority
100%
Tree-related Inventories 62%
Tree-related Plans 63%
Risk Management 78%
Disaster Planning 43%
Standards and Best
Management Practices
78%
Community 83%
Green Asset Management 80%
Public Perception (2026)
Tree-related priorities Strong support for maintaining existing trees while
increasing new tree planting, with priorities focused on
healthy and safe public trees, more shade and cooling,
planting in low-canopy areas, and improving resilience to
pests, disease, and climate change.
Preference for improving public
tree health
Public preference for regular inspections and pruning,
improved species selection, clear maintenance
standards, education on tree care, and better
coordination between the City and property owners.
The urban forest audit, provided to the City, serves as a critical tool for assessing changes and
evaluating progress. This resource allows the team to compare current conditions with baseline
data, identifying areas of improvement or emerging challenges. Engaging the community through
surveys provides additional insights into public perception and satisfaction, offering valuable
feedback for refining strategies and priorities. Surveys also help track changes in public
awareness and involvement in the urban forest's care and maintenance.
Additionally, annual management activities, recorded as part of Tree City USA reporting, should
be thoroughly analyzed for trends such as increased pruning, decreased removals, or enhanced
planting efforts. This analysis not only demonstrates tangible progress but also identifies areas
where adjustments may be needed. By continuously monitoring these metrics and comparing
them against the established benchmark values, the City team can ensure alignment with UFMP
goals and communicate measurable achievements to stakeholders. This iterative process fosters
accountability, highlights successes, and supports adaptive management to sustain a healthy and
resilient urban forest.
116
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 99
REPORT AND REVISE
Completion of this Plan is a critical step towards meeting the vision for Bozeman’s urban forest.
Continual monitoring, analysis, and reporting will help to keep urban forest partners involved and
focused on implementing the actions. Plans are typically revised every 10 to 15 years; hence, the
Plan will need formal revision to respond and adapt to changes as they develop and establish
new targets. Ideally, revisions to the Plan should align with updates to other key City planning
efforts, such as the Bozeman Community Plan, Bozeman Climate Plan, and tree retention and
landscaping regulations. This alignment will help ensure cohesion among City initiatives, enabling
shared priorities and goals to be integrated effectively. However, even if direct alignment is not
feasible, these planning efforts should, at a minimum, refer to the most up-to-date version of the
UFMP to maintain consistency and ensure forestry goals are reflected across the City’s broader
planning framework. Revisions to the Plan should occur with major events, such as newly
discovered pests or diseases, changes in program budget and resources, or significant changes
to industry standards or legal codes.
The findings from monitoring and evaluating Plan progress as demonstrated in the previous
section should be incorporated into an internal and external report(s).
Many cities with an urban forest management plan are shifting towards online reporting, making
the results of plan implementation and monitoring protocols accessible through interactive
platforms on their websites. In addition, the team overseeing the Plan’s implementation should
prepare an annual report and work plan that is communicated to other City boards, committees,
and City Commission. Other departments should be made aware of the report and work plan and
informed of how the work plan aligns with other City priorities and projects.
Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on Plan progress will inform any necessary changes to the
Plan’s strategies or actions and should be addressed in a timely manner where appropriate.
Completion of this ten-year Plan with a seven-year Public Tree Management Program is a critical
step towards meeting the vision for Bozeman’s urban forest.
CONCLUSION
Trees are an integral part of the Bozeman community and its natural environment. They provide
significant economic, social, and ecological benefits, such as carbon sequestration, reducing heat
islands, energy savings, stormwater runoff reduction, improving water quality, enhancing human
health and wellness, and increasing property values.
117
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 100
The changing climate, combined with Montana’s rising cost of living and increased development,
adds complexity to preserving this natural asset. Acting now on the UFMP is essential to ensure
that Bozeman continues to enjoy the many benefits of its trees while adapting to the future
challenges that will test urban forest resilience.
The UFMP serves as a strategic roadmap for managing Bozeman’s public and private trees. This
plan outlines the goals, strategies, and actions necessary to preserve the long-term vitality of the
urban forest. Implementing this plan requires both stewardship and financial resources to begin
its execution. Further, it must be institutionalized with a sense of urgency, as the health of the
urban forest directly impacts the overall wellbeing of Bozeman and its residents.
Bozeman’s leadership understands that a healthy urban forest is essential to supporting the long-
term health of its residents and future generations. The urban forest is the backbone of the urban
ecosystem, just as critical as water, infrastructure, and energy in sustaining healthy communities.
To achieve these goals, the City should consider the following commitments:
Recognize that the trees within the urban forest are essential infrastructure, providing
far-reaching benefits beyond aesthetics.
Manage the urban forest as a critical part of Bozeman’s natural green infrastructure,
following best management practices for tree selection, planting, watering, and pruning.
Protect the urban forest from known and future threats, including climate change, pest
infestations, and diseases, by promoting policies that enhance its resilience.
Foster public appreciation of the urban forest through educational programs and support
local efforts to plant and maintain trees.
Engage in long-range planning for the urban forest’s growth and ensure that decisions
are made inclusively and transparently.
Successful implementation of this Plan will elevate Bozeman to a higher level of community
service, creating a more equitable, sustainable, and thriving urban forest that benefits all residents
and future generations.
118
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 101
REFERENCES
Abbot, J., Hartel, D., Kidd, S., Macie, E., Mitchell, C., “Urban Forest Sustainability and
Management Review” spreadsheet developed by Urban Forestry South (USDA Forest
Service, Region 8, SRS-4952, Athens, GA. Original checklist develop in cooperation with
Agnes Scott College Office of Sustainability, the ASC Arboretum Advisory Council, and
the City of Austin, TX, 2015.
Alliance for Community Trees. 2011. Benefits of trees and urban forests: A research list.
www.actrees.org.
American National Standards Institute. (2012). ANSI A300 (Part 6) – Tree, shrub, and other
woody plant
maintenance – Standard practices (utility pruning). Tree Care Industry Association.
Brandt, L., Derby Lewis, A., Fahey, R., Scott, L., Darling, L., & Swanston, C. (2016). A framework
for adapting urban forests to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 393–
402.
Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., et al., Particulate matter
air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the
American Heart Association, National Library of Medicine, June 2010.
Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability: Application to Cities in the
United States.” Journal of Arboriculture 24(2): pp. 17-30, March 1997.
Colorado State Forest Service, Emerald Ash Borer: A Green Menace, www.csfs.colostate.edu,
2019.
Drescher, M. “Urban heating and canopy cover need to be considered as matters of
environmental justice.” National Library of Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences (PNAS), December 2019; 116(52): 26153-26154.
Dunster, J. A., & Edmonds, R. (2014). Common fungi affecting Pacific Northwest trees:
Implications for tree risk assessment. Dunster & Associates Ltd.
Environmental Protection Agency, What Climate Change Means for Arkansas, EPA 430-F-16-
006, August 2016.
Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology
Evolution and Systematics, 34, 487-515.
Forterra. (n.d.). Community restoration grants: Restoring land in urban and suburban areas.
https://forterra.org/our-work/programs/community-restoration-grants/
Fowler, A. (Ed) 2015. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little
Rock, Arkansas. 1678 pp.
Hauer, R., Petersen, W., “Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014
Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities.” 2016.
https://csfs.colostate.edu/forest-management/common-forest-insects-diseases/
119
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 102
i-Tree Canopy. i-Tree Software Suite v5.x. (2024). http://www.itreetools.org
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Iverson, L.R., Peters, M.P., Prasad, A.M., and Matthews, S.N. (2019). Analysis of Climate Change
Impacts on Tree Species of the Eastern US: Results of DISTRIB-II Modeling. Forests.
10(4): 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10040302.
Keet, C. A., Matsui, E. C., McCormack, M. C., Peng, R. D., Urban residence, neighborhood
poverty, race/ethnicity, and asthma morbidity among children on Medicaid, Journal of
Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Volume 140, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 822-827, ISSN 0091-
6749.
Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 484
pp.
Kendal, D., Dobbs, C., & Lohr, V. I. (2014). Global patterns of diversity in the Urban Forest: Is
there
evidence to support the 10/20/30 rule? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(3),
411–417.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.004
Kim Y. J., Kim, E. J. Neighborhood Greenery as a Predictor of Outdoor Crimes between Low and
High-
Income Neighborhoods. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 25;17(5):1470.
Konijnendijk, C., “Promoting health and wellbeing through urban forests – Introducing the 3-30-
300 rule, LinkedIn, February 2021.
Leahy, I. (2017). Why We No Longer Recommend a 40 Percent Urban Tree Canopy Goal.
American Forests, americanforests.org. Accessed January 2023.
Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
McPherson, G.E., 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban
Forestry
& Urban Greening 17 (2016) 104-115.
Mihandoust, S., Joseph, A., Kennedy, S., MacNaughton, P., Woo, M. Exploring the Relationship
between Window View Quantity, Quality, and Ratings of Care in the Hospital. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 12;18(20).
Miller, R. W. (1988). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Miller, R. W., Hauer, R. J., & Werner, L. P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban
Greenspaces, Third Edition.
120
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 103
Pontius, R. and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation
disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 32, 15:
4407-4429.
Richards, N. A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population.” Urban Ecology
7(2):159–171.
Richards, N.A. 1993. Reasonable guidelines for street tree diversity. Journal of Arboriculture
19:344–349.
Santamour, F.S., 1990. Trees for urban planting: diversity, uniformity and common sense. Paper
Presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement
Alliance.
Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J., Margules, C. R., Conservation Biology, Volume 5, No. 1, pp. 18-
32. “Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review.” March 1991.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., "Children With Attention Deficits Concentrate Better After Walk in the
Park," Journal of Attention Disorders 12.5 (2009): 402-409.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. Retrieved March 26,
2025,
from https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/
U.S. Forest Service. (2004). Street tree planting standards and guidelines. U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
U.S. Forest Service. (2025). i-Tree ecosystem analysis: Mountlake Terrace, Washington – Urban
forest
effects and values. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Ulmer, J.M.; Wolf, K.L.; Backman, D.R.; Tretheway, R.L.; Blain, C.J.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.; Frank,
L.D. Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green
prescription. Health Place 2016, 42, 54–62.
United States Department of Agriculture, Pests and Disease,
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/pests-diseases, 2023.
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. (n.d.). University of Maryland Center
for
Environmental Science. Retrieved March 26, 2025, from https://www.umces.edu/
USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate
Assessment, Volume II: [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel,
K.L.M.
Vose, J. M., Clark, J. S., Luce, C. H., & Patel-Weynand, T. (Eds.). (2016). Effects of drought on
forests
and rangelands in the United States: A comprehensive science synthesis. U.S.
Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office.
121
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 104
Wolf, K. L., Lam, S. T., McKeen, J. K., Richardson, G. R. A., van den Bosch, M., Bardekjian, A.
C., “Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2020.
Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area Data Pamphlet,
Washington County, Arkansas. Accessed February 2023, woodsandpoole.com.
Montana Department of Agriculture. (2021). Emerald Ash Borer Exterior Quarantine (MTQ-2021-
001), effective January 13, 2021.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana Department of
Agriculture, Montana State University Extension, and Montana Invasive Species Council.
(2025). State of Montana Emerald Ash Borer Readiness and Response Plan. May 2025.
122
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 A-1
APPENDIX A: CANOPY GOALS AND PLANTING TARGETS
123
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 B-1
APPENDIX B: 2026 URBAN FOREST AUDIT RESULTS
124
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Urban Parks and Forestry Board
FROM:Mitch Overton
SUBJECT:Director's Update
MEETING DATE:July 23, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Administration
RECOMMENDATION:Director's Update
STRATEGIC PLAN:6.5 Parks, Trails & Open Space: Support the maintenance and expansion of
an interconnected system of parks, trails and open spaces.
BACKGROUND:When meeting time permits a standing item of Director Updates will be
provided to the Board for communication and informational purposes.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:Omit when time does not allow for the update.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None
Report compiled on: July 16, 2026
125