HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-26 Public Comment - L. McLane - RE_ Draft Urban Forest Management Plan RecommendationsFrom:Lilly McLane
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Alex Nordquest
Cc:Katherine Berry; Holly Hill
Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE: Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Recommendations
Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:50:57 AM
Attachments:26.09.15 GWC Public Comment Forest Management Plan.pdfUrban Forest Management Plan_GWC_Annotated.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Forestry Division and their consultants, DJ&A and PlanIT Geo,
Please see the attached comment letter and the annotated draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this process, and I look forward to partnering on
the work outlined in this Plan over the next 20 years!-- Lilly McLane, Watershed Restoration DirectorGallatin Watershed Councilhttp://gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
Cell: 410.371.8221
To: City of Bozeman and their consultants, DJ&A and PlanIT Geo
Re: Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
From : Gallatin Watershed Council
Date: September 14, 2026
Dear Forestry Division, DJ&A, and PlanIT Geo,
Thank you for your time and thoughtful work on the Urban Forest Management Plan, and for
engaging the Bozeman community in shaping a shared vision for our urban forest over the next
20 years.
It has been a pleasure working with the Forestry Division through Branch Out Bozeman over the
past couple of years. We have planted trees alongside volunteers, commissioners, partner
organizations, and City staff, and witnessed the power of this work to bring smiles to people’s
faces—rain, snow, or shine. We have watched park spaces, streamsides, and boulevards
transform, and we know this is just the beginning of something worthwhile.
The following recommendations are offered with the hope that this plan serves as both a clear
vision for Bozeman’s urban forest and an actionable guide for the many people who will help
bring that vision to life.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lilly McLane
Watershed Restoration Director
Gallatin Watershed Council
RECOMMENDATIONS
See annotated Plan provided as a seperate attachment.
1. Plan Organization:
The sections What We Have → What We Want → How We Get There provide an
intuitive framework for vision to action. The plan would benefit from following this
structure more consistently.
a. Substantive recommendations for improving the urban forest appear throughout
the plan, from the introduction through the appendices. Bring these
recommendations together in How We Get There , otherwise they get lost. This
could also potentially help shorten the plan and make it more digestible.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship
in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
b. Terms including themes, shared values and priorities, goals, canopy goals,
strategies, actions, resources and considerations are used throughout the
plan without a clear understanding of how they are related.
c. It is unclear how Resources and Considerations is different from the
Implementation Summary .
2. Goals:
The goals are currently a blend of desired outcomes with strategies for achieving them,
and lack connection to the benefits trees provide–which is the whole point! There is an
opportunity to zoom out and provide stronger, more accessible statements of what
Bozeman hopes to accomplish over the next 20 years. Clarity is especially important in
this section for such a collaborative effort.
a. Consider fitting the existing goals/actions within an alternative framework:
Expand the benefits of trees by increasing Bozeman’s tree canopy 2% over
the next 20 years through three complementary strategies: 1) plant new
trees, 2) protect and care for existing trees, and 3) increase the resilience of
the urban forest.
3. Riparian Trees:
Carry the theme of riparian areas throughout the plan. The introduction acknowledges
that, historically, Bozeman would not have been a forest except along streams. Riparian
trees provide significant community and ecological benefits, while streamsides are
low-hanging-fruit for increasing canopy with less reliance on irrigation and with climate
adapted, native species. These opportunities will be especially prevalent as Bozeman
grows west. Consider including riparian trees in the following sections:
a. Why Urban Trees and Bozeman’s Urban Forest: Expand the discussion of
benefits to include riparian trees that provide flood mitigation, erosion control,
water quality, reduced stream temperatures, wildlife habitat, and enhanced
recreation. Climate change in the Gallatin Watershed is predicted to bring
flashier flood events, and tree lined streams are some of the best insurance
money can buy to protect life, infrastructure, and property.
b. What We Have: Acknowledge that Bozeman is growing west into an area heavily
impacted by agriculture where many streams lack native riparian vegetation and
are instead surrounded by non-native pasture grasses.
c. What We Want: Build on the vision established in the PRAT Plan, Goal 4, for
parks that incorporate natural areas, native trees and shrubs, watercourses,
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship
in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
riparian corridors, and wetlands as part of the larger park system.
d. How We Get There: There are several actions to consider that would
intentionally incorporate riparian areas into the Plan:
i. Define "high impact areas" to include waterways/wetlands and prioritize
planting riparian trees
ii. Ensure watercourse and wetland setbacks are protected in the
development process to maintain high value planting opportunities
iii. Coordinate with parks planning to align natural area parks along
watercourses
iv. Coordinate with parks maintenance to establish no-mow zones within
watercourse setbacks and allow for the establishment of native woody
riparian vegetation.
4. Stormwater:
Carry the themes of stormwater throughout the plan. Stormwater mitigation is discussed
as a significant benefit of urban trees, but beyond generally improving coordination with
other departments, there are no specific goals or actions related to utilizing trees more
strategically to help mitigate stormwater.
a. What We Have: Include the Stormwater Management Plan in the list of Relevant
Plans and Studies.
b. What We Want: Recognize trees as an important form of green stormwater
infrastructure and a tool for managing runoff.
c. How We Get There: Although trees provide significant stormwater absorption
and treatment, current practice is to remove trees from stormwater detention and
retention facilities. Consider updating the Stormwater Design Standards to
include trees in facility design.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative water stewardship
in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
www.gallatinwatershedcouncil.org
URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
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
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.
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.
Since the 2016 Plan, the City has made meaningful progress on caring for the urban
forest, accomplishing goals outlined in the original plan, establishing and hiring for a
Forestry Manager role, increasing species diversity, and reducing the green ash
population in preparation for the arrival of emerald ash borer. This updated Plan aims
to build on these successes.
The budget for the Forestry Division as of 2026 is $1,037,919, and Bozeman’s tree
budget per capita is slightly higher than the national average but lower than the
Montana state average. This highlights the importance of the urban forest and its
management in Bozeman. With the current budget and staffing, the Forestry Division
is at capacity for maintaining the existing urban forest. This Plan outlines several goals,
including an increased canopy cover goal. Many of the actions required or available to
help achieve these goals will require increased budget, staff, equipment, volunteer
hours, or some combination of all four. Recommendations are made within a range of
options, when possible, to allow the City to balance near-, mid-, and long-term
priorities of the urban forest over the next ten years.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 v
regional and local resources and Bozeman-specific datasets to identify key
factors influencing the City of Bozeman’s tree infrastructure. This analysis is a
snapshot in time and guides the recommendations made in this Plan.
Inventory updates can be reviewed periodically to catalogue progress and
identify potential areas for improvement or adjustment.
• 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 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. Apply industry standards to Bozeman’s urban forest
planning and preparation for climate change, including species selection and
tree preservation efforts to support long-term canopy health and resilience.
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).
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 vi
The UFMP was developed in 2026 and reflects input from Bozeman staff, the Urban
Parks and Forestry Board, the City Commission, 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, interdepartmental
collaboration, 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, care for mature trees, 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.
Recommended actions include code language updates, improved
interdepartmental coordination, increased education and outreach, and
further developing tree care standards for the City.
• Prepare for Pests, Climate Stress, and Disaster Events: Recommendations
relate to building a proactive preparedness framework for emerald ash borer,
secondary pests and diseases, drought, wildfire, severe weather, and other
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 vii
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. It is suggested that these trees be planted through a combination of City,
private, and partnership efforts. An increased focus on community and partnership
tree plantings will allow Bozeman to reach its canopy cover goals over the coming
decades. Another important target for the City is the continual reduction of the green
ash population. Since the 2016 Plan, the City has reduced its green ash population
from 42% to 22%. This is admirable work and provides a great baseline from which to
continue to manage Bozeman’s ash population in preparation for the arrival of
emerald ash borer. Bozeman’s ash population still represents a significant portion of
the overall canopy and standard industry practice is to continue reducing the ash
population until it is below 10% with replacement plantings outside of the suggested
871 annual tree plantings to meet the canopy cover goal. In this way, Bozeman’s urban
forest will be simultaneously working toward an increased canopy cover goal while
also managing for an expected pest threat that has the potential to do significant
damage to the City’s trees, both public and private.
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. Further expansion of all resources available to
help achieve the goals outlined in this Plan are presented after the implementation
roadmap matrices and are connected to actions and action targets as appropriate.
Additional considerations for the City are provided to help staff make the most
informed decisions when balancing six important, and sometimes overlapping, goals
to improve the condition and resiliency of Bozeman’s urban forest.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 viii
that its trees remain an equitable and growing part of the urban landscape for
generations to come.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ iv
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. iv
Purpose, Priorities, and Process .................................................................................................................. iv
Goals and Strategic Framework ................................................................................................................. vi
Implementation Approach .......................................................................................................................... vii
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? ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Bozeman’s Urban Forest ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Tree Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Tree Inventory Overview ................................................................................................................................. 16
Public Inventoried Tree Population ......................................................................................................... 16
Summary of Tree Inventory Analysis ....................................................................................................... 21
Tree Canopy ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Management of Bozeman’s Urban Forest .............................................................................................. 32
Current Tree Management .......................................................................................................................... 32
Stakeholder Feedback on Current Conditions ................................................................................. 41
Development and Land Use Changes ..................................................................................................46
Resilience of the Urban Forest ................................................................................................................... 47
Urban Forest Audit ............................................................................................................................................ 62
Vision for the Future.............................................................................................................................................. 66
Goals, Strategies, and Actions .................................................................................................................... 66
Implementation ....................................................................................................................................................... 73
Implementation Summary .......................................................................................................................... 73
Resources and Considerations .................................................................................................................. 95
Assessing Progress ................................................................................................................................................ 113
Tracking Plan Progress (Benchmark Values) .................................................................................. 113
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 x
Report and Revise ............................................................................................................................................. 115
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 116
References .................................................................................................................................................................. 118
Appendix A: Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan ............................................................................ 1
Appendix B: Tree Canopy Assessment and Goal Setting .................................................................. 1
Appendix C: Heritage Tree Program Considerations and Template .......................................... 1
Appendix D: Tree Protection Plans and City Tree Manual ................................................................ 1
Appendix E: 2026 Urban Forest Benchmarks ........................................................................................... 1
Appendix F: 2026 Urban Forest Audit Results .......................................................................................... 1
Appendix G: 2026 Tree Inventory Analysis Summary........................................................................... 1
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. The
goals and recommendations contained herein are intended to serve as guidance for
the Forestry Division. They are intentionally ambitious but achievable with adequate
funding and support.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 2
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.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 3
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 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 4
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 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 5
• 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 beetles threaten 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 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
Figure 1. Emerald ash borer, large aspen tortrix, and spruce beetle (Source: USDA Forest
Service, USDA Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 6
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.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 7
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 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 Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 8
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 did 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 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 9
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 10
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 11
• 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 12
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
Figure 3. Benefits and services of urban trees
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 13
data supports the integration of trees into infrastructure, helps address equity gaps,
and communicates their value to the public.
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 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).
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 14
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 15
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 16
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, analyses, and graphic representations of the data from the
2026 public tree inventory are provided in Appendix G: 2026 Tree Inventory Analysis
Summary, which includes recommendations for the strategic stewardship of
Bozeman’s urban forest. The tree inventory analysis 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 trees are incorporated into the canopy cover analysis, presented in the Tree
Canopy section below.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 17
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.
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%
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 18
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 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
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)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 19
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.
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.
Figure 8. Overall condition of
Bozeman's trees
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 (Figure 8). 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.
Excellent,
2%
Good, 44%
Fair, 29%
Poor, 5%
Very Poor,
2%
Dead, 1%Unknown,
17%
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 20
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 9).
Figure 9. Relative performance index
Green Ash
0.70
Littleleaf Linden
1.25
Honeylocust1.00 Norway Maple
0.89 American Elm
0.86
Chokecherry1.14
Colorado Spruce
1.39
American Linden
1.02
Quaking Aspen1.01
Red Maple
1.09
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 21
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.
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 Appendix G: 2026 Tree Inventory Analysis
Summary.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 22
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 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 23
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.
Public Tree Benefits
The inventory of 28,459 publicly managed trees in Bozeman shows these trees provide
annual benefits totaling $95,500 (Figure 10). 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 24
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 population).
Proper management can increase these values, while declining tree health and cover
can reduce them.
Figure 10. Estimated annual benefits of Bozeman's urban forest
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 25
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 26
Figure 11 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 benchmarking analysis, Bozeman’s Tree Equity Score of 72 ranks
slightly below the average score of 78 (Figure 12, Figure 13). The benchmark analysis,
completed for the 2026 UFMP update, is included in Appendix E: 2026 Urban Forest
Benchmarks.
Figure 11. Bozeman's tree equity score map
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 27
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 14). 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.
Figure 12. Tree equity scores by census block groups
Figure 13. Tree equity score compared to benchmarking city scores
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
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 28
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 15). 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 15. 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 16). 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 14. Comparing tree canopy cover (13.5%) and poverty populations (Source:
American Forests Tree Equity Score analysis)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 29
Figure 16. 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 17). 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 17. 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,
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 30
greater concentrations of people of color, and available planting space. Targeting
investments in these areas can help ensure that the environmental, economic, and
public health benefits of Bozeman’s urban forest are distributed more equitably
across the community.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 31
WHAT DO WE HAVE?
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 32
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 33
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.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 34
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 18 and Figure 19 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 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 18. Comparison of urban forestry budgets to benchmark cities (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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 35
Figure 19. Comparison of urban forestry budgets per capita to best match, statewide, and national averages (2024)
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. Trees planted by City staff are
automatically incorporated into the Foresty Division’s online tree inventory tracking
system. With this system, staff can identify when the last maintenance work occurred,
track tree condition, and review the overall City tree population. Trees that are planted
on public land, for example, in a new development, are added to the City’s tree
inventory upon first visit after development activities are deemed complete. In this
$17.75
$12.51
$27.43
$17.45
Bozeman Overall Best Match Averages Statewide Averages National Averages
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 36
way, the Foresty Division can keep track of all trees on public lands; however,
incorporation of public trees planted by private individuals may be delayed.
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.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 37
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 20 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.
Figure 20. 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
120
54
127
285
Bozeman Overall Best Match Averages Statewide Averages National Averages
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 38
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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 39
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 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 Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 40
• 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.
• 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 41
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 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 42
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 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 43
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 44
Committee. There was strong support for better communication 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,
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 45
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.
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
A mid-process update was presented to the Bozeman City Commission on Tuesday,
July 28, during a special presentation. Commissioners noted that several of the
questions they had regarding the process and the preliminary draft UFMP were
already addressed during the previous work session on Thursday, July 23 with the
Urban Parks and Forestry Board.
During the mid-process update with the City Commission, Commissioner Allision
Sweeney shared that two Urban Parks and Forestry Board members signaled for
more robust language regarding tree retention in the Plan. Additionally, members
signaled support for a higher canopy cover goal in the UFMP, increasing from the
proposed 12% in the preliminary draft UFMP.
Several comments were provided by the community during the mid-process update,
including from the Bozeman Tree Coalition and members of the public. Bozeman Tree
Coalition requested a canopy cover goal for the Plan of 16%.
After the public comment period, the finalized UFMP will be presented to the City
Commission in November 2026 for adoption.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 46
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.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 47
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 21). 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 48
Figure 21. 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 49
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.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 50
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 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 22), 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 51
Figure 22. 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 23). 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 52
Figure 23. Bozeman and its projected future climate analog, Boise City, 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 24). 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 pest 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 53
capabilities while also having a negative impact on human health and the
environment.
• 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 24. 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 54
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.
• 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 55
• 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 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 25).
Figure 25. 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 56
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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 57
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. 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 58
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 26). 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.
Appendix A: Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan provides direction for Bozeman
to prepare for EAB in a sustainable and realistic manner.
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 27). 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.
Figure 26. Emerald ash borer
(Source: USDA Forest Service)
Figure 27. Dutch elm signs and symptoms
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 59
Large Aspen Tortrix
Large aspen tortrix (Choristoneura conflictana) is a
native defoliating moth that primarily affects quaking
aspen (Figure 28). 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 29). 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 28. Mature aspen tortrix larvae (Source: USDA
Figure 29. Western spruce budworm caterpillar (Source: Montana State University)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 60
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 30). 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 31). 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.
Figure 30. Fruiting bodies of heterobasidion root disease in tree cavity (Source: Pacific
Northwest Pest Management
Handbooks)
Figure 31. Spruce beetle
(Source: Colorado State
Forest Service)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 61
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 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 32).
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 33).
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.
Figure 32. Russian olive (Source:
Colorado Department of
Agriculture)
Figure 33. Common buckthorn (Source: Montana
Weed Control Association)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 62
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 34). 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.
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
Figure 34. Siberian elm (Source:
Colorado Department of Agriculture)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 63
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 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%. Appendix F: 2026 Urban Forest Audit
Results details the specific categories met, in progress, or not practiced in Bozeman
and how they contribute to the final performance score.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 64
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 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 35 provides an
interpretation of the scores for the City to consider when implementing the Plan’s
corresponding actions.
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 35. Bozeman's urban forest audit results, 2026
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 65
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 66
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, based on the 2026 Bozeman city limits, 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% of
these plantings should occur on public land, with the remainder supported through
private planting, partnerships, and incentives. The City-led portion of these new tree
plantings is estimated to cost $2,662,200 and is an ambitious but attainable goal for
Bozeman over the next 20 years.
Public input identified the desire for a higher canopy goal for the City, represented at
15% in the analysis provided in Appendix B: Tree Canopy Assessment and Goal
Setting. This would require planting 1,949 trees every year. With the same anticipated
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 67
planting split, 585 of these trees would be City-led plantings with the remainder
supported through private plantings and partnerships. This is estimated to cost
$5,967,000, or more than double the cost estimated for the 12% canopy cover goal
presented in the Plan. Again, this estimate is for City-led plantings only and additional
funds would be required or expended to meet any canopy cover goal for Bozeman’s
urban forest.
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.
Future canopy assessments should be completed periodically, ideally timed with the
3-year flyover data. This data is for the growth boundary identified in the 2025
Bozeman Community Plan. Future canopy assessments could take advantage of this
growth boundary to identify additional plantable space to sustainability grow
Bozeman’s urban forest beyond the current City limits, benchmark progress on the
City’s canopy increase goal, and provide up-to-date metrics for adjusting planting and
maintenance needs and priorities.
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. 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 68
• 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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 69
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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 70
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.
Action 5.2: Monitor priority pests and diseases.
Action 5.3: Strengthen climate stress response.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 71
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 72
HOW DO
WE GET THERE?
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 73
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 outline 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 74
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:
• 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 75
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. Each subsection links back to one or
more goals or associated action targets to provide a clear path forward for how the
City of Bozeman can implement this Plan. Additionally, appendices provide further
information regarding technical details and analysis considerations that contributed
to goal and action target development.
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
PARTNERSHIP
Actions jointly carried
out by the City and
community partners
including residents,
developers,
nonprofits, schools,
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
76
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)
$$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Action 1.2
Use urban forest data to guide annual
work planning and
budgeting.
Use inventory and
maintenance data to
identify annual pruning,
removal, planting, and
inspection needs.
Incorporate canopy,
ecosystem service,
pest, and risk data
into annual budget
requests.
Compare funding
needs using per-
tree, per-capita,
canopy, and
service-level
benchmarks.
FD
(support:
GIS, FIN,
PRD, PW,
CMO)
$
Short-term Ongoing Mid-term
Action 1.3 Strengthen
interdepartmental coordination.
Integrate UFMP
implementation into
existing
interdepartmental
meetings or establish
dedicated check-ins.
Develop shared
tools for tracking
urban forestry
projects, data, and
grants.
Include UFMP
updates in annual
departmental and
management
reports.
FD
(support:
PRD, PW,
CD, WCD,
GIS, FIN,
COM,
CMO)
$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
77
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead
Dept. Cost
Action 1.4
Track UFMP implementation and
report progress.
Develop a simple UFMP
implementation tracking
template.
Track annual
progress, including
trees planted,
removed, pruned,
inspected, volunteer
hours, pest
monitoring, canopy
updates, and
funding needs.
Prepare an annual
UFMP progress
summary for staff,
leadership, and
public
communication.
FD
(support:
PFC)
$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Action 1.5
Evaluate urban forestry service
levels and resource needs.
Define current service
levels for planting,
pruning, removals,
inspections, pest
monitoring, and
emergency response.
Identify staffing,
equipment,
contractor, training,
and funding gaps.
Develop minimum,
standard, and
enhanced service-
level options to
guide future
budget decisions.
FD
(support:
PRD, FIN)
$$
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)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
78
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead
Dept. Cost
Action 1.7
Integrate urban forest data into
broader City planning and
reporting.
Use tree inventory and
canopy data to support
development review,
capital projects, grant
applications, and
infrastructure planning.
Integrate tree and
canopy data into
planning for
stormwater,
transportation,
parks, climate
resilience, and
redevelopment.
Evaluate
opportunities to
incorporate urban
forest data into
broader green
infrastructure or
financial reporting.
FD
(support:
GIS, CD,
PW, PRD,
WCD, FIN,
CMO)
$$
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)
$
Ongoing Short-term / Ongoing Mid-term
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
79
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)
$$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 2.3 Increase pruning
and
maintenance capacity.
Compare current
pruning production
with recommended
cyclical maintenance
needs.
Identify staffing,
seasonal support,
contractor, and
equipment options to
increase annual
pruning output.
Increase pruning
capacity over time
to reduce backlog
and support
proactive
maintenance.
FD
(support:
PRD, PW,
FIN, HR)
$$$
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
80
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
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)
$$
Short-term Ongoing Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
81
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 2.7
Strengthen staffing capacity
to support urban forestry
operations.
Establish an internship
program with local
universities and
colleges, focusing on
landscape
architecture,
environmental
sciences, and forestry
to support urban
forestry initiatives.
Increase seasonal or
part-time urban
forestry positions to
support increased
workload and
demonstrate the need
for dedicated full-time
staff in future budget
cycles.
Develop long-term
budget proposals
for full-time urban
forestry staff,
ensuring requests
align with the
biennial budgeting
process and are
supported by
performance data.
FD/HR
(support:
FIN, PRD,
MSU, local
schools)
$$$
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)
$$$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
82
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 3.2
Increase species and genus
diversity.
Set species and genus
diversity targets to
reduce vulnerability to
pests, disease,
drought, and climate
stress.
Prioritize
underrepresented,
climate-adapted species
in City planting,
replacement planting,
and development
review.
Review inventory
diversity trends
every three to five
years and adjust
planting priorities.
FD
(support: CD,
PRD, WCD,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Ongoing Mid-term
Action 3.3
Update the approved tree
list for climate resilience.
Review the approved
tree list for drought
tolerance, heat
tolerance, pest
resistance, water
needs, and local performance.
Add, remove, or
reprioritize species
based on observed
performance and
projected climate
suitability.
Revise the list every
three to five years
based on
performance,
availability, and
climate projections.
FD
(support:
WCD, CD,
PRD, MSU,
Community
orgs)
$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Action 3.4
Prioritize
planting in high-
benefit areas.
Identify and map canopy gaps using
Tree Equity Score and
UFMP data.
Develop an annual planting program
focused on high-need
areas.
Evaluate whether planting
investments are
improving canopy
distribution and
public benefits.
FD (support: GIS,
CD, PRD,
BOB, GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$
Short-term Short-term Mid-term
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
83
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
84
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
85
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
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)
$$
Short-term Short-term Short-term
Action 4.4 Align design
standards with canopy, diversity,
and climate goals.
Integrate Right Tree,
Right Place, soil
volume minimums,
and utility
coordination into
design standards.
Update technical
manuals and
construction details.
Adopt updated
standards and provide
interdepartmental
staff training.
FD/CD
(support:
PRD, PW,
Community
orgs)
$$
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)
$$
Short-term Short-term Short-term
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
86
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 4.6
Improve soil volume and
rooting conditions.
Evaluate soil volume
and rooting space
standards for streets,
boulevards, parking
lots, parks, and
constrained sites.
Develop or update
standards for
uncompacted soils,
adequate rooting
area, structural soils,
suspended
pavement, or larger
planting areas.
Apply updated
standards to public
projects and relevant
private development
projects.
CD / PW
(support: FD,
PRD)
$$
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)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Action 4.8
Coordinate tree planning with
capital and infrastructure
projects.
Identify upcoming
transportation, utility,
stormwater, park,
streetscape, and
redevelopment
projects with tree
impacts or planting
opportunities.
Include Forestry
review early in
project scoping and
design.
Track tree
preservation, planting,
removals, and
replacement
outcomes associated
with capital projects.
PW
(support: FD,
PRD, CD,
GIS)
$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
87
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 4.9
Develop a Heritage Tree
Program.
Define heritage tree
criteria based on size,
species, age,
condition, history,
ecological value,
location, community
significance, and
owner consent
requirements.
Create a nomination,
review, recognition,
and promotion
process using tools
such as a registry,
online map, signage,
storytelling,
education, and
community events.
Evaluate whether
voluntary recognition
should be paired with
future incentives,
technical assistance, or
preservation guidance.
FD/CD
(support:
COM, PFC,
Community
orgs)
$$
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)
$$
Short-term Short-term Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
88
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 5.2
Monitor priority pests and
diseases.
Monitor for EAB,
Dutch elm disease,
spruce beetle, western
spruce budworm,
large aspen tortrix,
Heterobasidion root
disease, and emerging
pests.
Integrate pest and
disease observations
into inspections,
inventory updates,
contractor scopes,
and staff training.
Review pest and
disease trends
annually and
adjust response
priorities.
FD
(support: PRD,
PW, MDA, MSU,
DNRC,
Community
orgs)
$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Action 5.3 Strengthen
climate stress
response.
Track drought stress,
heat injury, winter
injury, storm damage,
and other climate-
related tree impacts.
Develop tree care
guidance for drought
stages, watering
priorities, mulch,
species selection, and
public messaging.
Use climate
stress
observations to
refine planting,
maintenance,
and species
selection
strategies.
FD
(support: WCD,
PRD, COM, MSU,
DNRC)
$
Ongoing Short-term Mid-term
Action 5.4
Improve disaster preparedness and
recovery
planning.
Develop protocols for
storm response, wildfire-related
impacts, large-scale
pest mortality, debris
management,
inspections, and public
communication.
Identify contractor,
staffing, equipment, and communication
needs for emergency
tree response.
Review and
update disaster response
protocols after
major events or
every five years.
FD
(support: PW, PRD, COM, PFC)
$$
Mid-term Mid-term Long-term /
Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
89
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)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
90
Table 10. Goal 6 implementation matrix: building community stewardship and shared responsibility
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 6.1
Expand urban forestry
education and
outreach.
Develop accessible
tree education
materials for
distribution through schools, libraries,
community centers,
and City outreach
channels.
Partner with schools,
libraries, and
community
organizations to incorporate urban
forestry into youth
programs, workshops,
volunteer events, and
hands-on learning.
Provide multilingual
or translated
outreach materials
and programs where appropriate
to improve access
and participation.
FD / COM
(support:
Local
Schools, MSU, BOB,
GWC,
Community
orgs)
$$
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)
$$
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
91
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 6.3
Support private
property
owners and
HOAs.
Develop guidance for
residents, HOAs, and property managers
on species selection,
planting, pruning,
watering, pest
management, and mature tree care.
Provide outreach
through neighborhood
associations, HOAs,
online resources,
workshops, and direct
engagement.
Evaluate interest in
incentives, cost-share, or technical
assistance for
private tree
planting and care.
CD
(support: COM, FD
Community
orgs)
$$
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)
$$
Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
92
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
Action 6.5
Engage
residents and
businesses
through volunteer
programs (Tree Ambassadors / Stewards /
Adopt-a-Tree).
Develop a pilot
volunteer program with defined roles
and training
materials.
Recruit and train
volunteers and business partners to
support planting and
maintenance.
Track volunteer
participation and highlight success
stories through City
communications.
FD
(support: BOB, GWC,
COM,
Community
orgs)
$$
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
93
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
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
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026
94
Action Action Target 1 Action Target 2 Action Target 3 Lead Dept. Cost
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 95
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 as outlined in Action 1.3 ensures that all aspects of urban forest
management, from planting to maintenance and emergency response, are
consistently covered. The Forestry Division already works closely with GIS and Asset
Management to coordinate flyover data that contributes to canopy cover analysis and
other departments and divisions during emergency situations like winter storms.
Additional coordination with the Parks Division was identified during the staff survey
as an important place for clarification of responsibilities between the Forestry and
Parks Divisions for park tree maintenance.
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. Action 1.1 outlines
how Bozeman can refine its current inventory system to better align schedules,
implement the recommended pruning cycles, and improve coordination with other
departments and divisions as necessary to ensure the urban forest inventory is up to
date and useable. This also aligns with Action 1.3. In time, the inventory system could
be linked to funding sources for tree plantings to help track project-specific data
linked to developments, grant funds, and more.
Annual workflow reviews as identified in Action 1.3 should assess effectiveness,
integrate new technologies, and incorporate staff and stakeholder feedback. The
starting point for this data is currently being input into TreeCity on an annual basis
and can help inform more detailed budget and management reports for the Forestry
Division as other action targets or entire goals are accomplished. 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. At a minimum, these reports will provide the
necessary data tracking for the City to understand how the urban forest is being
managed, quantify progress that has been made, and identify areas where strategies
can or should be adjusted to better suit more sustainable and achievable tree care.
This ties directly to Action 1.6 and updating canopy assessments regularly. Tree
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 96
inventory data and reporting will provide the granular data needed to drive everyday
operations while periodic canopy assessment updates will allow the City to identify
areas of planting success, consider where development may be impacting mature
trees, and adjust planting recommendations as necessary to maximize plantable
space and equitable locations for new trees to best support the long-term canopy
cover goal.
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. Action 1.8 identifies industry
standards for reporting processes and accreditation materials, which can be
incorporated into training current and new staff as appropriate, as identified in Action
2.6.
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. Action 2.7 builds directly off increased and standardized training for staff
by identifying ways that the City of Bozeman can strengthen staffing capacity to
support expanding urban forestry operations. As stated throughout the Plan, the
goals and recommendations provided are not achievable with the current staff. By
taking small steps now to identify long-term budget proposals and staffing needs, the
Forestry Division will be able to be supported in their efforts to expand their staffing
capacity to meet the growing needs of the urban forest.
Action 5.5 builds off of the suggested partnership opportunities identified in Action
2.7 and underscores the need to maintain coordination with local entities; ensure up
to date information regarding pest, disease, and disaster preparedness is shared in a
timely manner; and allow for collaboration for training opportunities to strengthen
the community effort to care for Bozeman’s urban forest and improve its resiliency.
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 97
could further support routine maintenance, reduce costs, and provide workforce
development opportunities.
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. Action 1.2 provides guidance for how to use current tree inventory
data to assess budget needs, and context provided by the 2026 analyses will assist the
Forestry Division in developing adequate budget requests for increased staffing or
contracting to support the urban forest. This will be especially important as tree care
and maintenance will continue to expand as the City strives to meet the established
canopy cover goal, prepare for emerald ash borer, and address emergency situations
like severe storms. Appendix B: Tree Canopy Assessment and Goal Setting provides
additional cost information for various canopy cover goal scenarios, which will help
the Forestry Division balance budget requests with realistic planting and
maintenance goals.
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 and
supports Action 1.4. 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, as identified in Action 2.1 and organized by City grid or
planning boundaries, should be implemented so all public trees are pruned on a five-
to seven-year rotation. This will align pruning cycles with industry standards, as noted
in Action 2.2. 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 98
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.
Implementation of the workbook will actively support Action 1.2 by providing the
necessary data to guide annual work planning and budgeting.
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 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. Action 2.5
outlines several ways to ensure that contractor readiness is maintained and identifies
potential areas best suited for contractor work.
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-
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 99
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. Implementation of Action 1.5 will
help the City develop and maintain a regularly scheduled pruning cycle. 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 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, as identified in Action 2.3. 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 100
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 (Action 6.1, Action 6.2).
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 101
• How to Get Involved: Promote ways residents can help, such as volunteering,
donating, or planting trees through Arbor Day and community events (Action
6.5, Action 6.6).
• Tree Threats and Care: Provide guidance on identifying pests, proper
pruning, and maintenance to extend tree lifespan and prevent removals
(Action 6.7).
• Transparency in Tree Management: Inform residents about planned
removals, replanting, and maintenance work to foster trust and
understanding (Action 6.10).
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 as detailed in Action 6.8.
• 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 102
Action 6.3 provides several ways to support private property homeowners and HOAs.
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.
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 (Action 6.2).
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
(Action 6.4).
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 Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 103
Bozeman’s Tree Ambassador Program
Action 6.5 identifies the establishment of a Tree Ambassador Program as a way to
expand community capacity and engage residents. Volunteers would receive training
in tree identification, planting, and care from arboriculture professionals, then assist
with tree-related education and planting events (Action 6.6).
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 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 as detailed in Action 6.1 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 (Action 4.2).
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,
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 104
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. Action 4.9 details the development of a heritage
tree program, which is further supported by material provided in Appendix C:
Heritage Tree Program Considerations and Template.
• 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 (Action 4.3). This will ensure that mature trees are
provided with necessary protections across a variety of development,
construction, or other ground disrupting practices. Considerations for a tree
protect plan are provided in Appendix D: Tree Protection Plans and City
Tree Manual.
• 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. This is addressed directly by Action
4.6. Future updates should strengthen requirements for soil volume, planting
area width, uncompacted soils, structural soils, suspended pavement,
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 105
irrigation feasibility, and long-term tree establishment. Action 4.4 identifies
pathways to align design standards with canopy, diversity, and climate goals.
Additionally, Action 4.7 outlines several ways to promote water-conscious
landscape design, further supporting climate goals and tree health, and will
benefit the establishment and maintenance of mature trees in the long term.
• 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. Guidance for this consolidation is provided in Action 4.5.
• 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. Action 6.10 provides considerations for supporting
materials to engage with the public regarding any tree-related policy and code
changes. 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,
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 106
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 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
(Figure 36). 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.
Report
Notify
Build Capacity
Regulate
Figure 36. Framework for tree preservation strategy
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 107
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.
HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM
A Heritage Tree Program can help Bozeman recognize and document trees that hold
exceptional community, historic, cultural, ecological, or visual value. As outlined in the
example framework provided in Appendix C: Heritage Tree Program Considerations
and Template, the program is recommended as a voluntary, recognition-based
program that would create a public record of notable trees without restricting private
property rights or creating new development review standards. Eligible trees may
include those with exceptional size, age, rarity, historical or cultural association,
neighborhood landmark value, or membership in a notable grove, avenue, or
planting.
The program should be administered through the Forestry Division in coordination
with the Urban Parks and Forestry Board, with nominations reviewed based on clear
criteria and owner consent required for any privately owned tree. Designated trees
could be included in a public Heritage Tree list or map, recognized with certificates or
optional markers, and featured in interpretive materials, walking tours, Arbor Day
events, or community stewardship campaigns. The framework also identifies models
from other communities, including Philomath, Oregon’s resident-narrative approach,
Vancouver, Washington’s use of partnerships for private tree support, and Ferguson
Township, Pennsylvania’s optional protection tier for owners who voluntarily seek
stronger preservation measures.
For Bozeman, a recognition-first approach is the most practical starting point. It would
celebrate community-valued trees, strengthen public awareness, connect urban
forestry to local history, and support stewardship without creating immediate
regulatory obligations. As the program matures, the City could review participation,
administrative burden, geographic distribution, and canopy loss trends to determine
whether voluntary recognition should be paired with future incentives, technical
assistance, preservation guidance, or an optional protection tier.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 108
PLANNING FOR URBAN FOREST RESILIENCE
The City should begin integrating urban forest resilience planning into broader
municipal policies, public health, and emergency preparedness efforts (Action 5.4).
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 like increasing species and genus diversity
(Action 3.2), providing an updated approved tree list for climate resilience (Action 3.3),
and replacing removals with diverse and climate-adapted species (Action 3.6) will
ensure that the urban forest remains a vital, sustainable asset for the community.
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
(Action 5.1).
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 (Action 5.2). 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 109
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 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 implement Action 5.3 to 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,
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 110
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 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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 111
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. In addition to utilization, handling and disposal guidance are important
ways to continue to engage and educate the public (Action 5.6).
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 112
HOW ARE WE DOING?
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 113
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 12). The
2026 Benchmark Analysis is provided in Appendix E: 2026 Urban Forest
Benchmarks. 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)
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 114
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
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
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 115
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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 116
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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 117
• 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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 118
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 119
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/
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 120
Miller, R. W., Hauer, R. J., & Werner, L. P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing
Urban Greenspaces, Third Edition.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 121
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.
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.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 A-1
APPENDIX A: EMERALD ASH BORER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan is a standalone plan from the UFMP and
should be implemented in tandem with the larger goals of the Plan.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 B-1
APPENDIX B: TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT AND GOAL
SETTING
The Tree Canopy Assessment provides the basis for the recommended canopy cover
goal and associated cost estimates. Goal setting is informed by staff, stakeholder, and
public feedback in addition to the canopy data and several scenarios beyond the
recommended 12% canopy cover goal are outlined in this appendix.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 C-1
APPENDIX C: HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
AND TEMPLATE
This appendix outlines Heritage Tree Program considerations and provides a template
for the City to develop upon and implement.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 D-1
APPENDIX D: TREE PROTECTION PLANS AND CITY TREE
MANUAL
The Tree Protection Plan and City Tree Manual attachments provided in this appendix
are resources for the Forestry Division to develop and implement in alignment with
working towards the goals identified in the Plan.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 E-1
APPENDIX E: 2026 URBAN FOREST BENCHMARKS
The data provided in this appendix was compiled and analyzed during the 2026 Urban
Forest Management Plan update, using 2024 data. It is meant to represent a snapshot
in time during Plan development and can be revisited as the City deems appropriate
to “re-benchmark” certain urban forest characteristics to help adjust priorities
throughout the implementation of this Plan, as necessary.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 F-1
APPENDIX F: 2026 URBAN FOREST AUDIT RESULTS
The 2026 Urban Forest Audit results place Bozeman’s urban forest within the context
of existing City management policy, funding, disaster planning, green asset
management, and more during the 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan update.
Results are summarized in the Plan, with full details presented in this appendix.
Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan 2026 G-1
APPENDIX G: 2026 TREE INVENTORY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The 2026 Tree Inventory Analysis Summary provides a snapshot in time of Bozeman’s
tree inventory that was analyzed in January 2026 during the 2026 Bozeman Urban
Forest Management Plan update. As conditions change, progress is made, and the
urban forest expands, the City may periodically revisit the tree inventory to review
planting metrics, pruning data, or other values that contribute to understanding the
overall health of the urban forest. Additionally, since several goal components focus
on updating the inventory system with more comprehensive and industry standard
tracking metrics, future tree inventory snapshots will only become more useful to the
City during its decision-making processes related to the urban forest.