Joplin MO 2016 Urban Forest Management Plan

Urban Forest Management Plan JOPLIN, MISSOURI May 2016

…an assessment and management strategy for the City’s public trees…

Prepared by Plan-It Geo, LLC

URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Joplin, Missouri

May 2016

Prepared for: City of Joplin, MO Department of Parks and Recreation

Prepared by: Plan-It Geo, LLC 5690 Webster St Arvada, CO 80002

Acknowledgements This project was conducted for the City of Joplin, Missouri and was funded by the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Tree Resource Improvement and Maintenance Grant in cooperation with the Missouri Community Forest Council.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction Overview of Joplin, MO Joplin’s Urban Forest Today Benefits of the Urban Forest Urban Forest Management Plan Purpose and Overview Goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan Data Collection Methodology

1 4 4 4 5 6 7 7

Inventory Results and Summary Inventory and Analysis Results: Structure Tree Diversity and Composition Tree Diversity of Separately Added Trees Size and Age Distribution

8 9 9 10 11

Inventory and Analysis Results: Management Urban Forest Condition Primary Maintenance Requirements

12 12 14

Inventory and Analysis Results: Risk Potential Threats from Pests

15 15

Structure, Management, and Risks: City Park Trees Structure of Park Trees Management of Park Trees Potential Risks Posed to Park Trees

16 16 17 18

Inventory and Analysis Results: Benefits Tree Management Recommendations Overview of Management Recommendations Citywide High-Risk Tree Maintenance Citywide Routine Pruning Citywide Young Tree Pruning Citywide Ash (Fraxinus) Tree Maintenance Specific Maintenance Recommendations for Park Trees Urban Forestry Program and Budget Method for Prioritizing Removals

19 20 20 20 21 21 22 23 24 27

Conclusion Appendices Definitions Data Fields and Risk Assessment Protocol Resources

28 I II III VI

i|P a g e

FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1. Summary of the benefits of inventoried trees Figure 2. Composition of the ten most prevalent species Figure 3. Condition of the tree inventory population Figure 4. Maintenance needs of the tree inventory population Figure 5. Diagram of the Urban Forest Management Plan Figure 6. Location of tree inventory points in the City of Joplin Figure 7. Species composition of the inventoried trees Figure 8. Composition of the top five genera Figure 9. Genus composition of the separately added trees Figure 10. Diameter size class distribution of the inventoried trees Figure 11. Ideal diameter class distribution for an urban forest Figure 12. Condition class distribution of the inventoried trees Figure 13. Observations affecting Condition class rating Figure 14. Maintenance requirements for the inventoried trees Figure 15. Trees >30� DBH identified for Tree Clean in parks Figure 16. Map showing the 97 silver maples identified for removal Figure 17. Tree population by land use Figure 18. Distribution of size classes in City parks Figure 19. Condition class of trees in City parks Figure 20. Map of the park trees with a Severe Risk Rating Figure 21. Map showing the location of the 59 trees identified for removal that have a Risk Rating of

2 3 3 3 6 7 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 14 16 17 17 18 27

Tables Table 1. Estimated costs for maintenance in a 5-year timeframe Table 1. Summary of Risk Rating for the inventoried trees Table 3. Species composition of top ten (of 6,264 trees) Table 4. Composition of the top five genera (7,654 trees) Table 5. Genus composition of the separately added trees Table 6. Trees by Condition Table 7. Summary of the Condition ratings for the top three species Table 8. Top ten species identified for removal (493 total) Table 9. Summary of Risk Ratings and counts of greatest risk Table 10. Most common species in parks Table 11. Summary of separately added trees in parks Table 12. Primary maintenance needs for trees in parks Table 13. Risk Rating counts for trees in City’s parks Table 14. Summary of species with Risk Rating of Severe Table 15. Benefits provided by the three most prevalent species in the inventory Table 16. Count of trees identified for removal by size class to be completed with five years Table 17. Routine pruning cycle for all public trees by size class Table 18. Young tree pruning counts for one year cycle Table 19. DBH ranges for Fraxinus Table 20. Primary maintenance for Fraxinus Table 21. Count of trees identified for removal by size class in parks to be completed in the first 5 Table 22. Routine pruning cycle for all park trees by size class Table 23. Count of young trees for young tree maintenance in parks Table 24. Cost estimates per tree size class for maintenance Table 25. Estimated budget for the maintenance tasks of all inventoried public trees Table 26. List of trees identified for removal and given a Severe Risk Rating

1 3 9 10 10 12 12 14 15 16 16 18 18 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 26 27

ii | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Joplin’s urban forest is comprised of trees, shrubs, gardens, green spaces and other natural areas. This “forest” is a critical component of the City’s green infrastructure and contributes to environmental quality, public health, water resource management, local economies, and the beautification of often harsh, paved landscapes. Recognizing the value that trees provide and realizing the need for urban forest improvement is the first step in protecting this valuable resource. Like other valued assets, urban trees require proper planning and management to withstand pressures from urban, suburban, and exurban development as well as pests, diseases, storms, and poor practices.

The community has long appreciated the value of their urban forest but a recent catastrophic event, the tornado of May 22nd, 2011, shed light on the substantial impact trees and canopy have on the ecological and social well-being of Joplin. The tornado ravaged the community, destroying over 17,000 trees and left a community devastated from homes and lives lost and denuded of its tree canopy.

Today, Joplin is recovering and reestablishing its urban forest. Many planting initiatives sprung up as communities recognized the value that the canopy once provided. To better understand this value and to proactively manage the urban forest, Joplin underwent a tree inventory of its public streets and parks. A snapshot of their public tree’s condition and management needs allows the community to set goals and strategically plan to conserve and increase the urban forest.

The Urban Forest Management Plan provides a strategy for maintenance and associated costs. The following table summarizes the cost by maintenance task in a 5-year timeframe which addresses the trees identified for removal, high-risk trees, routine pruning, and young tree training. Using a cyclical maintenance program over the course of 5 and 10 years depending on urgency, the total costs over a 5year timeframe are estimated at $1,200,529.

Table 1. Estimated costs for maintenance in a 5-year timeframe

Maintenance Projected Removal Costs Stump Removal Costs Projected Pruning Costs TOTAL

5-Year Cost $469,670 $4,585 $726,274 $1,200,529

1|P a g e

The City of Joplin should use the tree inventory data and summaries from this Plan to build support for the tree management program. Efforts should be made to add the remaining public trees to the inventory database and ongoing maintenance and updates to the inventory should be part of the City’s work plan. The Urban Forest Management Plan provides the baseline data and outlines the strategies for effective tree management. The challenge now is to apply the information and science to improve the condition and extent of the urban forest and enhance the quality of life in the City of Joplin.

Of the 7,654 trees inventoried (4,501 within parks), the top five species include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), post oak (Quercus stellata), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), This Urban Forest Management Plan uses the baseline inventory data to strategically plan its urban forest to improve the health and longevity of the City’s vital resource through proactive management.

The Plan outlines the strategies to achieve a 10-year management vision for the City of Joplin’s urban forest by addressing the high-risk tree removals and pruning followed by routine and young tree pruning cycles. A 5-year management budget and strategy is included in the Plan to assist the City with estimating future costs and work plans.

The following pages provide an overview of the City of Joplin’s urban forest structure, management needs, and potential risks.

Tree Benefits The public trees of Joplin provide a myriad of benefits. Collectively, an annual $600,000 in benefits is received from the public trees inventoried, the majority as a result of increased property values ($377,479 annually). The three most prevalent species, silver maple, sweetgum, and post oak provide 76% of the overall annual benefits and savings to Joplin. For full details and a summary of tree benefits see the Benefits of the Urban Forest section.

QUICK STATS

$112,972

PROPERTY AIR QUALITY_ _ _ 12,000 lbs removed

$377,479 CARBON _ _ _ _ _ 1.3 million lbs sequestered

$79,281 STORMWATER_ _ 9.4 million gallons mitigated

$15,103 $15,099

ENERGY _ _ _ _ _ 905,000 kWh saved

$600,000 saved annually Figure 1. Summary of the benefits of the inventoried trees

2|P a g e

Species Composition

Tree Condition

Of the 6,264 trees in which the species name is available, silver maple, sweetgum, and post oak comprise the majority of the tree inventory population with 11%, 7%, and 6%, respectively. The top ten species amount to 58% of the inventory population and the distribution is illustrated in the figure below.

The majority of trees in the inventory are classified as being in Fair condition (45%) followed by Good condition (25%), and Poor condition (23%), determined by certified ISA arborists during the inventory data collection.

6% 7%

19%

8% 12%

8% 9%

10% 10%

10%

silver maple

sweetgum

post oak

eastern redbud

American sycamore

callery pear

red maple

pin oak

siberian elm

common hackberry

Figure 2. Composition of the ten most prevalent species

Figure 3. Condition of the tree inventory population

Maintenance Needs

Potential Risks

The primary maintenance needs for the public trees is a type of routine pruning known as Tree Clean (3,427 trees) in which the dead, diseased, dying, decayed, and/or interfering branches are pruned.

Of the 6,423 trees given a primary maintenance prescription, 493 are identified for removal.

Of the 6,263 trees given a Risk Rating, 2,921 are rated as Moderate Risk and 70 as Severe risk requiring immediate attention due to the tree’s size, probability of failure, and target at risk.

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Table 2. Summary of Risk Rating for the inventoried trees

Risk Rating

Tree Clean

None Tree Stump Young Needed Removal Removal Tree Train

Count

Severe High Risk Moderate Risk

70 1,230 2,921

Low Risk None TOTAL

2,023 19 6,263

Figure 4. Maintenance needs of the tree inventory population

3|P a g e

INTRODUCTION An urban forest consists of both public and private trees and woody shrubs that grow within the city and its suburbs. Trees are known for their aesthetic characteristics but they should also be recognized for the many important environment, social, and economic benefits to the community. These benefits include the reduction of air pollution, water volume, energy use, temperatures, and crime and the increase and improvement in property values, consumerism, health, habitat, and community well-being.

Urban forests are a living and vital component of a community’s infrastructure and assets. An asset is anything that is capable of generating a profit that can be reinvested to benefit the city. Due to recent research and technology, trees can now be assigned a monetary value. Their structure and physiology generate value, savings, and profit. All trees in the urban forest, whether it be in a park, along a street, or in a parking lot, provide many important ecological services. Trees impact the community, environment, and economy. These benefits call for the need for trees to be treated as vital city infrastructure that impacts the quality of life and the environment. Thus, the Urban Forest Management Plan is a crucial component of the City’s urban forest program.

Overview of Joplin, MO The City of Joplin is located in southwest Missouri, in parts of Jasper and Newton County. As the largest city in the region, Joplin is home to over 50,000 people within its 36 square mile boundary. From 20002010 the population has increased by 10% and the city is occupied by over 250,000 people during daytime hours. The City sits in the center of the Four State Area, is comprised of twelve neighborhoods, and is drained by the Joplin, Turkey, Silver, and Shoal Creeks.

Located in the lower Midwest climate zone, Joplin has a humid subtropical climate with cool, dry winters and hot, humid summers and an average rainfall of 47” per year, occurring largely between the months of April and June.

As Joplin moves forward following the 2011 tornado, efforts are increasing to maintain existing trees and to regain lost canopy. The tree inventory and Plan serve as the data and framework to achieve this goal in a proactive and sustainable manner.

Joplin’s Urban Forest Today On May 22, 2011, an EF-5 tornado cut a path through the center of Joplin MO. Among the community's enormous losses, an estimated 17,000 trees were destroyed in this storm. In the ensuing five years, a strong cooperation between Joplin City officials, MO Department of Conservation (MDC), MO Department of Natural Resources (MO DNR), Forest ReLeaf of St Louis, and countless volunteers has led to a strong recovery of the City's canopy. Specific projects include replacing trees in Cunningham, Parr Hill, Mohaska, and Garvin parks, all of which were devastated in the storm and a riparian corridor planting along Joplin Creek, funded by MO DNR. Working with Forest ReLeaf of Missouri, MDC personnel and many volunteers, thousands of trees were distributed to and planted for homeowners. Beautiful spaces like the Cunningham overlook honor the loss and resiliency of Joplin.

A grant-funded tree inventory was conducted in the spring of 2016 providing details on over 7,600 public trees including online mapping software. The City Tree Board is working with City Council

4|P a g e

members to make sure that the City not only replaces the trees that were lost, but continues to prioritize a strong tree canopy going forward.

Joplin’s urban forest will benefit from the 2012 Joplin Moving Forward Comprehensive Plan which is a guide for developing public policy and to help make decisions concerning growth, land development, and land use. Smart decisions about planning and preserving natural resources can only happen if the City and its departments collaborate and form a central vision. Together, the City can pursue the strategies in the Plan and improve the urban forest. Examples from the Comprehensive Plan in which there is an opportunity for collaboration is the recommendation for inclusion of trees in commercial development standards and patterns, stormwater best management practices, parks and recreation connectivity, and open space amenities (2012 Joplin Moving Forward). The Joplin Tree Board is assisting in this movement by evaluating and expanding the tree ordinance which is set for submittal and review in 2016.

In 2014, the Joplin Parks and Recreation Department conducted a Community Attitude and Interest Survey to establish priorities for the future improvement of parks and recreation facilities, programs and services within the community. Of those who completed the survey, 97% have attended the City’s parks and show a strong support for enhancing them. This emphasizes the need to maintain trees on this valuable resource to the community.

Benefits of the Urban Forest As cities continue to grow, so does the harsh landscape for residents and the trees themselves. Trees soften the landscape and give some of the first impressions of the City of Joplin to visitors and add intangibles to the everyday lives of its citizens. The public trees in the City of Joplin are owned by every citizen. Most other public investments a community makes depreciate in value. By investing wisely in trees, values increase for both present and future generations. To view tree benefits specific to Joplin, see Inventory and Analysis Results: Benefits.

Environmental Air quality: Trees absorb, trap, offset and hold air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and CO2.

Water quality and stormwater runoff mitigation: Soil aeration, evapotranspiration, and rainfall interception by trees increases water quality and reduces stormwater flow.

Erosion control: Tree roots hold soil together along stream banks and steep slopes.

Increased wildlife habitat: Promotes biodiversity

Social

Economic

Public health: Trees help reduce asthma rates and reduce UV-B exposure by about 50%.

Property value: Residential homes with healthy trees add property value (up to 15%).

Crime and domestic violence: Urban forests help build stronger communities. Nature and trees provide settings in which relationships grow stronger and violence is reduced.

Energy conservation: Trees lower energy demand through summer shade and winter wind block, additionally offsetting carbon emissions at the power plant.

Noise pollution: Trees reduce noise pollution by acting as a buffer and absorbing up to 50% of urban noise (U.S. Department of Energy study).

Stormwater facilities: Trees and forests reduce the need for or size of costly gray infrastructure.

Reduced ADHD symptoms: Surveys have shown that encouraging children with ADHD to perform activities in green settings improved their symptoms.

5|P a g e

Urban Forest Management Plan Purpose and Overview The purpose of this Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is to present a summary of the current structure of the tree population, provide the benefits that the tree population offers, and to provide an outline for developing a 10-year vision and goals with incremental steps for action. This plan provides the content for long-term management along with the existing conditions and immediate management needs to help preserve and enhance the urban forest in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

The UFMP uses the 2016 street and park tree inventory data to assess the current condition and trends of Joplin’s urban forest. In addition to data analysis, the City’s program, resources, and staff levels were reviewed in order to develop effective recommendations guided by Joplin’s strengths and opportunities to address internal and external weaknesses and threats posed to the urban forest.

Tree population characteristics that affect management, especially species diversity, urban forest condition, and maintenance requirements complemented the development of an outline for a multiyear plan with strategies to reach plan goals, and a budget to make it happen. To assist in implementation of the Plan, guidelines and references for proper tree management are provided along with sample ordinances, tree care specifications, and a complete listing of all trees inventoried. The data coincides with the City’s Tree Plotter software application (https://pg-cloud.com/Joplin). Also, a list of definitions and data collection methods used to conduct the inventory can be found in the appendices.

While this Plan addresses the publicly owned trees, a majority of Joplin’s canopy resides on private property. This Plan serves as an instrument for proactive management of park and street trees but does not consider the management of privately owned trees. It is recommended that the City establish a comprehensive master plan that encompasses all aspects of urban forestry using the UFMP recommendations as a component and conversation starter for the importance of tree management.

Serving as a ‘road map’, the data and summaries in the Plan should be used as outreach tools to the community and its stakeholders.

The Plan is intended to serve as a long-term guide for Joplin’s urban forestry efforts over the next ten years. A 10-year timeframe is a reasonable period set forth to achieve urban forest goals accounting for budget shifts and the canopy’s slow response to change.

Included in the Plan is a 5Year Budget and Strategy (2016-2021) that will assist the City in reaching a 10year vision while considering daily operations and costs. The Plan will provide the guidance for developing subsequent 5year plans based on assessment of the previous planning interval and changes in resources. To develop work programs,

Figure 5. Diagram of the Urban Forest Management Plan

6|P a g e

schedules, and budgets, a third level of planning is needed; day-to-day operations. The City should use the 5-Year Budget and Strategy to formulate a 10-year plan and determine daily operations to reach the 5-year milestones.

Goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan In addition to being used to build support for the completion of the inventory for the entire City’s public trees, the Urban Forest Management Plan aims to achieve:       

Summaries of the species richness, composition, and structure of the inventoried trees An assessment of the condition and health of the inventoried trees Summaries of the relative age distribution of the trees inventoried Identification of priority maintenance and management requirements 5-Year Budget and Strategy for long-term planning Strategies to achieve a 10-year vision Assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan to continue sustainable management

Data Collection Methodology The tree inventory study area was determined by the City to include as many park and street trees as the budget would allow. Priority was given to all parks (4,501 trees) within Joplin and the remaining budget was directed towards inventorying street trees. Because of limited funds, focus was placed on the densest tree populations in tree lawns (planting strips). These areas happened to be the older and more historic parts of the city. Other focus and efforts were placed north of the 2011 tornado’s path where most trees were left untouched.

Figure 6. Location of tree inventory points in the City of Joplin

To collect the data, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborists used a web-based data collection software application known as Tree Plotter for recording the location and attributes of each street and park tree. The application enables each tree to be precisely mapped (within 1-meter spatial accuracy). During the inventory process, extensive quality control checks were applied regularly through the use of the Tree Plotter application with access granted to City staff enabling them to dynamically monitor the inventory progress and data. In addition to computerized quality checks and control, on site field checks to ensure data collected met City work specifications and national industry standards.

All data was provided in i-Tree Streets, Microsoft Excel, Access, and as an ESRI shapefile. In addition to a presentation of the summary of results, training was provided to City staff on the data and use of the Tree Plotter application. To view all fields, descriptions, and methods for inventorying see Appendix II.

7|P a g e

INVENTORY RESULTS AND SUMMARY Using the inventory data in Microsoft Excel, Access, ArcGIS, and Tree Plotter, analyses were conducted to determine the state, characteristics, and trends of Joplin’s urban forest. The information is provided to guide future maintenance and management and to better plan for the health and longevity of Joplin’s urban forest.

The data included a subset of 1,390 separate trees that were added to the dataset after the inventory. These trees do not contain all of the attributes as the other trees inventoried.

Thus, they are not represented in all results and analyses but are summarized.

Separately, the City’s park trees are summarized due to differences in management operations and procedures. Also, park trees tend to have a better growing environment which leads to larger statured trees which could skew the data when included with street trees.

The following section provides the results and recommendations based on the City’s tree characteristics and organized by Structure, Management, and Risks.

This data and analysis provided the content for development of the Urban Forest Management Plan budget and strategies.

8|P a g e

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS RESULTS: STRUCTURE Urban forest structure describes the tree population in terms of its species composition, number of trees, age classes, and tree distribution. These summaries assist urban forest managers in proper tree management and planting to ensure long lasting canopy and benefits distributed equally across the city.

Tree Diversity and Composition Species composition data are essential since the types of trees present in a community greatly affect the amount of benefits produced, tree maintenance activities, and budgets.

6%

Table 3. Species composition of top ten (of 6,264 trees)

Common Name

7%

Count % of Population

silver maple

694

11%

sweetgum post oak

424 375

eastern redbud American sycamore callery pear red maple pin oak

371 347 324 290 285

7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%

siberian elm common hackberry TOTAL

267 234 3,611

4% 4% 58%

19%

8% 12%

8% 9%

10% 10%

10%

silver maple

sweetgum

post oak

eastern redbud

American sycamore

callery pear

red maple

pin oak

siberian elm common hackberry The 6,264 trees inventoried (excluding 1,390 separately Figure 7. Species composition of the inventoried trees added trees with no species data) are comprised of 112 different species classifications (accounts for “other”, “pine”, and “hickory”, and general classifications e.g. Broadleaf Deciduous Large Other). The top ten species comprise 58% of the tree population, the highest percent belonging to silver maple with 11%. Figure 7 shows the composition of species among the total number of top ten species. Silver maple comprises 19% of the 3,611 top ten species.

In Table 4 below, 20% of the urban forest is comprised of the genus Quercus, 20% Acer, and 9% Ulmus.

The top five genera comprise 60% of the total population (7,654 trees) with 4,578 trees. It is recommended that no single genus represent more than 20% of the total population. Therefore, it is recommended that the City reduce the planting of Quercus and Acer. Furthermore, individual species should not comprise more than 10% of the urban forest. According to Table 3, the tree population is under the species diversity threshold except for silver maple.

Future plantings should consider these values to increase the diversity and decrease the impact of species-specific pests and diseases. Considerations for new trees include native and non-native species resistant to the harsh conditions of an urban environment.

9|P a g e

Table 4. Composition of the top five genera (7,654 trees)

Genus

Count

% of Population

Quercus Acer

1,566 1,501

20% 20%

Ulmus Liquidambar Cercis TOTAL

716 424 371 4,578

9% 6% 5% 60%

Figure 8. Composition of the top five genera

8% 9% 34% 16%

Table 4 and Figure 8 include the separately added trees since the genus was provided for each of them resulting in a total tree count of 7,654 for this analysis.

33% Quercus

Acer

Ulmus

Liquidambar

Cercis

Tree Diversity of Separately Added Trees The trees that were added after the inventory were separately analyzed to determine the composition of those genera. In Figure 9, below, 34% of the 1,390 separately added trees are Quercus spp, followed

by Acer spp and Ulmus spp with 16% and 13%, respectively. Table 5 summarizes the counts for each of these trees.

Table 5. Genus composition of the separately added trees

Genus Quercus spp Acer spp Ulmus spp Betula spp Cercis canadensis Liriodendron tulipifera Celtis occidentalis Platinus occidentalis Carpinus caroliniana Other TOTAL

Count 479 219 186 156 146 88 54 42 19 1 1,390

Quercus spp

4%

3% 1% 0.1%

Acer spp Ulmus spp

6%

Betula spp

34% 11%

Cercis canadensis Liriodendron tulipifera Celtis occidentalis

11%

Platinus occidentalis

13%

16%

Carpinus caroliniana Other

Figure 9. Genus composition of the separately added trees

10 | P a g e

Size and Age Distribution The distribution of tree ages influences the structure of the urban forest as well as the present and future costs. An uneven-age urban forest offers continued flow of benefits and a more uniform workflow allowing managers to more accurately allocate annual maintenance funds.

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

26% 20% 15% 12% 10%

10% 6%

0-3"

3-6"

6-12" 12-18" 18-24" 24-30" >30"

Figure 10. Diameter size class distribution of the inventoried trees

Figure 11. Ideal diameter class distribution for an urban forest

To optimize the value and benefit of trees, the community forest should have a high percentage of large canopy trees which provide more ecosystem benefits. At the same time, there must be a sufficient number of younger, smaller trees in the tree population to account for the loss of trees over time and thereby maintain a sustainable community forest. In traditional forest management, this is similar to an uneven-aged stand or tree population.

The figure above shows the distribution of size classes (DBH or diameter at breast height, 4.5”) for the inventoried trees that were assigned a value (6,257 of 7,654 total trees).

Figure 10 shows that the 12-18” DBH range comprises the majority of the urban forest with 1,622 trees or 26% and the >30” DBH range makes up the smallest portion of the urban forest with 392 trees or 6%.

The average DBH for the entire population is 15.1” and the largest recorded DBH is 67.0”.

According to Figure 10 the aggregated data does not reflect the ideal urban forest uneven-age distribution (see Figure 11 for an illustration). The distribution of individual tree ages within a tree population influences present and future costs as well as the flow of benefits. An ideal age distribution in the tree population allows managers to allocate annual maintenance costs uniformly over many years and assures continuity in overall tree canopy coverage and associated benefits which are often dependent on the growing space of individual trees (e.g. open grown versus restricted growing areas). It is recommended to increase tree plantings throughout the City, considering the growth habits and the mature form and size of the species selected.

11 | P a g e

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS RESULTS: MANAGEMENT Tree characteristics and outside forces affect the management needs for urban trees. An analysis of the condition and maintenance requirements assists managers in planning the urban forest. Tree condition indicates how well trees are managed and how well they perform given site-specific conditions. Tree maintenance needs are inventoried for public safety reasons and for the health and longevity of the trees. Understanding the maintenance needs assists tree managers in establishing daily work plans and has also complemented the development of the Urban Forest Management Plan.

Urban Forest Condition The inventory data was analyzed to identify potential trends in tree management needs and condition.

Local information on the condition of street and park trees plays an important role in community planning, municipal budgeting, and use of resources. Each inventoried tree was rated for the condition of the wood and the foliage.

The figure below summarizes the 6,258 trees of the total 7,654 that were assigned a Condition rating. It shows that the majority of the trees inventoried are classified as being in Fair condition, comprising 45% or 2,840 trees. Table 6 shows the detailed information for each Condition class. Notice that 48 trees are classified as Dead and 365 as Critical. These trees should be addressed and planned for immediately.

Table 6. Trees by Condition

Condition

Count

Percent

Fair

2,840

45%

Good Poor Critical Dead

1,567 1,416 365 48

25% 23% 6% 1%

Excellent

22 6,258

0.4%

TOTAL

100 Figure 12. Condition class distribution of the inventoried trees

Considering that the top three species comprise 24% of the inventory, it is important to look at the condition of these abundant species. The table below shows the number of trees in each Condition class by species and the percent of which each class comprises the total count for the given species.

Table 7. Summary of the Condition ratings for the top three species

Excellent silver maple sweetgum post oak TOTAL

Count 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0% 0%

Good Count 30 148 76 254

% 4% 35% 20%

Fair Count 344 244 231 819

% 50% 58% 62%

Poor Count 247 26 62 335

% 36% 6% 17%

Critical Count 68 6 6 80

% 10% 1% 2%

Dead Count 4 0 0

% 1% 0% 0%

4

Sweetgum’s population is in better condition than the other species in the top three with 35% of its population rated as being in Good condition. All three species have over half of their population rated as

12 | P a g e

being in Fair condition. The table highlights concerns with the silver maple population, showing 36% rated as Poor condition.

As silver maples mature, they begin to shed branches and are prone to decay and rot, resulting in a large number of poor conditioned trees. It is recommended that the dead and critical condition trees be addressed immediately with plans to monitor and plan for maintenance of these trees.

The City of Joplin should continue to monitor and update these condition ratings. Ongoing assessments help to increase public safety and maximize the benefits that the trees provide.

Figure 13.Observations affecting Condition class rating

4% 17%

76%

The chart above shows the observations made during the inventory. Of the 4,760 trees noted with an observation, 4,655 cases of Cavity Decay were seen, followed by Poor Structure (1,076), and Serious Decline (245). A total of 6,153 observations were noted in the inventory. The time of year may affect what observations are seen for example, pest and disease problems as well as signs of stress. Further discussion of these observations and the Risk Rating summaries can be found in the Inventory and Analysis Results: Risk section.

Mechanical damage to the trunk of a young tree

Improperly pruned tree (photo not taken in Joplin)

13 | P a g e

Primary Maintenance Requirements The inventory required an assessment of the maintenance needs, if any, for each tree. This information along with Risk Assessment ratings, location, and the Tree Plotter application were used to guide the management recommendations. The figure below gives a summary of the maintenance required for the tree population.

Figure 14. Maintenance requirements for the inventoried trees

Figure 15. Trees >30� DBH identified for Tree Clean in parks

Of the 6,423 trees assigned a maintenance task, the majority (3,427) require light pruning known as Tree Cleaning. This involves the removal of dead, dying, diseased, broken, and poor structured or attached limbs. Young Tree Training is required for 176 trees or 3% of the trees assigned a maintenance task.

2,146 trees were identified as not needing any maintenance. It is to be noted that 17% of the data is not specified, meaning no value was assigned for a particular tree, and the data is not reflected in the chart.

The inventory of the street and park trees shows that there is a need to remove trees in order to lower the risk and maintain public safety. It is recommended that these trees be prioritized by size, condition, and location and remove the largest, poorest quality trees as soon as possible, especially those that have the highest Target Risk and Probability of Failure. The table below shows a summary of the highest counts of trees identified for removal by species. Of the 493 trees identified for removal in the entire inventory, silver maple comprises the highest percentage of the population and therefore can be expected to have a higher count needing removed (97). Notice that the majority of the top ten are trees that have a large mature height which increases the risk.

Table 8. Top ten species identified for removal (493 total)

Common Name

Count

Percent

silver maple siberian elm catalpa sugar maple black oak eastern redbud mulberry

97 73 47 23 22 21 21

20% 15% 10% 5% 4% 4% 4%

blackjack oak

19

4%

red maple common hackberry

16 14

3% 3% 72%

TOTAL

353

Figure 16. Map showing the 97 silver maples identified for removal

14 | P a g e

Other maintenance and management requirements to consider include 353 cases of trees conflicting with the hardscape and 45 trees that are conflicting with overhead wires. Further assessment of hardscape damage needs to be conducted to determine the course of action. All public sidewalks must be in compliance with ADA standards. Regarding the conflicts with overhead wires, consider remediating these issues when doing routine pruning or by consulting with the utility line companies that manage these obstructions.

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS RESULTS: RISK This section summarizes the potential risks identified during the street and park tree inventory. Criteria used to determine risk included a rating of the Likelihood of Failure, Likelihood of Impacting a Target, Timeframe for Possible Failure, and Consequence of Failure. This assessment assigns a Risk Rating to each tree in the inventory if a defect is observed.

Table 9. Summary of Risk Ratings and counts of greatest risk Risk Rating Severe High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk

Count 70 1,230 2,921 2,023

Extremely High Probability of Failure 63 82 0 0

Size of Defect (>20") with Extremely High Probability of Failure 54 12 0 0

None TOTAL

19 6,263

0 145

0 66

The table above provides a count of each Risk Rating category as well as a count for two criteria that determines the Risk Rating. These two criteria are “Probability of Failure” with a rating of “Extremely High” and “Size of Defect (>20”) with an “Extremely High Probability of Failure”. These two criteria highlight the trees that need to be addressed immediately by considering that defects greater than 20” with an extremely high potential for failure could potentially cause the most damage and/or harm in the near future.

As expected, trees with a Severe Risk Rating have the highest count of Extremely High Probability of Failure with the defect greater than 20”. The table shows that 70 trees were given a Risk Rating of Severe. Of those 70 trees, 63 have an Extremely High Probability of Failure, and of those 63 trees, 54 have a defect that’s greater than 20”. There are 1,230 trees with a High Risk Rating and 82 have an Extremely High Probability of Failure. In total, 6,263 trees were given a Risk Rating. Of those trees, 66 have an Extremely High Probability of Failure with a defect greater than 20”. Along with the trees identified for removal, these are trees that should be evaluated and be considered for immediate maintenance.

Potential Threats from Pests As mentioned in the Management section of the results, the timing of the inventory data collection may affect what observations of pests were identified. Using the Tree Plotter app, managers can update these observations during future assessment of the trees when certain pest and disease life cycles are more noticeable. The City arborist can then determine if a plant health care prescription and treatment is necessary.

15 | P a g e

The threat of pests and diseases should also be considered when planting new trees by maintaining species diversity. Consider the entire tree population’s species diversity as well as smaller geographic areas such as city blocks and individual parks.

STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT AND RISKS: CITY PARK TREES The inventory was conducted for both street and park trees. As seen in the figure below, trees in park comprise the majority of the inventory with 59% or 4,501 trees and street trees comprise 41% (3,153 trees) of the total inventory (including Single Family and Small Commercial).

Figure 17. Tree population by land use

Structure of Park Trees The 4,501 park trees are comprised primarily of post oaks (Quercus stellata), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and American sycamores (Platanus occidentalis). Table 10 shows the top five species in the parks of Joplin which comprise 37% of the trees in parks. It should be noted that there are 1,388 trees that were added separately to the inventory dataset and are not included in all analyses and summaries of the City’s park trees.

Table 11. Summary of separately added trees in parks

Table 10. Most common species in parks

Common Name post oak eastern redbud American sycamore pin oak tulip tree TOTAL TOP 5 TOTAL IN PARKS

Count 371 257 208 160 142 1,138

Percent w/in Parks 12% 8% 7% 5% 5% 37%

3,098*

* Excludes 1,388 separately added trees containing minimal data

Species

Count

Quercus spp

479

Acer spp Ulmus spp Betula spp Cercis canadensis Liriodendron tulipifera Celtis occidentalis Platanus occidentalis

219 186 155 146 88 54 42

Carpinus caroliniana TOTAL

19 1,388

After the inventory was completed, an additional 1,388 trees were added to the dataset but do not contain the same data as the inventoried trees. Therefore, these trees were summarized separately as 16 | P a g e

seen in Table 11. Of the 1,388 trees separately added, oaks (Quercus spp) comprise the majority with 479 trees.

The trees in the City parks range from less than three inches in diameter to over 30 inches in diameter with the majority consisting of 12-18” and 18-24” size classes. The figure below displays the structure of the trees within City parks. Ideally, there should be a larger number of young trees which gradually decreases in numbers as the diameters increase to maintain consistent benefits as older, mature trees succumb to mortality. It should be noted though, that the City has added 1,388 trees to its parks and is not represented in the figure below because their size class was not included in the dataset.

647

700

655

600 500

422

400

398

380

386

300

220

200 100 0 0-3in

3-6in 6-12in 12-18in18-24in24-30in >30in

Figure 18. Distribution of size classes in City parks

Management of Park Trees The trees in the City’s parks were assigned a Condition class depending on the quality of the wood and foliage. The figure below shows that the majority of park trees are in Fair condition (44%), followed by Good (34%), and Poor (17%). Of the park trees, 29 are reported as Dead and 117 are in Critical condition. The Condition classes display the health of the park trees and assist park tree managers in the planning and maintenance of trees to lower the risks and improve the longevity of the park tree canopy.

1% 1% (29) (19) 4% (117)

17% (532)

44% (1,369) Fair Good Poor Critical

34% (1,045)

Dead Excellent

Figure 19. Condition class of trees in City parks

The condition of the trees often dictates the maintenance needs. Trees classified as Excellent or Good tend to require less maintenance and would be pruned only during their routine pruning cycle and consists of the removal of dead, dying, diseased, decayed, and/or conflicting limbs. The table below summarizes the maintenance needs for the trees in the City’s parks. The majority of trees require no

17 | P a g e

primary maintenance (1,469 trees) but 173 trees were identified for removal. These should be addressed immediately based on their location, probability of failure, target risk, and size of the defect.

Table 12. Primary maintenance needs for trees in parks

Primary Count Maintenance

Percent w/in Parks

None Needed Tree Clean Tree Removal Young Tree Train Stump Removal

1,469 1,385 173 68 12

47% 45% 6% 2% 0%

TOTAL*

3,107

100%

*Count includes stumps

Potential Risks Posed to Park Trees Based on several factors and criteria, tree risk was assessed for each of the City’s park trees. The table below shows that of the 3,110 trees assigned a Risk Rating, 28 trees were classified as Severe, but the majority of trees were rated as having a Low Risk Rating. Further inspection should be conducted for the 28 Severe trees and continued monitoring of all park trees should be planned.

Table 13. Risk Rating counts for trees in the City's parks

Risk Rating

Count

Percent

Severe High Moderate Low None

28 362 1,160 1,541 19

1% 12% 37% 50% 1%

TOTAL

3,110

100%

The table to the right lists the species that are rated as Severe and the map below identifies the location of these trees. Mulberry has the highest count of Severe rated trees. Of all the trees inventoried in parks, there are 12 unique species assigned a Severe Risk Rating.

Table 14. Summary of species with Risk Rating of Severe

Common Name

Count

mulberry siberian elm post oak eastern cottonwood

7 4 3 3

blackjack oak catalpa black oak willow oak sugar maple American sycamore osage orange

2 2 2 1

black walnut

1 28

TOTAL

1 1 1

Figure 20. Map of the park trees with a Severe Risk Rating

18 | P a g e

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS RESULTS: BENEFITS Using the DBH, species, and land use fields, tree benefits are calculated in the Tree Plotter software using US Forest Service i-Tree data and the National Tree Benefits Calculator. The following values show the overall individual benefits and savings that the tree population provides annually.

Overall Monetary Benefit

$599,935

Storm Water Monetary Benefit Runoff Prevention (Gallons)

$79,281 9,425,077

Property Value Total

$377,479

Energy Savings Energy Saved (kWh) Natural Gas Savings Heat Prevention (Therms)

$62,113 904,613 $50,859 52,058

Air Quality Monetary Benefit Pollutants removed (lb)

$15,099 12,046

Carbon Monetary Benefit Carbon Sequestered (lb) Carbon Avoided (lb)

$15,103 1,285,614 1,617,032

Table 15 summarizes the benefits of the three most prevalent species in Joplin. The three species collectively provide over $450,000 worth of benefits or savings, a staggering 76% of the total population’s contribution. The value of these species necessitates proper monitoring, maintenance, and management for these benefits to continue to be provided to the City.

Table 15. Benefits provided by the three most prevalent species in the inventory

silver maple Ecosystem Benefit

Unit Number of Trees 694 Trees Overall -Air Quality 2,856 lb Carbon Stored 501,003 lb Carbon Sequestered 196,373 lb Carbon Avoided 319,199 lb Energy Savings 137,401 kWh Natural Gas Savings 4,274 Therms Property Value -Stormwater 1,102,071 gal TOTAL --

Value -$105,532 $2,414 $1,673 $10,833 $4,701 $80,400 $5,510 $211,063

sweetgum Unit 424 Trees -883 lb 295049 lb 148,353 lb 167,903 lb 76,142 kWh 6,761 Therms -987,385 gal --

Value -$88,056 $1,753 $2,213 $4,843 $6,130 $62,453 $10,664 $176,112

post oak Unit 375 Trees -580 lb 184,261 lb 91,792 lb 109,022 lb 49,441 kWh 4,556 Therms -780,638 gal --

TOTAL

Value -$33,017 $1,147 $1,382 $3,144 $4,131 $14,782 $8,431 $66,034

Unit 1,493 Trees -4,319 lb 980318 lb 436,518 lb 596,124 lb 262,984 kWh 15,591 Therms -2,870,094 gal --

Value -$226,605 $5,314 $5,268 $18,820 $14,962 $157,635 $24,605 $453,209

19 | P a g e

TREE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the collected inventory data and an assessment of the City’s program and available resources. The inventory is not a full dataset that represents the entire population and it is recommended to complete the entire public tree inventory in the near future for more accurate tree management guidelines and strategies.

The 10-year plan should use the 5-year outline that is provided to address all aspects of tree management and budgeting in the city. The first 5-year strategy addresses the most high-risk trees and maintenance needs and marks the beginning of the routine low-risk 10-year maintenance cycle.

Overview of Management Recommendations  

  

Dependent on funds, the first 5-year strategy requires all high-risk maintenance to be completed (e.g. removals) Perform a continuing routine pruning cycle for public trees, beginning in Year 1 on a 10-year rotation, starting with the inventoried trees (approximately 640 trees per year) and later all public trees once the inventory and assessment is completed for the entire city.

Perform cyclical pruning of young trees (approximately 1,256 trees 0-6” in diameter), beginning in Year 1 Develop plans for the aftercare of newly planted trees which may include watering, mulching, staking, and pruning Develop plans of action for pests and diseases that may threaten the City’s tree population

Citywide High-Risk Tree Maintenance The recommendations for high-risk tree maintenance are based on the tree inventory data. These trees should be addressed in the first five years and should then be included in the routine pruning cycle.

Addressing these maintenance needs as soon as possible will help to prevent or reduce potential risks. It is understood that the City will not be able to perform all needed activities immediately due to budget constraints but a systematic program will achieve the requirements timely and demonstrate the proactive efforts pursued by the City.

Table 16 shows that of the 493 trees identified for removal, the majority of removals consist of trees ranging in the 12-18” diameter class followed by the 18-24” class (97 trees).

Table 16. Count of trees identified for removal by size class to be completed within five years

DBH Range

Count

0-3in 3-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in

21 34 69 134 97

24-30in >30in

92 46

TOTAL

493

20 | P a g e

The City should also plan for natural mortality that occurs in a tree population. It is estimated that for tree populations in municipalities, 1% die annually. With a total of 7,654 trees currently in the City inventory, Joplin may experience an approximate mortality rate of 76 trees per year.

Citywide Routine Pruning Routine pruning should be conducted on a cyclical basis for all public trees. This increases the safety as well as the overall health and longevity of the tree population. Routine pruning should be completed for established trees in both streets and parks. Young tree pruning is addressed in a later section. As young trees mature, they will be included in the routine pruning.

Routine cyclical pruning should be conducted using already established zones such as management zones or by creating new zones to distribute the pruning cycles evenly throughout the City.

Of the 7,654 total trees currently in the inventory, 6,398 are established trees greater than 6” in DBH. Given the available budget, staff, resources, and inventory data, it is recommended that a 10-year pruning cycle be implemented for the inventoried trees resulting in approximately 640 trees routinely pruned each year. All public trees should adhere to this rotation once the City completes the entire public tree inventory. More consideration and priority should be placed on trees within the City’s rightsof-way and the trees in parks where target risk is greatest. The table below shows a total count and number of trees to be pruned per year for each size class, excluding trees 0-3” and 3-6” DBH since they are on a separate pruning cycle. The 12-18” size class comprises 25% of the tree population greater than 6” in DBH and therefore, require the greatest routine maintenance with 162 trees. Four trees did not have their DBH measured and these need to be examined separately and updated.

Table 17. Routine pruning cycle for all public trees by size class

DBH Range*

Count

6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in TOTAL TOTAL ALL TREES

950 1,622 1,272 766 392 5,002** 7,654

Routine Prune (Trees/Year)

Percent of Total Population >6" DBH

95 162 127

15% 25% 20% 12% 6%

77 39 500 --

78% --

*The 0-3" and 3-6" size classes are not included above but are included in the young tree pruning cycle **17% of the data was not specified and is not included in the table

Citywide Young Tree Pruning Young tree pruning is described separately because the City should address these with a different approach than routine pruning. Young tree pruning is conducted to “train” the trees by removing dead, dying, diseased, broken, interfering, conflicting, and/or weak branches and to direct future branch growth. This maintenance is performed in order to develop a strong structural architecture at an early stage when costs are much lower.

Young tree pruning should not occur before three years of their planting date in order to prevent additional stress placed on the tree. Generally, it is recommended that young tree pruning be completed

21 | P a g e

for all trees that are less than 6 inches in diameter on a one-year cyclical basis. The one-year cycle is designated for new trees because of the faster growth rates for most species.

According to the table below, there are 1,256 trees less than 6 inches in diameter, comprising 16% of the total tree population (7,654 trees). While the total number is a staggering amount to be completed in one year, young tree pruning can be completed throughout the year and require very few tools or equipment (e.g. no bucket truck). Also, volunteers and interns can be trained for this type of work.

Table 18. Young tree pruning counts for one year cycle

DBH Range 0-3in 3-6in TOTAL <6" TOTAL ALL TREES

Count

Percent of Total Population

613 643

8% 8%

1,256 7,654

16% --

The one-year young tree pruning cycle is recommended so that the City can bring each young tree to the same level of maintenance need. Following the pruning of the 1,256 trees, the City can update the pruning cycle to a 3-year rotation. This results in approximately 420 trees to be trained per year allowing more flexibility as the City plants more trees and the young trees mature.

Citywide Ash (Fraxinus) Tree Maintenance Other considerations when establishing pruning cycles should include species vulnerability to pests and diseases and options for treatment. In some cases, such as emerald ash borer (EAB), it may be more cost effective to not prune ash (Fraxinus) trees or perhaps removal is preferred while costs are much lower for young trees.

According to the inventory, there are 116 Fraxinus of which 95 are green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and 21 are white ash (Fraxinus americana). 46% of the ash trees are located in the parks/vacant/other land use. Table 19 shows the size classes for both green ash and white ash. There are only 11 ash trees in the 3-6 inch range. Table 20 shows that of the 116 ash trees, six require removal and two are listed for young tree training.

Further inspection of the larger size classes needs to be conducted to determine whether options for treatment should be considered. It is recommended that the City develop a separate EAB plan that addresses maintenance, treatment, removal, costs, and timeline.

Table 20. Primary maintenance for Fraxinus

Table 19. DBH ranges for Fraxinus

DBH Range

Count Percent Ash

Primary Maintenance Count

Percent

3-6in 6-12in

11 18

9% 16%

Tree Clean None Needed

79 29

68% 25%

12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in

21 31 19 16

18% 27% 16% 14%

Tree Removal

6

5%

Young Tree Train

2

2%

116

100%

TOTAL

116

100%

TOTAL

22 | P a g e

Specific Maintenance Recommendations for Park Trees The City’s parks and street trees are managed separately and thus, should be separately planned for and maintained while still working collaboratively to achieve citywide urban forestry goals and outcomes.

Park tree maintenance was previously described in the citywide maintenance recommendations but has been separated and detailed in this section.

The table below lists the trees identified for removal in City parks by size classes. Of the 173 trees needing removed, nearly 30% (51 trees) are in the 18-24” DBH range. Generally, the larger the tree, the greater the cost. For Joplin’s parks, 21 trees greater than 30 inches in diameter were identified for removal. Inspection of the young trees (0-3”) should be conducted to determine the cause and reason for removal to prevent or reduce the risk of future failed plantings. The 173 trees requiring removal need to be prioritized and removed in the first year as budget permits. Presumably, large trees with a high Risk Rating will be highest in priority for removal.

Table 21. Count of trees identified for removal by size class in parks to be completed in the first 5 years

DBH Range

Count

Percent

0-3in 3-6in 6-12in

15 10 16

9% 6% 9%

12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in

26 51 34 21

15% 29% 20% 12%

TOTAL

173

100%

Once the high-risk trees identified for removal are managed, it is recommended that the City establish a routine pruning cycle for the park trees. The table below outlines the pruning cycle for trees greater than six inches in diameter. Trees less than six inches in diameter should be managed separately and the method for doing so is outlined in a later section.

Table 22 shows that of the 2,306 trees greater than six inches in diameter, 655 trees are in the 18-24” size class. On a 10-year pruning cycle, 66 of these should be pruned yearly, followed by the 12-18” trees and all other size classes. If ten percent of each size class is pruned yearly, a total of 231 park trees will be maintained annually.

Table 22. Routine pruning cycle for all park trees by size class

Count

Routine Prune (Trees/Year)

Percent of Park Trees >6"

6-12in 12-18in

398 647

40 65

17% 28%

18-24in 24-30in >30in

655

66

28%

386 220 2,306

39 22 231

17% 10% 100%

DBH Range*

TOTAL

*The 0-3" and 3-6" size classes are not included above but are included in the young tree pruning cycle

23 | P a g e

Separate from the routine pruning cycle, young tree pruning should be conducted to ensure future health and the longevity of newly established trees.

Table 23. Count of young trees for young tree maintenance in parks*

DBH Range

Count

0-3in

422

3-6in

380

TOTAL TOTAL PARK

802 4,501*

*1,388 trees were not given a diameter and are not reflected in the table except for the Total Park count

The table above shows there are 802 trees considered young or small which require young tree pruning.

These should be completed in the first year of implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan to bring all young trees to the same level of maintenance required for consistent management across all City parks.

Urban Forestry Program and Budget The following information is based on a 5-year program budget for all relevant tree maintenance activities and is intended to provide an example of relative costs that could be incurred by the recommended activities. The budgeting recommendations are estimates based on proper urban forest management procedures and city forestry operations.

The following table lists the costs based on industry estimates and is to be considered equivalent to maintenance costs performed in-house (Midwest Community Tree Guide).

Table 24. Cost estimates per tree size class for maintenance

DBH Range

Removal Cost/Tree

Pruning Cost/Tree

Stump Removal Cost/Stump

0-3in 3-6in 6-12in

$25 $105 $220

$20 $30 $75

$25 $25 $25

12-18in 18-24in 24-30in

$355 $525 $845

$120 $170 $225

$40 $60 $85

>30in*

$1,140

$305

$110

*Costs continue to rise as DBH increases

The cost estimates presented in Table 24 show that as a treeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size increases, so does the cost to maintain or remove. These costs are used to estimate the budget for implementing the maintenance recommendations for high-risk trees, routine pruning, young tree pruning, and stump removal.

24 | P a g e

The table on page 26 is an example of the estimated costs for a tree maintenance program that includes tree removals, high-risk pruning, routine pruning, young tree pruning, and stump based on the inventory data and local cost estimates. Each maintenance task is divided by either a 5-year or 10-year rotation depending on the urgency of the given task.

Based on the inventory, 493 trees were identified as needing removed. These trees are prioritized and budgeted for removal in a 5-year timespan because of the associated risk. It is estimated that over the 5year timespan, costs for removal total $275,110 if 99 trees are removed per year. In addition, it is estimated that 1% of the public trees will die due to natural mortality, resulting in 76 trees per year at a cost of $195,560 over the course of five years. During the 5-year timespan, it is estimated that this maintenance task will cost approximately $469,670 based on average costs per size class and natural mortality estimates. To view an example of how the Tree Plotter app is used to identify and prioritize these trees see Table 26 on page 27.

There is a low urgency for the removal of existing stumps (173) and thus, have been spread across a 10year timespan resulting in 17 removals per year for a 5-year total of $4,585.

Trees given a Risk Rating of High or Severe and a Primary Maintenance of Tree Clean should be prioritized and maintained in the 5-year timespan. The 887 trees requiring this maintenance task will cost an estimated $35,096 annually, and should be completed in the 5-year timespan resulting in a total cost of $175,504.

Routine pruning should be conducted on a 10-year cycle provided the appropriate resources and budget. The table does not account for trees that were not given a DBH range but is provided as a template for use when additional information is collected. It is recommended that the City routinely prune 10% of the inventoried trees (640 trees) annually. Based on available data, the costs for pruning approximately 500 trees per year are provided at a cost of $77,404 per year based on costs for pruning per size class. It should be noted that these estimates are based on the provided data and not all trees have been designated with a DBH range or size class. These costs will need to be updated once the remaining tree size classes are determined.

Young tree pruning for all trees less than 6â&#x20AC;? in diameter should be completed in the first year followed by yearly monitoring and pruning due to their rapid growth. On Year 4 and 5, an additional 150 trees are included in the young tree pruning to account for the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tree planting efforts (estimated based on 2016 information).

It is estimated that pruning of established and newly planted trees will cost approximately $726,274 during the 5-year timespan.

In summation, the overall maintenance costs for removals, stump removals, and pruning on various levels will be an estimated $1,200,529 spread across a 5-year and 10-year timespan, accordingly.

Again, these are estimates provided to outline possible costs and the values and cost estimates should be updated based on yearly evaluation and assessment of program activities, priorities, and updated inventory information. It is recommended that the City conduct a yearly assessment to more accurately project estimated costs and define a budget to accommodate the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tree maintenance requirements.

The budget estimates provided in Table 25 do not account for other costs such as plantings, mulching, watering, or ash tree management due to EAB. 25 | P a g e

Table 25. Estimated budget for the maintenance tasks of all inventoried public trees

Estimated Costs for Each Activity Activity

Removals (with stumps)

Activity Total

Year 1

Natural Mortality Removals (1%) 1 Removals Activity Total

76 76

$512

Projected Removal Costs Stump Removal 2 Activity Total

High-Risk Pruning3

Activity Total

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

76 76

$38,912 $38,912

76 76

$93,934

$38,912 $38,912

76 76

$93,934

$38,912 $38,912

$53

173 173

17 17

$917 $917

17 17

$917 $917

17 17

$917 $917

17 17

$917 $917

0-3in 3-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in

$20 $30 $75 $120 $170 $225 $305

0 1 23 179 273 244 167 887

0 1 5 36 55 49 33 178

$0 $30 $345 $4,296 $9,282 $10,980 $10,187 $35,120

0 0 5 36 55 49 33 177

$0 $6 $345 $4,296 $9,282 $10,980 $10,187 $35,096

0 0 5 36 55 49 33 177

$0 $6 $345 $4,296 $9,282 $10,980 $10,187 $35,096

0 0 5 36 55 49 33 177

$0 $6 $345 $4,296 $9,282 $10,980 $10,187 $35,096

6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in

$75 $120 $170 $225 $305

950 1,622 1,272 766 392 5002*

95 162 127 77 39 500

$7,125 $19,464 $21,624 $17,235 $11,956 $77,404

95 162 127 77 39 500

$7,125 $19,464 $21,624 $17,235 $11,956 $77,404

95 162 127 77 39 500

$7,125 $19,464 $21,624 $17,235 $11,956 $77,404

95 162 127 77 39 500

$20 $30

613 643 1256

613 643 1256

$12,260 $19,290 $31,550

613 643 1256

$12,260 $19,290 $31,550

613 643 1256

$12,260 $19,290 $31,550

763 643 1406

0-3in 3-6in

Projected Pruning Costs Projected Budget

$144,074 $238,925

$144,050 $238,901

$144,050 $238,901

76 76

$93,934

Stumps

Activity Total Young Tree Pruning5

$38,912 $38,912 $93,934

Activity Total

Routine Pruning4

Year 2

DBH Range Cost/Tree Total # of Trees # of Trees Total Cost # of Trees Total Cost # of Trees Total Cost # of Trees Total Cost # of Trees Total Cost 0-3in $50 21 4 $210 4 $210 4 $210 4 $210 4 $210 3-6in $130 34 7 $884 7 $884 7 $884 7 $884 7 $884 6-12in $245 69 14 $3,381 14 $3,381 14 $3,381 14 $3,381 14 $3,381 12-18in $395 134 27 $10,586 27 $10,586 27 $10,586 27 $10,586 27 $10,586 18-24in $585 97 19 $11,349 19 $11,349 19 $11,349 19 $11,349 19 $11,349 24-30in $930 92 18 $17,112 18 $17,112 18 $17,112 18 $17,112 18 $17,112 >30in $1,250 46 9 $11,500 9 $11,500 9 $11,500 9 $11,500 9 $11,500 493 99 $55,022 99 $55,022 99 $55,022 99 $55,022 99 $55,022

$1,050 $4,420 $16,905 $52,930 $56,745 $85,560 $57,500 $275,110

$38,912 $38,912

$194,560 $194,560

$93,934

$469,670

$917 $917

$4,585 $4,585

0 0 5 36 55 49 33 177

$0 $6 $345 $4,296 $9,282 $10,980 $10,187 $35,096

$0 $54 $1,725 $21,480 $46,410 $54,900 $50,935 $175,504

$7,125 $19,464 $21,624 $17,235 $11,956 $77,404

95 162 127 77 39 500

$7,125 $19,464 $21,624 $17,235 $11,956 $77,404

$35,625 $97,320 $108,120 $86,175 $59,780 $387,020

$15,260 $19,290 $34,550

763 643 1406

$15,260 $19,290 $34,550

$67,300 $92,420 $159,720

$147,050

$726,274

$147,050 $241,901

$17 $17

5-Year Total Cost

$241,901

$1,200,529

1

Based on average cost of removal 2 Based on average cost of stump removal and implemented over a 10-year cycle 3 Based on a 5-year cycle because of high-risk 4 Based on a 10-year cycle 5 Accounts for an additional 150 trees planted per year (given provided information) *Not all trees were given a size class

26 | P a g e

Method for Prioritizing Removals The table to the right is an example of how the data can be used to prioritize maintenance over a 5-year and 10-year timeframe.

Based on the inventory fields, a filter was placed on the trees in the Tree Plotter application to identify trees needing removed with the highest Risk Rating of Severe. These trees would meet the criteria for the most important trees to assess and plan for maintenance in the near future. Of the 493 trees identified for removal, these 59 trees are the highest priority and should be maintained in the next 1-2 years.

The data was then organized by Condition rating to more closely identify the highest priority trees. Other options include the reorganization of the data by DBH or Size of Defect as these fields tend to relate to greater risk. Once the list is organized, these trees can be addressed over the course of a 5-year strategy, preferably addressing the most severe trees within 1-2 years.

The map below shows the selection of these trees to show the distribution of the required maintenance to assist in the prioritization and planning.

Figure 21. Map showing the location of the 59 trees identified for removal that have a Risk Rating of Severe

Table 26. List of trees identified for removal and given a Severe Risk Rating Primary ID Common Name Condition DBH Latin Name 170 Siberian Elm 77 Osage Orange 2093 Mulberry 3212 American Elm 2302 Black Oak 2557 Post Oak 3106 Sugar Maple 1867 Post Oak 6433 Catalpa 3648 Catalpa 3726 Siberian Elm 3814 Silver Maple 5920 Mulberry 6434 Catalpa 6436 Catalpa 1328 Black Oak 6437 Catalpa 7248 Silver Maple 7256 Silver Maple 7034 Common Hackberry 7035 Tree Of Heaven 6464 Silver Maple 3939 Siberian Elm 3975 Siberian Elm 4003 Silver Maple 5592 Mulberry 7280 Pin Oak 6873 Catalpa 6669 Catalpa 6670 Catalpa 6671 Catalpa 6501 Common Hackberry 6695 Mulberry 6200 Silver Maple 5656 Basswood 6368 Catalpa 6047 American Sycamore 6964 Boxelder 1112 Mulberry 6984 Catalpa 7643 Sweetgum 7652 Catalpa 1849 Eastern Cottonwood 7970 Sugar Maple 3377 Catalpa 107 Mulberry 1846 Siberian Elm 1845 Siberian Elm 1844 Siberian Elm 2067 Catalpa 2094 Mulberry 2680 Blackjack Oak 3363 Pin Oak 1864 Eastern Cottonwood 2095 Mulberry 3890 Callery Pear 7934 Catalpa 6965 Boxelder 1111 Eastern Cottonwood

Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Dead Dead Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor

35 Ulmus pumila 27 Maclura pomifera 36 Morus spp 30 Ulmus americana 27 Quercus velutina 16 Quercus stellata 19 Acer saccharum 32 Quercus stellata 41 Catalpa spp 31 Catalpa spp 18 Ulmus pumila 24 Acer saccharinum 24 Morus spp 24 Catalpa spp 29 Catalpa spp 30 Quercus velutina 35 Catalpa spp 28 Acer saccharinum 24 Acer saccharinum 27 Celtis occidentalis 38 Ailanthus altissima 30 Acer saccharinum 26 Ulmus pumila 30 Ulmus pumila 25 Acer saccharinum 26 Morus spp 29 Quercus palustris 35 Catalpa spp 27 Catalpa spp 28 Catalpa spp 29 Catalpa spp 26 Celtis occidentalis 30 Morus spp 29 Acer saccharinum 28 Tilia americana 29 Catalpa spp 27 Platanus occidentalis 17 Acer negundo 25 Morus spp 40 Catalpa spp 25 Liquidambar styraciflua 28 Catalpa spp 17 Populus deltoides 23 Acer saccharum 36 Catalpa spp 39 Morus spp 18 Ulmus pumila 18 Ulmus pumila 9 Ulmus pumila 39 Catalpa spp 25 Morus spp 19 Quercus marilandica 36 Quercus palustris 23 Populus deltoides 28 Morus spp 24 Pyrus calleryana 27 Catalpa spp 13 Acer negundo 36 Populus deltoides

Primary Maintenance Risk Rating Size of Defect Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal

Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe Severe

4-20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches 4-20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches 4-20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches 4-20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches <4 inches <4 inches <4 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches >20 inches 4-20 inches >20 inches

27 | P a g e

CONCLUSION The results of the analysis and management guide can be used to improve the City’s tree management strategy by promoting the importance of trees and their associated costs and benefits. This support will help the City to develop relationships and resources needed to achieve urban forestry goals. It is recommended that the City use the newly gained support to continue the tree inventory project by inventorying and assessing the City’s entire public tree population.

The City of Joplin’s trees are in fair condition and routine maintenance scheduling will improve the overall condition and enhance the benefits that the trees can provide.

The following summarizes the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan and outcomes: 1. Summaries of the species richness and composition of the inventoried trees: Currently, silver maple, sweetgum, and post oak comprise the majority of the City’s public trees. The City should consider the current diversity when planting additional trees to help avoid potential catastrophic tree losses due to insect and disease outbreaks. Every effort should be made to budget enough funds to plant new trees, increasing the diversity and improving the urban forest structure by increasing the young tree size class in comparison to mature, large trees.

2. An assessment of the condition and health of the inventoried trees: Improvement of tree condition and health will be achieved through cyclical and proper pruning and other maintenance. Routine monitoring and maintenance will ensure a healthy canopy for the City of Joplin.

3. Summaries of the relative age distribution of the trees inventoried: The age and size distribution of city owned trees can be improved by enhancing city tree plantings of trees with a large canopy at maturity.

4. Identification of priority maintenance and management requirements: Identification of maintenance requirements and priorities will help to improve the health of the urban forest and public safety. The Plan outlines the process of removing or pruning high-risk trees, followed by prescriptions for routine and young tree maintenance.

5. Strategies to achieve a 10-year vision: The Plan provides an outline for a 5-year strategy with the data to establish subsequent strategies.

6. Assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan to continue sustainable management: Evaluation of the successes and shortcomings of the Plan should be conducted to improve management and improve the effectiveness of the City’s urban forest program.

28 | P a g e

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Trees have emerged as a symbol of hope and renewal in Joplin. Those that survived the tornado are cherished, and many homeowners planted new trees even before the last of the debris of their homes had been cleared away.â&#x20AC;?

Photo courtesy of www.joplinmo.org

29 | P a g e

APPENDICES Definitions A description of the terms used throughout the Urban Forest Management Plan

Data Fields and Risk Assessment Protocol A description of the data fields collected during the field inventory

Resources A collection of additional urban forest resources

I|P a g e

A. Definitions Term

Definition

Anthropogenic

(Chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.

Carbon Sequestered

The process of trees using carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and storing carbon as biomass

DBH

A measurement of tree Diameter at Breast Height or 4.5 feet above ground

Deciduous

Trees or shrubs that lose their leaves seasonally

Ecosystem Benefits

Beneficial processes provided by existing natural systems

Evapotranspiration

The process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and by transpiration from plants.

Exurban

A region or settlement that lies outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs

Genera

Plural form of genus

Genus

A principal taxonomic category to class trees that have common characteristics and that can be divided into subordinate kinds

Green Infrastructure

An approach to water management that protects, restores, or mimics the natural water cycle

High-Risk Pruning

The pruning of trees that present the greatest risk of failure

High-Risk Trees

Trees that present the greatest risk of failure

International Society of Arboriculture

An international non-profit organization dedicated to promote the professional practice of arboriculture and foster a greater public awareness of the benefits of trees

Routine Pruning

The removal of dead, decayed, diseased, dying, weakly attached, and/or conflicting limbs of trees

Shapefile

Esri vector data storage format for storing the location, shape, and attributes of geographic features

Stormwater

Surface water in abnormal quantity resulting from heavy falls of rain or snow.

Tree Clean

The removal of dead, decayed, diseased, dying, weakly attached, and/or conflicting limbs of trees

Tree Inventory

Gathering of accurate information on the health, structure, and diversity of a community forest

Uneven-Age Stand

Three well-represented and well-defined age classes, differing in height, age, and diameter

Urban Forest

The careful care and management of tree populations in urban settings for the purpose of improving the urban environment

Young Tree Pruning

Structural pruning of young trees for limiting or preventing potential problems before they become costly

II | P a g e

B. Data Fields and Risk Assessment Protocol 1) Location - Identify the location of each tree and/or site. All street tree locations should be organized by sequential tree site number and road name, block side, corner location and GPS coordinates. The Coordinate System shall be U.S. State Plane 1983, Missouri East, NAD 83 (CONUS) unless otherwise directed by the City.

2) Species - Trees are identified by genus and species using both botanical and common names and by cultivars where appropriate.

3) Trunk Diameter - Diameter is measured to the nearest inch in one-inch increments at 4-1/2 feet above the ground, or diameter-breast-height (DBH). Record as a single value, ranges will not be accepted.

4) Stems - Number of stems on trunks that are forked less than one foot above ground level is recorded.

5) Condition - The general condition of each tree is rated according to the following categories adapted from the International Society of Arboriculture’s rating system:  Excellent 100%  Good 80%  Fair 60%  Poor 40%  Critical 20%  Dead 0% 6) Assessed Value - Each tree inventoried to have an assessed value based on The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) rating standards on location, species, overall condition, etc. The software program to include the capability of tabulating, sorting and combining the assessed value of each tree by; street, subdivision, park, species, etc.

7) Primary Maintenance Need - The following primary maintenance needs will be determined based on ANSI A300 standard specifications:  Removal. Trees designated for removal have defects that cannot be cost-effectively or practically treated.

The majority of the trees in this category have a significantly large percentage of dead crown, trees that are low risk, but will never become valuable assets (severely sunscalded or mower damaged trees), trees with safety risks that could be seen as potential threats to persons or property and seen as potential liabilities to the City would be in this category. This includes large dead and dying trees that are high liability risks as well as those that pose minimal liability to persons or property (such as trees in poor locations or undesirable species) will be identified in this category.  Tree Clean. These trees require selective removal of dead, dying, broken, sprawling live limbs and/or diseased wood to minimize potential risk. Priority of work should be dependent upon the Risk associated with the individual trees. Trees in this category are large enough to require bucket truck access or manual climbing.  Young Tree Train. Young trees must be pruned to correct or eliminate weak, interfering, or objectionable branches in order to improve structure and minimize future maintenance issues. These 20-foot or less trees can be maintained by a groundsperson.  Stump Removal. This category indicates a stump that should be removed. Any stump in the public rightof-way or park over 2 inches from ground level to be specified for removal.

8) Risk Assessment - A Level 2 Qualitative risk assessment will be performed based on ANSI A300 (Part 9) standards, along with the companion publication Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (2011). During the inventory, each tree will be assigned a risk rating. The failure mode with the greatest risk will serve as the overall tree risk rating. The specified time period for the risk assessment is one year.

Risk is assessed based on the degree to which trees are susceptible to failure. Ratings are determined by the following measurements:  Likelihood of Failure. The chance of a tree failure occurring within the specified time frame (one year).

III | P a g e



Likelihood of Impacting a Target. The chance of a tree failure impacting a target during the specified time frame.



Categorizing Likelihood of Tree Failure Impacting a Target. The chance of a tree failure occurring and impacting a target within the specified time frame.



Likelihood of Failure Imminent Probable

Very Low Unlikely Unlikely

Possible

Unlikely

Likelihood of Impacting Target Low Medium Somewhat likely Likely Unlikely Somewhat likely Unlikely Unlikely

Improbable

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

High Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Unlikely

Consequence of Failure. Personal injury, property damage, or disruption of activities due to the failure of a tree or tree part

9) Risk Rating - The tree’s risk rating is determined based on combining the likelihood of tree failure impacting a target and the consequence of failure in the matrix below.

Likelihood of Failure Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Unlikely

Negligible Low Low Low Low

Minor Moderate Moderate Low Low

Consequences Significant High High Moderate Low

Severe Extreme High Moderate Low

Tree risk assessors will identify the tree failure mode having the greatest risk, and report that as the tree risk rating. The following risk ratings will be assigned:   

None. Used for planting and stump sites only.

Low. The Low Risk category applies when consequences are “negligible” and likelihood is “unlikely”; or consequences are “minor” and likelihood is “somewhat likely”. Some trees with this level of risk may benefit from mitigation or maintenance measures, but immediate action is not usually required.

Moderate. The Moderate Risk category applies when consequences are “minor” and likelihood is “very likely” or “likely”; or likelihood is “somewhat likely” and consequences are “significant” or “severe.” In populations of trees, Moderate Risk trees represent a lower priority than High or Extreme Risk trees.



High. The High Risk category applies when consequences are “significant” and likelihood is “very likely” or “likely”, or consequences are “severe” and likelihood is “likely”. In population of trees, the priority of High Risk trees is second only to Extreme Risk trees.



Extreme. The Extreme Risk category applies in situations where tree failure is imminent and there is a high likelihood of impacting the target, and the consequences of the failure are “severe”. In some cases, this may mean immediate restriction of access to the target zone area to avoid injury to people.

10) Observations - General observations warranting recognition include, but are not limited to, the following: Cavity/Decay Pest/Disease Problem Grate/Guard Poor Root System Improperly Installed Small Tree Pruning/Cleaning Improperly Mulched Poor Structure Improperly Pruned Remove Hardware Mechanical Damage (and location of damage) Serious Decline IV | P a g e

Memorial Tree Nutrient Deficiency Proximity to Infrastructure and Hardscape

Signs of Stress Hazard Abatement Recommendations

11) Further Inspection - Trees in this category require an annual inspection for several years.

12) Above ground Utilities - The inventory indicates the presence of overhead utilities at the tree site.

13) Growing Space Type – Island, median, open/unrestricted, planter, etc.

14) Growing Space – Measure the distance in feet from the base of the tree to the closest growth obstruction recording as a single value in one of the following ranges: under 5 feet, 5-10 feet, 10-25 feet, 25-40 feet or 40+feet. State whether the tree is visibly interfering with the hardscape 15) Location Rating – Assign a rating based on the functional and aesthetic contributions of the tree to the site and the long term sustainability of the particular species in the chosen location. Categories include: Excellent, good, fair and poor.

16) Additional Notes - Additional information of possible importance is noted here; visible at ground level utility equipment, hardscape materials and others as the City directs.

17) Date of survey and name of inspector **Stumps – Plan-It Geo will add stumps to the inventory database at no extra charge.

V|P a g e

C. Resources Pruning Guidelines: http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/04/3791_1459_0.pdf Recommended Tree Species: http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/06/8045_5179.pdf Sample Tree Ordinance: https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/documents/sample-tree-ordinance.pdf Tree ordinance guidelines: http://www.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/educ_TreeOrdinanceGuidelines.pdf Tree Contracting Specifications: https://www.springfieldmo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11756 Trees and development guidelines: http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Pages/StreetTreesDevelopment.aspx Municipal urban forestry staff: https://www2.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-2.pdf Tree boards: http://www.tufc.com/pdfs/treeboard_handbook.pdf Urban Watershed Forestry Management: http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/ Funding sources: http://actrees.org/resources/tools-for-nonprofits/fundraising-tools-for-nonprofits/ Trees as green infrastructure best management practices: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/stormwater2streettrees.pdf Valuing tree benefits: www.itreetools.org Information on urban tree canopy assessments (UTC): www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/ Sustainable Urban Forest Guide: http://www.mortonarb.org/files/Sustainable%20Urban%20Forest%20Guide%20(3-22-15)%20v5%20draft.pdf Private property tree program: http://treebaltimore.org/get-a-free-tree/ Tree inventory tools: www.planitgeo.com Missouri Department of Conservation: http://mdc.mo.gov/ Missouri Department of Natural Resources: http://dnr.mo.gov/ Trees Work: http://www.treeswork.org/ Forest Releaf of Missouri: http://moreleaf.org/ Missouri Community Forestry Council: http://mocommunitytrees.com/ Joplin Parks and Recreation Department: www.joplinparks.org VI | P a g e

VII | P a g e