2017 Urban Forest Management Plan - Meridian, MS

2017 | MERIDIAN, MS

This page intentionally blank

Acknowledgements Planning Department Community Development Division Public Works Department Engineering Division – Resource Management Parks and Recreation Department Tree Commission

Supported by the Mississippi Forestry Commission’s Urban Forestry Grant Program Accepted in October 2017

Cover photos source (clockwise): The Meridian Star, Feb 2016, the MS Urban Forest Council’s website (www.msurbanforest.com), and www.tripmondo.com

City of Meridian | 601 23rd Ave | Meridian, MS | 39302 | www.meridianms.org

Our vision for the future

of Meridian is to create a healthy and

sustainable urban forest that is properly managed and cared for, benefiting our citizens with improved economic and environmental well-being, increasing public safety, and enabling our employees to provide cost effective maintenance Our urban forest will have a large variety of trees consisting of various sizes, ages, and species. The trees will be selected and maintained according to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)

Our vision for the future of Meridian is to create a healthy and sustainable urban forest that is properly managed and cared for, benefiting our citizens with improved economic and environmental well-being, increasing public safety, and enabling our employees to provide cost effective maintenance.

Our urban forest will have a large variety of trees consisting of various sizes, ages, and species. The trees will be selected and maintained according to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).

The urban and community forest is a defining and valued characteristic of the City of Meridian helping to make it a desirable place to live, work and play. It is made up of the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks, and on institutional and private property. The urban and community forest provides many environmental, economic and social benefits to the community, including reducing stormwater runoff, improving water and air quality, moderating summer temperatures, lowering utility costs, improving quality of life, and beautifying the city.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is estimated that Meridian’s urban and community forest, which includes trees growing along streets, mowed areas of parks, and private property provides over

$71 million in benefits by improving the air quality. For example, the urban forest reduces 14 tons of carbon monoxide every year. The 1,000 city trees that were inventoried in 2017 along city-managed streets and parks provides a total value of over $41,000 which includes $4,000 in energy savings and over 1.8 million

gallons of stormwater reduced annually.

While the urban and community forest serves as an important and integral part of the city, serious challenges have negatively impacted the care and management of the city-managed trees within it. The city is currently undergoing restructuring of the urban forestry program and the departments/divisions/personnel responsible.

The purpose of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP/Plan) is to provide a framework for the city to utilize when restructuring the urban forestry program to effectively manage the urban and community forest as a sustainable asset, consistent with the values and needs of the community, while maximizing its benefits.

STATE OF THE URBAN FOREST

RECOMMENDATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tree Ordinance Revision Recommendations Due to the restructuring of the urban forestry program, the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17 – Planning: Article IV Tree Protection should be revised to reflect the changes. See page 6 for details.

Tree Management Recommendations Implement a proactive tree maintenance program for Meridian’s city-managed trees.

Complete a citywide tree inventory to determine the entire tree population’s structure and maintenance needs and update the Work Management Plan and Budget Worksheet (Table 23).

The 5-year strategy requires all high-risk maintenance to be completed (e.g. removals, Priority 1).

Perform a continuing routine pruning cycle for public trees, beginning in Year 1 on a 10-year rotation, starting with the inventoried trees.

Perform cyclical young tree pruning (approximately 200 trees 0-6” in diameter), beginning in Year 1.

Develop plans for the aftercare of newly planted trees (e.g. watering, mulching, staking, and pruning).

Develop action plans for invasive plants, pests, and diseases that may threaten the tree population.

Increase the preservation and protection of landmark/special trees and native forest fragments on public and private lands.

Levels of Service Concept: Recommendations Based on the assessment of the urban forest resource and existing programs/initiatives, it is recommended that the city plan and strive for a Level of Service 3 status. This level is defined as a mature urban forest program that is financially efficient and effective, preventive maintenance is fully addressed, and more trees are planted than removed. Achieving a level 3 of service includes (see page 39 for specific recommendations): A complete inventory in 2018-2019 followed by routine inspection of one-fifteenth of the public trees each year.

An increase in mature tree pruning frequency to every 5 years.

An increase in small tree pruning frequency to every 3 years.

Increase treatment of pests and diseases.

An accelerated tree planting program.

Secure adequate and sustainable city-generated funding to support an increased level of service for core urban forestry services and programs.

Other Urban Forestry Program Recommendations Develop street tree planting master plans that balance tree functions, diversity, design, and neighborhood character.

Conduct a citywide high-resolution Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment.

Enhance and develop programs that encourage active participation by volunteers.

Strengthen working relationships and partnerships with businesses, organizations, and contractors whose activities impact city trees by instituting regular dialogue and project coordination.

Obtain the highest and best use of wood from trees removed by the city.

Review the Urban Forest Management Plan periodically and update as needed.

October 2017

Purpose of this Plan Related Plans and Initiatives Overall Urban Forestry Program Vision A Brief History of Trees in the Region Public Agencies Responsible for Trees in the Public Way Benefits of the City’s Trees

1 1 2 2 3 4

Ordinance Review and Recommendations Staff/Operational Review and Recommendations Existing Outreach and Educational Efforts and Opportunities

6 9 12

Overview The Structure of City-Managed Trees The Management Needs of City-Managed Trees Growing Space for Existing Trees i-Tree Canopy Results

15 16 17 22 23

An Overview of Tree Management Needs Citywide High-Risk Tree Maintenance Priority Tree Maintenance Citywide Routine Tree Pruning Citywide Young Tree Pruning

26 26 27 28 29

Current Tree Management Expenses Management Program Budget Methods for Prioritizing Removals The Levels of Service Concept Proposed Levels of Service (2017-2022)

31 32 36 37 39

Urban Forest Management Plan Summary Urban Forest Management Plan Recommendations

40 41

Appendix I: Map of Trees >30� Requiring Priority Maintenance Appendix II: All Species for Removal by DBH Range Appendix III: Map of Trees for Removal Appendix IV: Condition of Trees by Grow Space Type Appendix V: Master Tree List Appendix VI: Tree Inventory Data Fields Appendix VII: Resources Appendix VIII: Source of Images

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

TABLES Table 1. Summary of other city plans with trees and urban forests as components Table 2. Summary of benefits for the top ten species Table 3. Summary of the departments and divisions responsible for trees Table 4. Example annual work schedule for community trees Table 5. Species composition of top ten (of 3,927 trees) Table 6. Summary of the condition ratings for the top 5 species Table 7. Maintenance requirements for the inventoried trees Table 8. Count of removals by DBH range based on the March 2017 tree inventory Table 9. Clearance conflicts Table 10. Count of grow space types Table 11. Count by grow space classes Table 12. 2017 distribution of land cover using i-Tree Canopy Table 13. Benefits of the citywide tree canopy (based on i-Tree Canopy) Table 14. Summary of the tree canopy change analysis (2004 to 2015) Table 15. Count of trees identified for removal by DBH range (March 2017 trees) Table 16. Trees requiring priority maintenance Table 17. Routine pruning cycle for all trees >6" DBH (all trees) Table 18. Routine pruning cycle for all trees >6" DBH (March 2017 trees) Table 19. Trees requiring training (all trees) Table 20. Trees requiring training (March 2017 trees) Table 21. 2014 summary of municipal expenditures relating to urban forestry Table 22. Per tree/stump cost estimates per size class for maintenance Table 23. Work Management Plan and Budget Worksheet Table 24. List of trees identified for removal greater than 18” DBH Table 25. Levels of service for annual street tree maintenance, removal, and planting Table 26. Proposed levels of service worksheet, 2017-2022 Table 27. Summary of the urban forest resource and program Table 28. All species for removal by DBH range

1 4 10 12 16 18 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 27 27 28 28 29 29 31 32 34 36 38 39 40 II

FIGURES Figure 1. Summary of tree benefits for the 1,002 street and park trees inventoried Figure 2. Top 10 species composition Figure 3. Top 5 genera composition Figure 4. Diameter size class distribution of the inventoried trees Figure 5. Ideal diameter class distribution for an urban forest Figure 6. Condition class distribution of the complete database (3,932 trees) Figure 7. Condition class distribution of March 2017 inventory Figure 8. Observations noted during the March 2017 inventory of 1,002 trees Figure 9. Trees >30” requiring Priority 1 or 2 Maintenance Figure 10. Map of trees by condition in Planting Strip and Median Grow Space Types Figure 11. 2017 distribution of land cover using i-Tree Canopy Figure 12. Location of the 1,106 randomized points for the canopy change analysis Figure 13. Description of the maintenance program budget worksheet Figure 14. Map of trees 18” or greater needing removed

4 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 22 23 24 33 36

“Urban trees and forests are considered integral to the sustainability of cities as a whole. Yet, sustainable urban forests are not born, they are made. They do not arise at random, but result from a communitywide commitment to their creation and management.� | Clark et al.: Urban Forest Sustainability

1

PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN “Without a management plan, the governments and individuals responsible for taking care of an urban forest will not be effective in meeting the true needs of the trees and the community. A management plan establishes a clear set of priorities and objectives related to the goal of maintaining a productive and beneficial community forest.” ~American Public Works Association, 2007

RELATED PLANS AND INITIATIVES The table below summarizes plans and initiatives that were developed with trees as a component which are currently being implemented in the city. The 2009 Comprehensive Plan identifies trees and natural resources as a vital component to the plan’s goals and purpose of guiding and strengthening physical and economic development of Meridian.

In 2004, a Strategy for Redevelopment of Downtown Meridian, MS was developed to evaluate the ongoing revitalization of downtown Meridian. In the early 2000’s, Union Station was redeveloped, the Rosenbaum Building was converted into condominiums, the Riley Education and Performing Arts Center was created, and restaurants and businesses began to reopen. Given this transformation, current and pending redevelopment projects were evaluated to determine which will have the greatest long-term positive impact on the city. Trees are considered in the Planning and Design recommendations, summarized below.

Table 1. Summary of other city plans with trees and urban forests as components

Comprehensive Plan (2009) Cultural and Policy “The landscaping of public and private property and preserving existing trees Aesthetic 13 where feasible should be encouraged” Policy “Streets and highways should be landscaped in order to contribute to the Transportation 68 overall pleasing visual image of the community” Downtown Meridian Mississippi: A Strategy for Redevelopment (2004) Parking Intensive Streets “Trees and islands at intersections” Arterial Streets “Large street trees along the sides” Retail & Pedestrian Streets “Median with large street trees...and small flowering trees at the sidewalk” “Additions to the city’s zoning ordinance requiring future developments to Private Green Space include landscaped areas should be considered”

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

This document is intended: To identify the city’s goals and priorities for managing its trees and forests.

To describe the current status of the city’s urban forest resources and its management program.

To document the methods, resources, and personnel that will be used to achieve these goals over the next five years.

2 OVERALL URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM VISION “Our vision for the future of Meridian is to create a healthy and sustainable urban forest that is properly managed and cared for, benefiting our citizens with improved economic and environmental well-being, increasing public safety, and enabling our employees to provide cost effective maintenance.

Our urban forest will have a large variety of trees consisting of various sizes, ages, and species. The trees will be selected and maintained according to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).”

Program Goals To achieve this vision, the following goals are recommended:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TREES IN THE REGION In 1834, surveyors began to explore and prospect the region and upon surveillance, quickly observed the vast amounts of oak, hickory, and chestnut forests that resembled an English park, for it lacked any understory due to the natives burning the grasses annually.

Prospecting led to clearing of the forests for farming and pastures which set the stage for major erosion problems in the early 1900’s. The forests that were not cleared for farming were cut for the sawmills to produce the timber that would supply the surge of settlement.

Without trees to stabilize the soil, the soil erosion continued to worsen. This gave rise to reforestation efforts that stemmed from programs aimed at ending the depression. While well intended, this effort also resulted in the planting of thousands of exotic plants such as Kudzu and Loblolly Pine, a rival to shortleaf pine, a native to the region.

Meridian itself had seen surges and declines in growth during early establishment. There was a boom after the Civil War, with railroads being

attributed as a key to growth, and a surge again when the US entered World War II. In the mid-20th century, newly built highways drew people to the suburbs which led to a decline in the city. Revitalization efforts from Meridian Main Street, now known as the Alliance for Downtown Meridian, have contributed to the increased awareness of and appreciation for trees as design elements in the city landscape for improved quality of life.

Development and improvements to outdoor recreation areas such as nature trails, lakes, and reservoirs, have been on the rise and the city has been increasing their efforts in enhancing, preserving, and managing its urban forest by increasing tree management staff, planting trees, conducting assessments such as the 2017 street tree inventory, and supporting this Urban Forest Management Plan.

nd

Then and Now: Downtown Meridian 22 Avenue Photo Source: Meridian Planning Division

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Maintain at least 90% of public trees in “good” condition (defined as 75%-100% of perfect condition).

Maintain living trees in at least 95% of available public planting spaces.

Ensure that no family, genus, species of trees comprise more than 30%/20%/10%, respectively, of the city’s street tree population.

Identify city department roles and responsibilities in the care of urban trees.

Update this Plan after the program restructuring and finalize the goals and recommendations.

3 PUBLIC AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR TREES IN THE PUBLIC WAY The city has a dedicated division and staff for the care and maintenance of trees. They understand the importance of maintaining trees for public safety and the added benefits trees provide the community. Just like any infrastructure though, proper installation, maintenance, planning, monitoring, and renewal needs to occur. As the high percentage of large trees begin to reach mortality, the strain on the city staff and resources will increase. For this reason, the city has several departments involved with the care of trees and with this inner-departmental structure, the city has pursued this Urban Forest Management Plan to assist in distinguishing the roles and responsibilities of those involved.

Like streets and sewers, trees are an important part of Meridian’s infrastructure. While property owners and managers maintain trees on private land, public agencies handle those on public land.

The city’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2003 and revised in 2009, identifies trees and natural resources as a vital component to the plan’s goals and purpose of guiding and strengthening physical and economic development of Meridian.

The goals, objectives, and policies listed in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the establishment of the Tree Commission provide justification and cause for this Urban Forest Management Plan.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Statutory Requirements The Meridian Tree Commission was established and supported by Article IV. Tree Protection in Chapter 17 – Planning of the City of Meridian’s Code of Ordinances. The Meridian Tree Commission was established by City Ordinance No. 3890 as “amended, for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal, and disposition of trees and shrubs in parks, along streets and in other public areas”. Section 17-93 states that it’s the city’s responsibility to develop and present to the commission a written plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal, and disposition of trees and shrubs in parks, along streets and in other public areas.

4 BENEFITS OF THE CITY’S TREES The aforementioned ordinances, policies, plans, and staff illustrate Meridian’s understanding that trees benefit the city in myriad of ways. Across Meridian, forests and trees along streets, in parks, yards, and throughout natural areas constitute a valuable urban and community forest. This resource is critical for the city’s green infrastructure, contributing to environmental quality, public health, water supply, local economies, and aesthetic appeal. Urban forests provide “triple bottom line” benefits: social, economic, and environmental.

4

~

The total annual benefits of Meridian’s inventoried street and park trees are estimated at $41,470 Living trees provide services which can also be assigned a financial value, using the peer-reviewed i-Tree research. These services include stormwater retention, increased property values, energy conservation, improved air quality, and carbon dioxide reduction.

Stormwater $17,949 1,811,953 gal

Property Value $13,398

The total annual benefits of Meridian’s inventoried street trees (1,002 trees) are estimated at $41,470 (Figure 1). Stormwater retention represents nearly half of these benefits, followed by property value and energy conservation. If the large numbers of small trees currently growing are maintained properly, these benefits are likely to increase dramatically.

Energy Savings

Air Quality $2,545 647 lbs

The table below summarizes the benefits of the top ten species inventoried. Larger canopy trees such as water oak that ranked 4th in abundance has the greatest overall value of $7,505.

Carbon $1,668 222,463 lbs C stored 187,768 lbs C sequestered

For an accurate summary of benefits it is recommended that the city update the land use for each of the 2,925 previously inventoried trees so that their Tree Plotter app can calculate these values. A complete inventory should also be conducted.

Total Value $41,470 Figure 1. Summary of tree benefits for the 1,002 street and park trees inventoried

Table 2. Summary of benefits for the top ten species

Common Name

Rank

Total Count

Total w/ $ Values

Stormwater

Property Value

Energy

Natural Gas

Air Quality

Carbon

Total Value

Water oak

4

58

33

$4,309

$1,417

$751

$267

$457

$305

$7,505

Willow oak

1

109

62

$1,145

$1,300

$263

$143

$161

$129

$3,142

Common Red maple Name

7

50

Stormwater

Property Air$109 $1,226 $183 Natural $105 Value Energy Gas Quality

$77

Total $2,394 Value

$4,309

$1,417

$751

$267

$457

$305

$7,505

$1,145

$1,300

$263

$143

$161

$129

$3,142

$694

$1,226

$183

$105

$109

$77

$2,394

$445

$780

$165

$100

$101

$80

$1,671

$276

$715

$84

$53

$52

$46

$1,225

$405

$522

$103

$60

$63

$53

$1,206

$369

$375

$127

$73

$76

$69

$1,089

$451

$186

$75

$24

$71

$22

$829

$228

$121

$94

$50

$93

$34

$621

$159

$201

$76

$55

Rank

Total

Total w/ 42 Values

Water oak

4

58

33

Willow oak

1

Red maple

7

Ginkgo

8

Baldcypress

3

Shumard oak

9

River birch

6

Loblolly pine

5

52

5

Holly

2

69

64

Crapemyrtle

10

Ginkgo

Baldcypress Shumard oak River birch Loblolly pine Holly

Crapemyrtle

Total

Total

8 3 9 6 5 2

10

45 65

109

62

50

42

45 65 44 50

44 50 52 69 43

585

45 36 34 30

45 36 34 30 5 39

390

43

39 390

$445 $276 $405 $369 $451

64

585

$694

$228 $159

$8,480

$780 $715 $522 $375 $186 $121 $201

$6,843

$165 $84

$103 $127 $75 $94 $76

$1,920

$100 $53 $60 $73 $24 $50 $55

$928

$8,480 $6,843 $1,920 $928 Table #. Summary of benefits for the top ten species

$101 $52 $63 $76 $71 $93 $47

$1,231

Carbon

$80 $46 $53 $69 $22 $34 $22

$837

$1,671 $1,225 $1,206 $1,089 $829 $621 $559

$20,240

$47

$22

$559

$1,231

$837

$20,240

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

$3,975 52,479 kWh

Trees Benefit Meridian’s   

Environment Society Economy

6

5

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

ORDINANCE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ordinances in Meridian’s City Code set regulations for a variety of areas, including municipal administration, parks, public grounds, streets, sidewalks, planning and zoning, food and health, public safety, traffic, businesses, and construction. Aspects of Meridian’s urban and community forest (trees) are regulated under Meridian City Code. The following (abbreviated) ordinances, policies, and code pertain to the urban and community forest: Code of Ordinances of Meridian, MS: Chapter 17 – Planning: Article IV. Tree Protection Purpose of Article IV: “To aid in the stabilization of soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation; to reduce stormwater runoff and the costs associated therewith and replenish ground water supplies; to aid in the removal of carbon dioxide and generation of oxygen in the atmosphere; to provide a buffer and screen against noise pollution; to provide protection against severe weather; to aid in the control of drainage restoration of denuded soil subsequent to construction or grading; to provide a haven for birds which in turn assist in the control of insects; to protect and increase property values; conserve and enhance the physical environment and aesthetics; generally to protect and enhance the quality of life and the general welfare of the citizens of the city.

Meridian Master Tree List (see Appendix V) As a requirement to Chapter 17, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances (Sec. 17-73), Meridian has developed a Master Tree List that the city adheres to when planting or recommending species to plant.

This list is outdated as it contains Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and other undesirables. (Ord. No. 3890, § 7, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, § 7, 11-17-92) RECOMMENDATION(S): The list should be updated to address species diversity based on the tree inventory data and the research and recommendations for species suitable for a changing climate. The current tree list can be found in Appendix V. Authorized Urban Forestry Personnel According to Sec. 17-74, the Community Development Department is authorized to administer and enforce the Tree Protection Article (IV). This section states that the enforcement personnel shall be the city's landscape architect or urban forester and have the authority to regulate all work performed under any permit issued under this article. (Ord. No. 3890, § 8, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, § 8, 11-17-92) RECOMMENDATION(S): Recently, and during development of this Plan, the city has restructured the departments, divisions, and personnel responsible for tree management and the responsibilities listed in Article IV. It is recommended that the city update this Article and sections to reflect the changes.

7 Jurisdiction of Public Trees

5

As stated in Sec. 17-75 of Article IV, the city shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all trees, shrubs and grassy areas planted or growing in public right-of-ways, city parks and city-owned property. The city shall have the authority to plant, prune, spray, treat, preserve and remove trees, shrubs, and grassy areas in the above-described locations to ensure the safety and beauty of such public places.

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

The city may remove, cause, or order to be removed, any tree, shrub or part thereof which is found to be injurious to public utilities or private or public improvements, or is severely infected with any injurious fungus, disease or pest. This section does not prohibit the planting of trees by adjacent property owners providing that the selection and location is in accordance with this Article.

No such activities that involve the removal or pruning of a tree shall be undertaken by the city until review and consideration by the Community Development Department. (Ord. No. 3890, ยง 9, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, ยง 9, 11-17-92; Ord. No. 4219, ยง 1, 12-17-2002) RECOMMENDATION(S): The city should identify the department/division/personnel responsible for the jurisdiction of all public trees and identify those responsible for the tree removal and pruning review process. This process should be reviewed and updated based on the information and other recommendations provided in this Plan. All changes should be reflected in an update of this section in Article IV. Public Tree Maintenance and Planting Permits Section 17-76 of Article IV states that no person shall prune, spray, treat, preserve, remove or plant any tree in any public place without first obtaining a permit. Anyone interested in a permit shall submit a written application to the Community Development Department setting forth the number and kind of trees to be maintained, the type of maintenance or treatment, condition and type of trees nearby, map of the tree(s) location and nearby infrastructure, maintenance and/or planting methods Public utilities having the right to construct and maintain power or transmission lines on public areas pursuant to valid certificates of public convenience and necessity from the public service commission are authorized to properly, and of necessity only, trim such trees, without further permit, as is necessary for the safe and proper operation and maintenance of such lines and consistent with the preservation and protection of our urban forest. Public utilities shall communicate and cooperate with appropriate city staff to facilitate proper maintenance of urban trees as well as power and transmission lines. (Ord. No. 3890, ยง 10, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, ยง 10, 11-17-92) RECOMMENDATION(S): The ordinance should be updated to state the appropriate department and personnel for receiving and reviewing the written permit applications. Approval of permits should consider the updated Master Tree List, this Urban Forest Management Plan, and other city plans and initiatives.

This person(s) should also be responsible for the communications with the public service commission involved with public tree maintenance and removals.

Tree Planting Permissions Sections 17-77 and 17-78 describe the acceptable planting distance from utilities and the appropriate species for such locations. Trees may be planted no closer than ten feet from any fire hydrants. In

8 addition, no trees other than those species listed as small trees in the Master Tree List may be planted under or within ten lateral feet of any overhead utility wire. (Ord. No. 3890, § 11, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, § 11, 11-17-92 and Ord. No. 3890, § 12, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, § 12, 11-17-92)

5

RECOMMENDATION(S): Conduct an inventory of available planting spaces and develop a planting plan to stock the available planting spaces in these areas with the species appropriate for the site and desired function.

Consider programs such as Energy-Saving Trees for funding city plantings under overhead utilities.

Include this language in the updated ordinance.

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

Penalties and Enforcement For trees that are damaged, it is the landscape architect or urban forester’s responsibility to determine if the tree should be repaired or replaced. Common remediation practices for damaged trees include wound treatment (not recommended), bracing, pruning, and improving compacted soil.

The Guide for Plant Appraisal, most current edition, shall determine monetary value for tree repair and tree replacement. If removal is necessary for any tree planted in any public place without a permit, violator shall be responsible for all removal costs.

Noncompliance of penalties determined, after having been duly notified, shall constitute a misdemeanor, and any person convicted in city court of such a misdemeanor shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00), per offense, and in addition shall pay all penalties, costs and expenses as determined by the court. (Ord. No. 3890, § 16, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, § 16, 11-17-92; Ord. No. 4219, § 2, 12-17-2002) RECOMMENDATION(S): The city should assign the personnel to inform the public about proper tree care and preventive measures to limit tree damage during construction such as identifying tree protection zones and reducing soil compaction. Personnel should also enforce these best practices and cite those in violation while maintaining a positive image to the public eye.

Pruning and Removing Trees on Private Property A tree or stump removal permit is required of anyone removing or pruning trees or for stump removal on private property within the city's incorporated area. The city's building inspection division is responsible for issuing an approved permit.

Any person, partnership or corporation violating or failing to comply with the requirements of this section shall be issued a written warning of noncompliance and a written demand for necessary corrective action. If voluntary compliance is not obtained, the building official shall file a sworn complaint in the municipal court. Failure to comply may result in charges and a fine. (Ord. No. 4143, §§ 1—3, 1-4-2000) RECOMMENDATION(S): Following the restructuring of the department and personnel responsible for urban forestry, this ordinance should be updated to list the department/division responsible for issuing and enforcing tree pruning and removal on private property within the city’s incorporated area.

9 Tree Commission

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

5

Article IV also lists a Division 2 which describes the creation, terms of office, duties and responsibilities, and means of operation.

Specifically, Section 17-93 states that it’s the city’s responsibility to develop and present to the commission a written plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal, and disposition of trees and shrubs in parks, along streets and in other public areas. The commission shall review and approve such plan and such plan shall constitute the official comprehensive city tree plan for the city. The commission, when requested by the mayor or city council, shall consider, investigate, make finding, report and recommend upon any matter or issue within the scope of its work. The tree commission will not be responsible for city-owned forest lands that are managed by the Mississippi Forestry Commission. (Ord. No. 3890, § 5, 10-2-90; Ord. No. 3946, § 5, 11-17-92; Ord. No. 4219, § 3, 12-17-2002) RECOMMENDATION(S): Use this ordinance to reinforce the city’s urban forestry goals of establishing, implementing, maintaining, and updating this Urban Forest Management Plan.

Checks and Balances Section 17-80 states that the City Council shall have the right to review the conduct, acts, and decisions of the City Tree Commission. Any person may appeal from any ruling or order of the City Tree Commission to the City Council which shall make the final decision. (Ord. No. 3890, § 14, 10-290; Ord. No. 3946, § 14, 11-17-92) Other Ordinances and Codes Regarding Trees Chapter 20 – STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, Article 1 Section 20-20: Trees may not be planted in the right-of-way within fifty feet of the intersection.

Section 20-30: The city may move or trim any tree within the right-of-way of any street, avenue, or public way within the city for the safety and health of the public.

Other Documents Resulting from Ordinances As a result of the aforementioned ordinances, the following documents and forms have been developed.

The Site Development Request Form (revised July 2013) Developed in order to establish a plan review process to have some control over the loss of canopy or limit the amount of construction damage to trees that can occur during development. The type of project must be entered on the form and if the applicant is willing, the MS Department of Environmental Quality is notified. As a requirement, the request must include a site plan that includes locations of natural features such as trees that goes under review during the plan review process.

STAFF/OPERATIONAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS During development of this Urban Forest Management Plan, the city has restructured their departments / divisions and personnel responsible for the care, planting, and planning of individual trees and the urban forest as a whole. Therefore, the following review and recommendations are based on the current staffing structure and this section should be updated once the restructuring is completed.

10 Table 3. Summary of the departments and divisions responsible for tree planting, maintenance, and planning

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

5

The Planning Division is responsible for urban forestry initiatives that manage city trees and promote green infrastructure as well as landscape design and improvements on city property and rights-of-way.

Among other infrastructure maintenance and responsibilities, the Public Works Department is responsible for tree and grass maintenance on the city’s rights-of-way.

The Parks Department manages seven parks and other recreational areas across the city and is guided by the mission to “provide the citizens of Meridian with impactful and life enhancing programs that foster physical, mental, and emotional well-being, while addressing the need for social, competitive, engaging recreation, sports, and wholesome fun activities.”

RECOMMENDATION(S): Improve coordination among the Planning/Engineering Divisions and the Parks and Recreation Department to identify and assign roles and tasks for tree maintenance and planting on public land.

According to information provided by municipal arborists around the United States in 2010 (Sicheneder, K., Society of Municipal Arborists, June 2010), the median ratio of trees to full-time employees (FTE) utilizing mostly private contractors was 6,000:1, and utilizing city staff exclusively was 4,500:1. The city’s tree to FTE ratio should be evaluated and adjusted accordingly to improve the city’s ability and capacity to maintain the city’s urban and community forest resource.

The following is an abbreviated description of the urban forestry operations in Meridian due to the ongoing restructuring of the program.

The Community Development Department, Planning Division, consists of one Urban Forester who is a Senior Planner, International Society of Arboriculture’s Certified Municipal Specialist Arborist, and MS Landscape Gardener. Based on previous work reports, the Urban Forester spends approximately 30% of the time on urban forestry related matters. These duties include planning, design, specifications, tree selection, placement, and inspection of planting operations; tree assessments; grant submittal and administration; record keeping; and issuance of work orders through the city’s Tree Manager Program.

11 As of 2017, the city has updated its tree management program and now uses Plan-It Geo’s Tree Plotter and Work Order Management software. The tree inventory and work orders can be found and tracked at https://pg-cloud.com/Meridian.

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

5

The Parks and Recreation Department, Grounds Maintenance Division consists of a Landscape Crew of four, a Grounds Superintendent, Grounds Maintenance Supervisor (ISA Certified Arborist), Grounds Maintenance Technician, and Maintenance Worker.

Of the 260 possible work days, 234 days (90%) are typically spent conducting urban forestry related activities.

Activities from January through March include tree pruning, removals, planting (as directed by the city’s Urban Forester for street trees), transplanting, fertilizing (typically with a complete, balanced fertilizer after March); herbiciding for weed control; and tree inspections (typically for weather damage).

Activities from April through June include tree plantings, removals, fertilizing, mulching, weed control, pest and disease inspections/treatment, and irrigating. During the growing season, less pruning is conducted unless absolutely necessary.

Activities from July through September include pruning for shape, visibility, and safety, high potassium fertilizing, mulching, weed control, pest and disease inspections/treatment, and irrigating as necessary.

Pruning is discontinued in early September unless absolutely necessary (e.g. safety pruning).

Activities from October through December include routine pruning, tree planting, mulching, weed control, soil sampling, irrigating, and inspections.

The Public Works Department’s Street Division staff that performs urban forestry activities consists of a fourperson Tree Crew, Labor Supervisor, Equipment Operator, and two Maintenance Workers. Typically, 75% of staff’s time is spent conducting urban forestry activities. These activities include routine pruning and removals as directed by work orders initiated by the city’s Urban Forester using the Tree Manager Program. As of 2017, the Urban Forester now has a new tree management software, Tree Plotter and Work Order Management, for creating and tracking these work orders. The Street Division also performs tree maintenance based on emergency work orders issued per Standard Operating Procedure.

RECOMMENDATION(S): Improve coordination among the Planning/Engineering Divisions and the Parks and Recreation Department to identify and assign roles and tasks for tree maintenance and planting on public land based on the restructuring that is currently underway.

Train staff on the use of Tree Plotter and Work Order Management for effectively tracking and updating tree condition, maintenance needs, size, newly planted trees, work orders, and other fields necessary for proactive urban forest management. View the city’s tree management software at https://pg-cloud.com/Meridian.

Update the recommended tree list (Master Tree List in Appendix V) by removing trees susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer (i.e. Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and adding species to increase diversity which are suitable for the region and forecasted climate change.

Utilize a work plan for all departments, divisions, and personnel to effectively plan and budget appropriately for the maintenance and care of trees and other aspects of urban forestry. An example work plan is provided on page 12.

12 Table 4. Example annual work schedule for community trees (https://extension.psu.edu/annual-work-plans-for-treecommissions - click “Download PDF”)

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

5

13 EXISTING OUTREACH AND EDUCATION EFFORTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

5

Maintaining and increasing community support for the care and management of trees is a vital component of an urban forestry program. City Council’s constituents who support trees and recognize the benefits of trees can help to influence urban forestry budgets and projects. Community support for trees increases a program’s capacity through increased volunteerism and outreach. The City of Meridian performs several activities and efforts to maintain and increase this support.

URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT

To date, Meridian has acquired the Arbor Day Foundation’s Tree City USA status for 27 years. As of 2009, the city had obtained this recognition for 20 consecutive years. To become a Tree City USA city, the following is required: Standard 1: Existing Tree Board or Department Standard 2: Community Tree Ordinance Standard 3: Community Forestry Program with an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita Standard 4: Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation Recognition of Arbor Day (Standard 4) is an example of an effective outreach method for the city to engage the community and its youth through a ceremonial tree planting event.

Members of the Meridian Tree Commission, along with Ward 2 Councilman Dustin Markham and Mayor Percy Bland, shovel dirt on a magnolia tree planted just past center field at the recently renovated Magnolia Baseball Field on 23rd Street. Photo Credit: The Meridian Star, Feb 2016

Opportunities and Resources for Community Outreach The following list provides examples (as hyperlinks) of outreach opportunities and resources.

MS Urban Forest Council Programs and MS Forestry Commission’s Public Outreach Urban & Community Forestry Appreciation Toolkit Planting Seeds of Success: Marketing the Community Forest Trees Pay Us Back People Need Trees – Benefits and Values Outreach & Diversity Efforts & Information Lessons Learned in the Inner City Recipe for Reaching Out More resources can be found at https://www.na.fs.fed.us/urban/inforesources/

15

5

OVERVIEW

This analysis and summary consists of 1,002 trees inventoried in March of 2017 on street rights-of-way and parks using Tree Plotter as well as 2,925 trees (and 630 planting sites) in the city’s antiquated tree inventory management program that were added from 1993 to 2016. A total of 3,927 trees and 630 planting sites (as of May 2017) and the associated data now reside in the city’s Tree Plotter app. A list of the tree fields and values collected during the inventory are found in Appendix VI. Due to differences in tree databases, some of the summaries were conducted for only the March 2017 trees.

When reviewing these summaries, the city should consider that park trees tend to have a better growing environment leading 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 and Management Needs. In addition, an aerial assessment of the urban forest was conducted using i-Tree Canopy and imagery from 2015 and 2004 to analyze canopy change citywide.

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

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

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

16 THE STRUCTURE OF CITY-MANAGED TREES 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.

5

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.

Table 5. Species composition of top ten (of 3,927 trees)

Figure 2. Top 10 species composition

2% 2%

Count

Percent

Loblolly pine Water oak Sweetgum Pecan Willow oak Laurel oak Shortleaf pine Southern red oak Southern magnolia Baldcypress Total

826 563 478 244 201 117 83 82 80 68 2,742

21% 14% 12% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 69.8%

2% 2% 3%

21%

5%

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

Common Name

6%

14%

12%

Figure 3. Top 5 genera composition

The 3,927 trees in the city’s database are comprised of 102 different species classifications (accounts for trees only identified by genus such as “elm”, “holly”, “hickory”, “magnolia”, and “fir”). The top ten species comprise 70% of the tree population, the highest percent belonging to loblolly pine with 21%.

The tree inventory database of 3,927 trees contains a total of 47 unique Genera with the top 5 comprised of Quercus (29%), Pinus (24%), Liquidambar (12%), Carya (7%), and Acer (3%). The top 5 genera account for 75% (2,937) of the total trees in the city’s database.

It is generally recommended that no more than 30% of a city’s street trees be of the same family, no more than 20% of the same genus, and no more than 10% of the same species. Following this 30/20/10 rule will help to ensure that pests and diseases are isolated and controllable, and have little impact on the total value of the urban forest.

3% 7%

29% 12%

24%

Quercus Pinus

Liquidambar Carya

Acer

“Following this 30/20/10 rule will help to ensure that pests and diseases are isolated and controllable, and have little impact on the total value of the urban forest.”

17 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.

5

1000 25%

900

800 20%

700

20%

600

16% 13%

500 400 300 200

4% 2%

0 0-3in

3-6in

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

Figure 4. Diameter size class distribution of the inventoried trees

Figure 5. 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 (3,477 of 3,927 total trees).

Figure 4 shows that the 12-18” DBH range comprises the majority of the tree inventory database with 884 trees or 25% and the 0-3” DBH range makes up the smallest portion with 68 trees or 2%. The average DBH for the entire inventory population is 18.8” and the largest recorded DBH is 64”.

According to Figure 4, the aggregated data does not reflect the ideal urban forest uneven-age distribution (see Figure 5 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/size 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.

THE MANAGEMENT NEEDS OF CITY-MANAGED TREES 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.

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

100

18 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.

5

Figure 6 below summarizes the 3,932 trees that were assigned a Condition rating. Since some of the 3,932 trees may contain outdated information, Figure 7 summarizes only the 1,002 trees inventoried in March 2017.

The figure on the left shows the majority of the trees inventoried are classified as being in Fair condition, comprising 41% or 1,615 trees. The figure on the right shows that as of March 2017, of the 1,002 trees inventoried, 35% are classified as Fair but the majority (44%) are classified as Good with a total of 445 trees.

The trees identified as either Critical or Dead should be addressed immediately and the Poor condition trees should be monitored closely.

Figure 6. Condition class distribution of the complete database (3,932 trees)

1% 1% 0%

3%

0% 4%

12% 41% 21%

All Trees

Fair Good Poor N/A

Dead Excellent Critical

13% 35%

March 2017 Trees

44% 22%

Considering that the top 5 species comprise 59% of the inventory database, 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 6. Summary of the condition ratings for the top 5 species

Total Total Count Excellent Good Fair Poor Critical Dead Assessed

by Species Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count Loblolly pine 826 0 0% 207 25% 381 46% 114 14% 0 0% 13 2% 715 Water oak 563 0 0% 64 11% 249 44% 117 21% 6 1% 15 3% 451 Sweetgum 478 0 0% 38 8% 200 42% 160 33% 1 0% 7 1% 406 Pecan 244 0 0% 30 12% 136 56% 51 21% 2 1% 2 1% 221 Willow oak 201 9 4% 87 43% 50 25% 21 10% 0 0% 5 2% 172 TOTAL 2,312 9 426 1,016 463 9 42 1,965

The table above shows that of the top 5 species, the majority are in the Fair condition class with a total of 1,016 trees. Willow oaks are the only species to be assigned a condition rating of Excellent with a total of 9 trees. Of the top 5 species, willow oaks have the highest percentage of trees in Good condition with a total of 43%. Water oaks have the highest count with condition ratings of Critical and Dead with a total of 6 and 15,

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

2%

Figure 7. Condition class distribution of March 2017 inventory

19 respectively. It should be noted that these condition ratings include data from 1993-2016 and not just the March 2017 inventory, meaning some of the information may be outdated.

5 Tree Observations Observations were noted during the inventory to indicate common issues of the street and park trees such as mechanical damage, cavity decay, and overly mulched.

The chart to the right summarizes the observations for the 1,002 trees inventoried in March of 2017.

3% 3%

38%

24%

Cavity Decay (464) Poor Structure (397) Crown Dieback (302) Serious Decline (40) Mechanical Damage (31)

32%

The time of year may affect what observations are seen. For example, pest and disease problems as well as signs of stress may only be visible during the tree’s growing season.

Mechanical damage to the trunk of a young tree

Improperly pruned tree (photo not taken in Meridian)

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

Of the 1,234 observations noted among the 1,002 trees, Cavity Decay was identified 464 times followed by Poor Structure and Crown Dieback with 397 and 302 counts, respectively.

Figure 8. Observations noted during the March 2017 inventory of 1,002 trees

20 Primary Maintenance Requirements The March 2017 inventory required an assessment of the maintenance needs, if any, for each tree. This information along with location, tree size, and the Tree Plotter application were used to guide the management recommendations. The figure below gives a summary of the maintenance required.

5

Table 7. Maintenance requirements for the inventoried trees

Priority 1

Priority 2

Removal 1

Removal 2

Routine Large

Routine Small

Train

Total

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

13 5 4 2 3 0 0 27

42 20 35 41 35 2 0 175

0 2 0 4 1 1 0 8

2 3 3 10 11 4 4 37

31 43 73 119 28 0 0 294

0 0 0 17 252 71 0 340

0 0 0 0 44 49 28 121

88 73 115 193 374 127 32 1,002

The table above describes the distribution by DBH range for each of the 7 maintenance types established with the following parameters: Priority 1: requires immediate maintenance but not removal Priority 2: requires attention after Priority 1 trees Removal 1: needs removed immediately Removal 2: needs removed after Removal 1’s Routine Large: generally, a tree greater than 12” that needs pruning of branches that are dead, diseased, dying, decayed, poor structured, suckers, obstructing, etc.

Routine Small: generally, a tree 12” or less that requires the same tasks as Routine Large Train: trees that are smaller in stature that require training of the branches to improve form, structure, resistance, and clearance Based on Table 7, trees >30” have the highest Priority 1 and 2 maintenance needs with a total of 13 and 42 trees, respectively. Trees in the 12-18” range have the highest count of Removal 1 with a total of 4. The greatest overall maintenance need is the Routine Small pruning with a total of 340 trees. The 6-12” trees are responsible for 74% of these (252 trees). The 121 smaller and younger trees identified as needing Train pruning should be addressed while they are still small in stature to prevent more expensive maintenance requirements in the future.

Currently, on average, the city has 15 to 20 trees scheduled for removal at any given time. Some of the information in the city’s tree management program may not be up to date and final recommended tree removals should be thoroughly evaluated.

Trees >30” require the highest Priority 1 and 2 maintenance. This illustrates the need for a routine maintenance cycle of both large and small trees to prevent issues with larger trees in the future. View these trees at: https://pg-cloud.com/Meridian/?scenario=PriorityMaintenance-30-

Figure 9. Trees >30” requiring Priority 1 or 2 Maintenance.

For a larger map, see Appendix I or view these in the app here https://pgcloud.com/Meridian/?scenario=PriorityMaintenance-30-

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

DBH Range

21 The inventory of the street and park trees shows that there is a need to remove trees in order to lower 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 probability of failure and potential for impacting a target.

5

The table below shows a summary of the count of trees identified for removal from the 1,002 tree inventory.

Of the 45 trees identified for removal (“Removal 1” and “Removal 2”), red maple and green ash have the highest count for removal (7). The DBH range of 12-18” has the highest number of overall removals with a total of 14. At any given time, the city has 15-20 trees on the board for removal so some of these may have already been addressed and the tree inventory data should be updated accordingly.

For a complete list of all species identified for removal from the inventory see Appendix II (includes 1993 – 2016 data) or view in Tree Plotter at https://pg-cloud.com/Meridian/?scenario=InventoryRemovals.

Table 8. Count of removals by DBH range based on the March 2017 tree inventory*

>30in 1 1

24-30in 1 2 2

1 1

5

3

3-6in

4

2 1

0-3in

1 1 1 1 4 4 1

2

6-12in

14

4 1 3

12

4 1 1 5

4

TOTAL 4 3 3 2 1 7 2 4 4 5 1 7 1 1 45

*These summaries of removals are from the March 2017 tree inventory. At any given time, the city averages 15-20 removals therefore, some data may be outdated.

Table 9. Clearance conflicts

Clearance Conflict Building Sign or Signal Traffic Pedestrian, Traffic Pedestrian Low Voltage Wires High Voltage Wires Both Wires Property Damage Total

Count 5 3 7 3 1 773 313 482 149 1,736

Other maintenance and management requirements to consider include the Observations noted as well as 19 cases of trees conflicting with the hardscape and 1,568 trees that are either currently or potentially conflicting with overhead wires. Further assessment of hardscape conflict needs to be conducted to determine the course of action. 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. 117 of the 149 accounts of property damage occur on public property. All accounts should be addressed and note whether the species isn’t suitable for the planting site.

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

Common Name Southern catalpa Water oak Loblolly pine Pecan Sweetgum Red maple River birch Tallowtree Goldenrain tree White ash Trident maple Green ash Crabapple Honeylocust TOTAL

DBH Range 18-24in 12-18in 1 1

22 GROWING SPACE FOR EXISTING TREES The growing space type and the available soil volume affect the growth, health, and longevity of a tree. Certain species are more suitable for restrictive sites whereas others require ample soil volume to reach their growth potentials.

5

The following tables summarize the grow space type and size of the existing tree’s planting area. The majority of trees in the inventory database exist in growing spaces known as “Other (Maintained)” which often have more growing area compared to other types. This is evident by the number of Class III (large) -11ft+ growing spaces inventoried with a total of 466.

Table 11. Count by grow space classes

Grow Space Type Cutout Front Yard Median Other (Maintained) Planting Strip NA Total

Grow Space Class I (small) - 1-5ft Class II (medium) - 6-10ft Class III (large) - 11ft+ NA Total

Count 217 19 10 555 199 2 1,002

Count 212 301 466 23 1,002

The following link shows how the city can use Tree Plotter to assess the condition of trees by grow space type: https://pgcloud.com/Meridian/?scenario=ConditionByGrowSpaceType

Figure 10. Map of trees by condition in Planting Strip and Median Grow Space Types.

View a larger map in Appendix # or in the app @ https://pgcloud.com/Meridian/?scenari o=ConditionByGrowSpaceType

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

Table 10. Count of grow space types

23 I-TREE CANOPY RESULTS In addition to the on-the-ground tree inventory and database of individual trees that the city maintains, an aerial assessment of tree cover, known as i-Tree Canopy, was completed to determine the extent of tree cover across the city, including both public and private property areas.

The i-Tree Canopy tool is a cooperative initiative led by the US Forest Service to enable users to estimate tree cover and tree benefits for a given area with a random sampling process to easily classify land cover types. For Meridian, the land cover types assessed were tree canopy, impervious, water, and grass/shrub/bare earth (i.e. available planting space). In addition, a canopy cover change analysis was conducted by classifying tree canopy cover in 2004 and 2015. 2015 was chosen because it is the most recently available high quality imagery and 2004 was chosen so that a ~10-year comparison could be made. It was also the highest quality imagery available for that time period.

Figure 11. 2017 distribution of land cover using i-Tree Canopy

Land Cover Class Tree Canopy

28.6%

2.0%

Table 12. 2017 distribution of land cover using i-Tree Canopy

51.8%

17.6%

Points 573

% Cover 51.8%

+/- SE 1.50

Impervious

195

17.6%

1.15

Water

22

2.0%

0.42

Grass/Shrub/Bare Earth Total

316

28.6%

1.36

1106

100%

Based on the estimated existing tree canopy from the i-Tree Canopy assessment using 2015 imagery, the total benefits of improved air quality were calculated and summarized in Table 13, below.

Table 13. Benefits of the citywide tree canopy (based on i-Tree Canopy)

Benefit Description Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Ozone Particulate Matter (<2.5 microns) Sulfur Dioxide Particulate Matter (<10>2.5 microns) Carbon Dioxide Sequestered Carbon Dioxide Stored TOTAL

Value +/- SE $897 26.0 $742 21.5 $64,468 1,869.6 $176,933 5,131.2 $269 7.8 $26,628 772.2 $3,032,552 87,946.2 $67,791,649 1,966,006.4 $71,094,138

Amount (tons) 14 33 368 30 29 87 86,017 1,922,874 2,009,452

+/- SE 0.4 1.0 10.7 0.9 0.8 2.5 2,494.6 55,764.7

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

To determine the extent of tree canopy and available planting space based on 2015 imagery, random points were classified by the land cover type. To achieve a standard error of +/- 2.00 or less, a total of 1,106 points were classified. Of the 1,106 points, 573 were classified as tree canopy, resulting in an estimated 51.8% cover with a standard error of +/- 1.50, meaning the canopy cover could range from 50.3% to 53.3%. Table 12 summarizes this and the other land cover classes.

24 In an effort to estimate trends in tree canopy gains and losses, a canopy change analysis was completed for the years 2004 and 2015. For this analysis, the same 1,106 points were classified using the 2004 and 2015 imagery.

The location of these points is provided in Figure 12. The following table shows that from 2004 to 2015, tree canopy reduced from 53.9% to 51.8%, a 2.1% change.

Table 14. Summary of the tree canopy change analysis (2004 to 2015)

Cover Class Tree Non-Tree

% Cover in 2004

% Cover in 2015

% Change

53.9% 46.1%

51.8% 48.2%

-2.1% 2.1%

5

Figure 12. Location of the 1,106 randomized points for the canopy change analysis

TREE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & SUMMARY

26

5

TREE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

AN OVERVIEW OF TREE MANAGEMENT NEEDS The following summaries of management needs are based on the collected inventory data and an assessment of the city’s program and available resources. The inventory is comprised of trees that were inventoried starting in 1993 and as recent as March 2017. Thus, maintenance requirements may have changed for those trees that had not been updated in the city’s old tree management database. As a result, summaries and maintenance recommendations are provided for all 3,927 trees as well as separately for the 1,002 trees inventoried in March 2017. In addition, this 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 5-year plan is provided to address all aspects of tree management and budgeting in the city. This first 5year plan and strategy addresses the most high-risk trees and maintenance needs and marks the beginning of a routine low-risk 10-year maintenance cycle.

Overview of Management Recommendations based on Needs  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  Perform cyclical pruning of young trees (approximately 200 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 invasive plants as well as 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.

27

TREE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5

The tables below show the summary of trees to be removed by DBH range. Cost for maintenance, specifically removals, is often determined by the tree’s size. The table summarizes the trees identified for removal from the March 2017 tree inventory. Additional trees outside of the 1,002 tree inventory may need to be removed but these have not been accurately tracked in the Table 15. Count of trees identified for removal by DBH range previous tree management system. It is (March 2017 trees) DBH Range Removal 1 Removal 2 Total estimated that the city has approximately 15-20 >30in 0 2 2 trees on the board for removal on any given day.

24-30in 2 3 5 From the March 2017 inventory, the DBH range 18-24in 0 3 3 with the most trees for removal is the 12-18” 12-18in 4 10 14 range.

6-12in 1 11 12 3-6in 1 4 5 The city should also plan for natural mortality 0-3in 0 4 4 that occurs in a tree population. It is estimated Total 8 37 45 that for tree populations in cities, 1% die annually from natural causes or harsh conditions of urban environments. With a total of 3,927 (as of May 2017) trees currently in the city inventory and accounting for the removals identified above, the city may experience an additional approximate mortality rate of 40 trees per year (not including trees not in the database).

PRIORITY TREE MAINTENANCE Trees that have been inventoried that require priority maintenance that doesn’t involve removal were classified as Priority 1 or 2, with 1’s being of higher priority compared to 2’s. Examples of these types of cases include a large hazardous broken limb that needs to be removed, split leaders that need braced, large deadwood in a high traffic area, or other situations that warrant immediate care. This classification of maintenance was only conducted for the trees inventoried in March of 2017.

These trees should be placed into the same immediate maintenance schedule as the removals and also included with other emergency maintenance or new hazards that have developed since the 2017 inventory.

The following table summarizes the count of trees identified as needing priority maintenance. Of the 1,002 trees inventoried in 2017, a total of 202 trees need immediate attention and maintenance with the majority consisting of trees greater than 30” in diameter. Given the size of the trees, the probability of damage or injury to property or people is high.

Example of a tree requiring a Priority 1 Prune

Table 16. Trees requiring priority maintenance

DBH Range 0-3in 3-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Total

Priority 1 0 0 3 2 4 5 13 27

Priority 2 0 2 35 41 35 20 42 175

Total 0 2 38 43 39 25 55 202

28 CITYWIDE ROUTINE TREE PRUNING

5

Routine pruning should be completed for established trees in both streets and parks. Routine maintenance is more efficient and cost effective, potentially reducing per-tree maintenance costs by as much as 50 percent by leveraging economies of scale from block pruning instead of emergency and service request response. Routine maintenance would further reduce costs by releasing the city from a portion of claims payments, as the city can effectively argue that it took all necessary precautions to assess and maintain trees.

Example of tree clearance requirements

Routine pruning should be conducted on a cyclical

TREE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

basis for all public trees. This increases the safety as well as the overall health and longevity of the tree population

This section will summarize trees needing routine pruning and the appropriate schedules generally for trees greater than 6” in diameter. Young tree pruning is addressed in a later section. Routine cyclical pruning should be conducted using already established zones such as the city’s wards or by creating new management zones to distribute the pruning cycles evenly throughout the city.

Of the 3,927 total trees currently in the inventory, 3,270 are established trees greater than 6” in DBH (450 of the 3,297 trees were not given a DBH). Though this plan focuses on a 5-year time span, the available budget, staff, resources, and inventory data require a 10-year pruning cycle to be implemented for the inventoried trees. As a result, approximately 330 trees should be routinely pruned each year. Plans for action should be in place for emergency maintenance to trees not included in the inventory. All public trees should be included 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 rights-of-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 with a 0-3” and 3-6” DBH since they are on a separate pruning cycle.

Summary tables were completed for all trees (left) and March 2017 trees (right). Using the table on the left, it is observed that the 12-18” size class comprise 27% of the tree population greater than 6” in DBH and therefore, require the greatest routine maintenance with 88 trees. The 2017 inventory shows a greater number of 6-12” trees to be pruned with a total of 28 trees per year.

Table 17. Routine pruning cycle for all trees >6" DBH (all trees)

DBH Range* 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Total

Count 682 884 699 459 546 3,270

Routine Prune (Trees/Year) 68 88 70 46 55 327

Percent of Total Trees >6" DBH 21% 27% 21% 14% 17% 100%

Table 18. Routine pruning cycle for all trees >6" DBH (March 2017 trees)

DBH Range* 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in Total

Routine Large 28 119 73 43 31 294

Routine Small 252 17 0 0 0 269

Routine Prune Count (Trees/Year) 280 28 136 14 73 7 43 4 31 3 563 56

29 CITYWIDE YOUNG TREE PRUNING

5

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.

TREE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

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 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 inventory database of 3,927 trees, a total of 207 trees are less than 6” in diameter and comprise 5% of the total tree inventory. As recommended above, the young tree pruning should be completed in one year. Though resources may be limited, 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 19. Trees requiring training (all trees)

DBH Range 0-3in 3-6in Total

Count 68 139 207

Table 20. Trees requiring training (March 2017 trees)

DBH Range 0-3in 3-6in 6-12in Total

Count 28 49 44 121

“Though resources may be limited, 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.”

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 207 trees, the city can update the pruning cycle to a 3year rotation. This results in approximately 70 trees to be trained per year allowing more flexibility as the city plants more trees and the young trees mature.

Training of staff and volunteers for young tree pruning

Proper young tree pruning

31

5

CURRENT TREE MANAGEMENT EXPENSES Based on a 2014 report, the following summarizes the expenses of the Community Development Department (CDD), Parks and Recreation Department (P&RD), and the Public Works Department (PWD) for Tree Planting, Tree Maintenance, Tree Removal, and Management. Also included is a summary of volunteer contributions.

Table 21. 2014 summary of municipal expenditures relating to urban forestry

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

32 Table 21 summarizes the total city expenditures relating to urban forestry. The largest portion of the budget is allocated for salaries and management ($218,373) followed by tree removals ($88,905) and tree maintenance ($26,010). With a population of approximately 41,148 residents in 2014, the per capita spending amounts to $8.23.

5

The following work plan and budget is established for a 5-year program budget for all relevant tree maintenance activities and based on an assessment of existing resources. The previous section, Tree Management Recommendations, provided the information to develop the prioritized and cyclical maintenance plan in this section. This section is intended to provide an example of relative costs that could be incurred by the recommended activities to fulfill a sustaining urban forest and program. The budgeting recommendations are estimates based on proper urban forest management procedures and city forestry operations. Over the course of the 5-year timespan, the work plan should be adjusted to changes in the urban forest and resources.

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

Table 22. Per tree/stump cost estimates per size class for maintenance

DBH Range 0-3in 3-6in 6-12in 12-18in 18-24in 24-30in >30in*

Removal Cost

Pruning Cost

Stump Removal

$25 $105 $220 $355 $525 $845 $1,140

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

$25 $25 $25 $40 $60 $85 $110

*Costs continue to rise as DBH increases

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

Street Tree Management Priorities In order to minimize the hazards and costs and maximize the long term value of the city’s urban forest, the following management activities are recommended, in order of descending priority: 1. Inventory all trees, inspect potential hazard trees, and maintain inventory by inspecting 1/5 of the city’s trees annually. This will ensure the safety of people and property and ensure that accurate information is used to guide management decisions.

2. Remove any hazard trees, and correct any dangerous structural issues such as dead limbs and weak forks to ensure public safety by utilizing the “Priority” inventory field.

3. Maintain large trees through routine pruning cycles, particularly in heavily used parks and city property, as these are the city’s most valuable trees, and also those most likely to become hazardous if not maintained.

4. Maintain young trees to prevent problems that may become public safety concerns in the future, or which could lead to the decline or death of the tree in the future creating added costs. a) Remove stakes and ties that are no longer needed. b) Prune for structure and clearance. c) Excavate root collars and correct girdling roots. d) Provide mulch and water to ensure survival and increase growth rate.

5. Maintain pests/diseases at an acceptable level using an integrated pest management (IPM) approach.

6. Replace trees that have been recently removed.

7. Plant additional trees in available spaces using inexpensive stock and volunteers where possible.

33 The cost estimates presented in Table 22 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.

The table on page 32 is an example of the estimated costs for a tree maintenance program that includes tree removals, high-risk (priority) pruning, routine pruning, young tree pruning, stump removal, and planting based on the inventory data and local cost estimates. To estimate costs by tree management activity, each maintenance task is divided by either a 5-year or 10-year rotation depending on the urgency of the given task.

The following illustration summarizes the methodology.

5

Figure 13. Description of the maintenance program budget worksheet

(Actual worksheet available as a Microsoft Excel file)

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

Continue to the next page to view the initial Work Management Plan and Budget

34 Table 23. Work Management Plan and Budget Worksheet of maintenance activities for all inventoried public trees (3,927 trees)

Estimated Costs for Each Activity Activity

Removals (with stump removal cost added)

Activity Total

Year 1

$512

200 200

40 40

Projected Removal Costs

Year 5

40 40

$20,480 $20,480

40 40

$24,095

$20,480 $20,480

40 40

$23,625

$20,480 $20,480

40 40

$23,274

5-Year Total Cost $180 $650 $3,136 $5,372 $1,521 $4,650 $2,500 $18,009

$20,480 $20,480

$102,400 $102,400

$22,820

$120,409

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

0 2 38 43 39 25 55 202

0 1 8 9 8 5 11 41

$0 $30 $570 $1,032 $1,326 $1,125 $3,355 $7,438

0 0 8 9 8 5 11 40

$0 $12 $570 $1,032 $1,326 $1,125 $3,355 $7,420

0 0 8 9 8 5 11 40

$0 $12 $570 $1,032 $1,326 $1,125 $3,355 $7,420

0 0 8 9 8 5 11 40

$0 $12 $570 $1,032 $1,326 $1,125 $3,355 $7,420

0 0 8 9 8 5 11 40

$0 $12 $570 $1,032 $1,326 $1,125 $3,355 $7,420

$0 $78 $2,850 $5,160 $6,630 $5,625 $16,775 $37,118

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

$75 $120 $170 $225 $305

682 884 699 459 546 3270*

68 88 70 46 55 327

$5,115 $10,608 $11,883 $10,328 $16,653 $54,587

68 88 70 46 55 327

$5,115 $10,608 $11,883 $10,328 $16,653 $54,587

68 88 70 46 55 327

$5,115 $10,608 $11,883 $10,328 $16,653 $54,587

68 88 70 46 55 327

$5,115 $10,608 $11,883 $10,328 $16,653 $54,587

68 88 70 46 55 327

$5,115 $10,608 $11,883 $10,328 $16,653 $54,587

$25,575 $53,040 $59,415 $51,638 $83,265 $272,933

$20 $30

68 139 207

68 139 207

$1,360 $4,170 $5,530

68 139 207

$1,360 $4,170 $5,530

68 139 207

$1,360 $4,170 $5,530

117 139 256

$2,340 $4,170 $6,510

117 139 256

$2,340 $4,170 $6,510

$8,760 $20,850 $29,610

$68,517

$339,661

0-3in 3-6in

Activity Total Projected Pruning Costs Tree Planting5 Activity Total

Year 4

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

Activity Total Young Tree Pruning4

$20,480 $20,480 $26,595

Activity Total

Routine Pruning3

Year 3

$67,555 $500

245 245

49 49

$24,500 $24,500

$67,537 49 49

$24,500 $24,500

$67,537 49 49

$24,500 $24,500

$68,517 49 49

$24,500 $24,500

49 49

$24,500 $24,500

$122,500 $122,500

Projected Planting Costs

$24,500

$24,500

$24,500

$24,500

$24,500

$122,500

Projected Budget

$118,650

$116,132

$115,662

$116,291

$115,837

$582,570

1

Based on average cost of removal and 1% natural mortality of the 3,927 inventoried trees

2

Based on a the March 2017 inventory of 1,002 trees and on a 5-year cycle because of high-risk

3

Based on a 10-year cycle and all trees assigned a DBH >6" (3,270 trees)

4

Accounts for an additional 49 trees planted per year for no net loss which get pruned after 2 years planted

5

Accounts for 10 annual removals and natural mortality equal to 49 trees for a no net loss policy *Not all trees were given a size class

5

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

Natural Mortality Removals (1%) 1 Removals Activity Total

High-Risk Pruning2

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 4 1 $50 1 $50 1 $40 1 $40 0 $0 3-6in $130 5 1 $130 1 $130 1 $130 1 $130 1 $130 6-12in $245 12 3 $735 3 $735 2 $588 2 $588 2 $490 12-18in $395 14 3 $1,185 3 $1,185 3 $1,106 3 $1,106 2 $790 18-24in $585 3 1 $585 1 $585 1 $351 0 $0 0 $0 24-30in $930 5 1 $930 1 $930 1 $930 1 $930 1 $930 >30in $1,250 2 2 $2,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 45 12 $6,115 10 $3,615 9 $3,145 8 $2,794 6 $2,340

ROUTINE PRUNE TRAIN PRUNE PLANTING SUMMARY

The Work Management Plan and Budget Worksheet shown in Table 23 describes an ideal budget and schedule in which all removals and priority maintenance needs are taken care of within 1-5 years, 100% of all removed or deceased trees are replaced, and all trees in the inventory are routinely pruned in an even cycle. Closer estimates can be achieved by completing the citywide tree inventory and updating the estimated costs per activity.

5

Based on the inventory, 45 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 tree and stump removal total $18,009 if 9 trees are removed per year on average. In addition, it is estimated that 1% of the public trees will die due to natural mortality, resulting in 40 trees per year at a cost of $102,400 over the course of five years. During the 5-year timespan, it is estimated that all removals will cost approximately $120,409 based on average costs per size class and natural mortality estimates. To view an example of how Tree Plotter is used to identify and prioritize these trees, see Table 8 on page 21. At any given time 15-20 trees are on the board for removal.

Trees identified as needing Priority 1 or Priority 2 maintenance should be prioritized and maintained in the 5-year timespan. The 202 trees requiring this maintenance task will cost an estimated $7,400 annually, and due to the risk, should be completed within 5 years, resulting in a total cost of $37,118.

Routine pruning should be conducted on a 10-year cycle provided the appropriate resources and budget. Trees on this cycle should generally be 6” in diameter or greater. As trees mature, their growth begins to slow and response to excessive stress from pruning to improve the structure is weakened compared to young trees. It is recommended that the city routinely prune 10% of the inventoried trees annually (327 per year trees based on trees that the city has data for). The costs for pruning approximately 330 trees per year are at a cost of $54,587 per year based on pruning estimates per size class. Not all trees were given a DBH range and the citywide inventory is incomplete. The table is provided as a template for use when additional inventory data is collected.

Young tree training for all trees less than 6” 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 49 trees are included in the young tree pruning to account for the city’s efforts to establish a “no net loss” program in which all trees removed are replaced. It is estimated that pruning of established and newly planted trees will cost approximately $29,610 during the 5-year timespan. This estimate does not include trees that have not been inventoried or the costs for watering and mulching after installation.

Based on the estimated number of removals (45) and annual mortality (200) and a “no net loss” policy, a total of 245 trees need to be planted over the course of 5 years. This results in the annual planting of 49 trees at a cost of $24,500 annually. Many grants are available to assist the city in achieving this goal.

In summation, the overall maintenance costs for removals, stump removals, pruning on various levels, and planting will be an estimated $582,570 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 city’s tree maintenance requirements.

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

HIGH RISK PRUNE

REMOVALS

INTRO

35

36 The budget estimates provided in Table 22 and 23 do not account for other costs such as mulching, watering, or ash tree management due to EAB.

METHODS FOR PRIORITIZING REMOVALS

The map below shows the selection of these trees to show the distribution of the large trees needing removed to assist in prioritization and planning. View the map online here https://pgcloud.com/Meridian/?scenario=Removals18inchesplus.

Figure 14. Map of trees 18” or greater needing removed

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

The table to the right is an Table 24. List of trees identified for removal greater than 18” DBH 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 the largest trees needing removed.

Trees 18” or larger in diameter could possibly meet the criteria for the most important trees to assess and plan for maintenance in the near future. Of the 490 trees identified for removal (outdated), 238 trees are the highest priority. Additional criteria can be considered such as location, condition, and tree observations. 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.

5

37 THE LEVELS OF SERVICE CONCEPT: ADDRESSING THE CURRENT STREET TREE WORKLOAD The effectiveness of an urban forestry program is dependent on the resources available for each maintenance task. When fewer resources are available, the program must operate at a lower level of service often becoming reactionary and focusing on emergencies and major problems as they arise. While maintenance costs may be less, the health and quality of the forest is lower, and the work that is performed is less efficient.

As service levels increase, more frequent preventative work is possible, and the safety, health, aesthetics and benefits of the urban forest increase, often allowing the municipality to achieve both higher total benefits and receive more value per maintenance dollar.

5

The tables on the following pages summarize each tree maintenance activity by Level of Service and include an estimate of the potential budget and staff time to achieve each level per activity. Numbers are based on industry estimates, standards, and regional estimates for tree numbers. Use these tables to gauge the current Level of Service Meridian provides and what are realistic goals for the urban forestry program.

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

The Levels of Service Concept

The illustration below describes the criteria considered when identifying a cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current level of service.

38 Table 25. Levels of service for annual street tree maintenance, removal, and planting

5

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET

Tables based on Davis, 2002; APWA 2007a

39 PROPOSED LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR STREET TREES, 2017-2022 The following table is the proposed level of service for the City of Meridian over a 5-year timespan. Current staffing and funding levels are sufficient for service levels 1 and 2 for most maintenance activities. It is recommended that the program be grown to service level 3 by 2022. The table below describes what it would entail to achieve this level of service.

5

Table 26. Proposed levels of service worksheet, 2017-2022

WORK MANAGEMENT PLAN & BUDGET Achieving a level 3 of service includes 1) a complete inventory in 2018-2019 followed by routine inspection of one-fifteenth of the public trees each year, 2) an increase in mature tree pruning frequency to every 5 years, 3) an increase in small tree pruning frequency to every 3 years, 4) increase treatment of pests and diseases, and, 5) an accelerated tree planting program.

40

5

URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Based on an analysis of the urban forest resource and existing program, the following was analyzed and reported in the Urban Forest Management Plan:

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

Table 27. Summary of the urban forest resource and program

CANOPY COVERAGE Canopy Coverage, 2015 Canopy Coverage, 2014 CITY TREES March 2017 Inventory 1993 to 2016 Database Planting Sites Tree Diversity Top 5 Species (2017 Inventory Trees) Size Distribution (Diameter at breast height, 4.5’)

Average DBH Tree Condition Maintenance Needs ANNUAL TREE BENEFITS (2017 Inventory Trees) Total Benefits Energy Savings Stormwater Reduction Carbon Sequestration PROPOSED URBAN FORESTRY BUDGET Past Expenses Proposed Budget LEVELS OF SERVICE CONCEPT Hazard Tree Removal Large Tree Pruning Small Tree Pruning Inventory/Inspection Planting

51.8% 53.9% 1,002 trees 2,925 trees (as of May 2017) 630 102 species, 47 genera Loblolly pine (21%), Water oak (14%), Sweetgum (12%), Pecan (6%), Willow oak (5%) >30” (16%) 6-12” (20%) 24-30” (13%) 3-6” (4%) 18-24” (20%) 0-3” (2%) 12-18” (25%) 18.8” Good (44%) Fair (35%) Poor (13%) Critical (3%) Removal 1 (8), Priority 1 Pruning (27) $41,470 $3,975 1.8 million gallons 188,000 lbs C $338,490 $582,570 Level 3) All high and medium priority removals Level 2) Prune 1/8th of large trees Level 2) Prune one-fifth of small trees Level 4) Inventory all city-maintained trees Level 2) Plant up to 150 trees per year

41 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

5

Based on an analysis of the city’s urban forest resource, program, and opportunities, the following recommendations were listed in this Urban Forest Management Plan:

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

Tree Ordinance Revision Recommendations Due to the restructuring of the urban forestry program, the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17 – Planning: Article IV Tree Protection should be revised to reflect the changes. See page 6 for details.

Tree Management Recommendations Implement a proactive tree maintenance program for Meridian’s publicly-managed trees.

Complete a city-wide tree inventory to determine the entire tree population’s structure and maintenance needs and update the Work Management Plan and Budget Worksheet (Table 23).

The 5-year strategy requires all high-risk maintenance to be completed (e.g. removals, Priority 1).

Perform a continuing routine pruning cycle for public trees, beginning in Year 1 on a 10-year rotation, starting with the inventoried trees.

Perform cyclical young tree pruning (approximately 200 trees 0-6” in diameter), beginning in Year 1.

Develop plans for the aftercare of newly planted trees (e.g. watering, mulching, staking, and pruning).

Develop action plans for invasive plants, pests, and diseases that may threaten the tree population.

Increase the preservation and protection of landmark/special trees and native forest fragments on public and private lands.

Levels of Service Concept: Recommendations Based on the assessment of the urban forest resource and existing programs/initiatives, it is recommended that the city plan and strive for a Level of Service 3 status. This level is defined as a mature urban forest program that is financially efficient and effective, preventive maintenance is fully addressed, and more trees are planted than removed. Achieving a level 3 of service includes (see page 39 for specific recommendations): A complete inventory in 2018-2019 followed by routine inspection of one-fifteenth of the public trees each year.

An increase in mature tree pruning frequency to every 5 years.

An increase in small tree pruning frequency to every 3 years.

Increase treatment of pests and diseases.

An accelerated tree planting program.

Secure adequate and sustainable city-generated funding to support an increased level of service for core urban forestry services and programs.

Other Urban Forestry Program Recommendations Develop street tree planting master plans that balance tree functions, diversity, design, and neighborhood character.

Conduct a city-wide high-resolution Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment.

Enhance and develop programs that encourage active participation by volunteers.

Strengthen working relationships and partnerships with businesses, organizations, and contractors whose activities impact city trees by instituting regular dialogue and project coordination.

Obtain the highest and best use of wood from trees removed by the city.

Review Urban Forest Management Plan periodically and update as needed.

Meridianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban and community forest is a defining and valued characteristic of Meridian making the city a desirable place to live, work and play. It is a resource that has a history and legacy of care and management; however, the effects of declining budgets over the last decade have put the resource at serious risk. The assessment and recommendations presented in this Urban Forest Management Plan have been created to provide a framework to effectively, proactively, and sustainably manage it. While it will take work and additional resources to implement the UFMP, its implementation will help ensure that Meridianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban and community forest will continue to be a sustainable and valued part of the community.

Appendix I: Map of Trees >30â&#x20AC;? requiring Priority 1 or 2 Maintenance Appendix II: All Species for Removal by DBH Range Appendix III: Map of Trees for Removal Appendix IV: Condition of Trees by Grow Space Type Appendix V: Master Tree List Appendix VI: Tree Inventory Data Fields Appendix VII: Resources Appendix VIII: Source of Images

I APPENDIX I: MAP OF TREES >30” REQUIRING PRIORITY 1 OR 2 MAINTENANCE

5

APPENDICES

II APPENDIX II: ALL SPECIES FOR REMOVAL BY DBH RANGE 6-12" 12 12 2 4 5 7 3 1 3 4 3 1

1 1 5 1 4 2 1

12-18" 35 30 8 14 4 4 2 5

18-24" 20 20 16 16 2 1

5 5 1 1

4

5 7

1

5 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 2

2

3 5

>30" 10 5 30 1

2 1 1

8

1 1 1

10 1

1 1

1 1 2 2

1

5

1

1

2

1 1

2

1 1 2 1

2

24-30" 19 8 9 4

2

1 1

3

1

2 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 84

155

104

56

1 78

Total 96 75 66 39 13 12 12 11 11 11 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 490

5

APPENDICES

Table 28. All Species for Removal by DBH Range Common Name 0-3" 3-6" Loblolly pine Sweetgum Water oak 1 Pecan Red maple 2 Black cherry Willow oak Hackberry Laurel oak Shortleaf pine Southern magnolia Sugarberry American sycamore Green ash 4 Tallowtree 1 Silver maple Southern red oak Tulip tree Chinaberry Southern catalpa White ash Goldenrain tree 1 Longleaf pine Post oak Sugar maple Sweetbay Winged elm American elm Callery pear Eastern red cedar Flowering dogwood Cedar elm Crabapple 1 Mimosa N/A River birch 1 American holly Black willow Common pear Eastern redbud Elm Ginkgo Honeylocust 1 Live oak Maple species Pin oak Red mulberry Shumard oak 1 Slippery elm Trident maple Virginia pine Total 6 7

III APPENDIX III: MAP OF TREES FOR REMOVAL (HTTPS://PG-CLOUD.COM/MERIDIAN/?SCENARIO=TREESFORREMOVAL)

5

APPENDICES

IV APPENDIX IV: CONDITION OF TREES BY GROW SPACE TYPE (http://pg-cloud.com/meridian/?scenario=conditionbygrowspacetype) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Map of trees in median and tree lawns by condition

5

APPENDICES

V APPENDIX V: MASTER TREE LIST LARGE TREES (over 50 feet in height when mature) Scientific Name Magnolia grandiflora EVERGREEN Pinus species Quercus virginiana Acer rubrum Acer saccharum Carya illinoinensis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ginkgo biloba Juglans nigra Platanus occidentalis DECIDUOUS Quercus alba Quercus falcate Quercus michauxii Quercus nigra Quercus phellos Quercus shumardii Taxodium distichum Zelkova serrata

Common Name Southern Magnolia Pines Live Oak Red Maple Sugar Maple Pecan Green Ash Ginkgo Black Walnut Sycamore White Oak Southern Red Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Water Oak Willow Oak Shumard Oak Bald Cypress Zelkova

5

MEDIUM TREES (25 to 50 feet when mature) Ilex attenuate ‘Fosteri’ Ilex opaca EVERGREEN Pinus thunbergiana Prunus caroliniana Betula nigra Cercis Canadensis Crataegus phaenopyrum DECIDUOUS Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Koelreuteria paniculata Salix babylonica Ulmus parvifolia

Fosters Holly American Holly Japanese Black Pine Carolina Cherry-Laurel River Birch Eastern Redbud Washington Hawthorn Thornless Honey Locust Golden Raintree Weeping Willow Chinese Elm

APPENDICES

SMALL TREES (less than 25 feet when mature) Camellia japonica Camellia sasanqua Eriobotrya japonica EVERGREEN Ilex vomitoria Magnolia virginiana Myrica cerifera Acer palmatum Cornus florida Lagerstroemia indica DECIDUOUS Magnolia soulangiana Magnolia stellate Malus augustifolia

Camellia Sasanqua Camellia Loquat Yaupon Holly Sweetbay Magnolia Southern Waxmyrtle Japanese Maple Dogwood Crapemyrtle Saucer Magnolia Star Magnolia Southern Crabapple

VI APPENDIX VI: TREE INVENTORY DATA FIELDS

5

Tree Information Field Common Name Latin Name Genus Cultivar DBH and DBH Range Status Condition Planting Site Width Observations Tree Comments Number of Stems

Value

Alive, Dead, Removed, Stump, Planting Site Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Dead, Critical Small, Medium, Large

1, 2, 3, >3

Management Needs Clearance Conflicts Primary Maintenance Secondary Maintenance

High Voltage, Low Voltage, Both

User and Location Information Data Collector Last Modified Date Added Address Theme Growing Space Land Use Latitude/Longitude

Street, Park, Off ROW, Border Alley, Front Yard, Planting Strip, Cutout, Median, Other (Maintained), Other (Unmaintained) Single Family, Multi Family, Small Commercial, Industrial / Large Commercial, Park / Vacant / Other, Not Entered

APPENDICES

Maintenance Comments Watch This Tree?

Wires

Building, Light, Pedestrian, Sign or Signal, Traffic, Underground Utilities, Other Removal 1,2,3; Priority 1,2; Routine Small; Routine Large; Train; Stump; Plant Amend Mulch, Crown Cleaning, Disease, Insects, Monitor, Prune-Clearance, PruneStructural, Raise, Reduce, Remove, Remove Hardware, Remove-Foreign Object, Remove-Girdling Root, Remove-Hanger, Restoration, Sidewalk Damage, Thin, Utility, Other

VII APPENDIX VII: RESOURCES Mississippi Forestry Commission: http://www.mfc.ms.gov/urban-community-forestry Mississippi Urban Forest Council: http://www.msurbanforest.com/ Native Trees for Mississippi Landscapes (MS State Univ)

5

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

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.itreetools.org/resources/content/Sustainable_Urban_Forest_Guide_14Nov2016.pdf Private property tree program: http://treebaltimore.org/get-a-free-tree/ Tree inventory tools: www.planitgeo.com and www.treeplotter.com Urban Tree Canopy assessments: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/

APPENDICES

Tree boards: http://www.tufc.com/pdfs/treeboard_handbook.pdf

VIII APPENDIX VIII: SOURCE OF IMAGES Cover Page:  Arbor Day Planting: The Meridian Star, Feb 2016, “Members of the Meridian Tree Commission, along with Ward 2 Councilman Dustin Markham and Mayor Percy Bland, shovel dirt on a magnolia tree planted just past center field at the recently renovated Magnolia Baseball Field on 23rd Street.  Bonita Lakes Park: www.tripmondo.com  Playground: MS Urban Forest Council, www.msurbanforest.com Urban Forest Management Plan Vision Page:  Bonita Lakes Park: www.wikimedia.org Intro to Main Body of Plan Page:  Downtown Meridian: www.livability.com Urban Forestry Quote Page:  View of Meridian Street Trees: Plan-It Geo, 2017 Page 2, Meridian Then and Now:  Meridian 22nd Ave: Meridian Planning Division Page 12, Annual Work Schedule for Community Trees:  Penn State Extension, https://extension.psu.edu/annual-work-plans-for-tree-commissions

Page 15, Staff Conducting the Tree Inventory:  Plan-It Geo, 2017 Page 19:  Example of Mechanical Damage to Young Tree: Plan-It Geo, 2017  Example of an Improperly Pruned Tree: Plan-It Geo, 2017 Page 25, Large Laurel Oak:  MS Urban Forest Council, www.msurbanforest.com Page 27:  Example of a Tree Requiring Priority 1 Pruning: Plan-It Geo, 2017 Page 28:  Example of Tree Clearance Requirements: Plan-It Geo, 2017 Page 30, Tree and People Silhouette:  www.artenergy.com Page 42, Concluding Statement:  Plan-It Geo, 2017 Back Cover:  Downtown Meridian: www.wikipedia.org  Downtown Tree Rendering: Plan-It Geo, 2017

APPENDICES

Page 13, Arbor Day Planting:  The Meridian Star, Feb 2016, “Members of the Meridian Tree Commission, along with Ward 2 Councilman Dustin Markham and Mayor Percy Bland, shovel dirt on a magnolia tree planted just past center field at the recently renovated Magnolia Baseball Field on 23rd Street.

Our vision for the future

of Meridian is to create a healthy and sustainable urban forest that is properly managed and cared for, benefiting our citizens with improved economic and environmental well-being, increasing public safety, and enabling our employees to provide cost effective maintenance