HomeMy WebLinkAboutManagPlanFinal-9_27_19TREE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Village of Cayuga Heights,
New York
September 2019
Prepared for:
Village of Cayuga Heights
Marcham Hall
836 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
1500 N. Mantua Street
Kent, Ohio 44240
800-828-8312
Davey Resource Group i September 2019
TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN PURPOSE
Cayuga Heights has a fundamental interest in the success of trees within the Village, conceived
as a residential park by one of its founders, Jared T. Newman. Aspects of that original vision
include topography-based meandering streets and the picturesque positioning of buildings in a
continuous parkland setting. This historic pattern of development emphasizes stewardship of
both the built and natural environment within the Village. The Village's community character
goal of its 2014 Comprehensive Plan is to, “Preserve and enhance the rich collection of
natural, architectural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources that make the Village a
distinctive community.”
The Comprehensive Plan describes seven topics which support a sustainable future for its
residents. In both direct and indirect terms, the Village's trees are intertwined with each of the
seven topics, enhancing the purpose and need for this tree management plan.
Topics of Comprehensive Plan Corresponding Tree Management Plan Topic
Quality of Life Ecological Benefits
Community Character Tree Species Diversity
Ecology and Scenic Assets Air Quality / Carbon Sequestration
Economy Structural Benefits
Housing Proper Street Tree Stocking Level
Transportation Storm Readiness
Public Services and Utilities Tree Management Program (Pruning / Training)
Davey Resource Group ii September 2019
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Cayuga Heights is thankful for the grant funding it received from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. The Cayuga Heights Tree Inventory and
Management Plan was financially supported by an $18,100 NYSDEC grant. The Department
of Environmental Conservation’s Urban and Community Forestry grant projects are made
available through New York State’s Environmental Protection Fund, providing crucial
assistance for communities to help develop and implement comprehensive projects to create
healthy forests and enhance quality of life for residents. The Village also recognizes the support
of its Mayor and Board of Trustees.
Notice of Disclaimer: Inventory data provided by Davey Resource Group, Inc. “DRG”, are based on visual
recording at the time of inspection. Visual records do not include individual testing or analysis, nor do they
include aerial or subterranean inspection. DRG is not responsible for the discovery or identification of
hidden or otherwise non-observable hazards. Records may not remain accurate after inspection due to the
variable deterioration of inventoried material. DRG provides no warranty with respect to the fitness of the
urban forest for any use or purpose whatsoever. Clients may choose to accept or disregard DRG’s
recommendations or to seek additional advice. Important: know and understand that visual inspection is
confined to the designated subject tree(s), and that the inspections for this project are performed in the
interest of facts of the tree(s) without prejudice to or for any other service or interested party.
Davey Resource Group iii September 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This plan was developed for the Village of Cayuga Heights by DRG with a focus on addressing
short-term and long-term maintenance needs for inventoried public trees. DRG completed a
tree inventory in July 2019 to gain an understanding of the needs of the existing urban forest
and to project a recommended maintenance schedule for tree care. Analysis of inventory data
and information about the Village’s existing program and vision for the urban forest were
utilized to develop this Tree Management Plan. Also included in this plan is a storm response
readiness section.
State of the Existing Urban Forest
The July 2019 inventory included trees, stumps, and planting sites along public street rights-
of- way (ROW) in Cayuga Heights, New York. A total of 3,380 sites were recorded during the
inventory: 2,851 trees, 57 stumps, and 472 planting sites. Analysis of the tree inventory data
found the following:
● The street tree population is insufficiently diverse with two species, Acer
platanoides (Norway maple) and Pinus strobus (white pine), comprising a large
percentage of the population (15% and 11%, respectively).
● The diameter size class distribution of the inventoried tree population contains too
few young trees suggesting the need for additional new plantings.
● The overall condition of the inventoried tree population is rated Good to Fair;
33.28% of the inventoried trees had dead or dying parts noted and 10.68% of the
inventoried trees had a clearance issue.
● Overhead utilities not interfering with street trees occur among 18.49% of the
population.
● Granulate ambrosia beetle (Xylosandrus crassiusculus) and gypsy moth (Lymantria
dispar dispar) pose the biggest threats to the health of the inventoried population.
● Cayuga Heights’ trees have a structural value of $5,220,000 and $238,000 in total
carbon storage.
● Trees provide approximately $10,000 in the following functional annual benefits:
o Air quality improved: 1,278 pounds of pollutants removed valued at $2,978
per year.
o Total carbon sequestered: 19.76 tons valued at $3,370 per year.
o Avoided stormwater runoff: 435,274 gallons valued at $3,889 per year.
Davey Resource Group iv September 2019
Tree Maintenance and Planting Needs
Trees provide many environmental and economic benefits that justify the time and money
invested in planting and maintenance. Recommended maintenance needs include: Tree
Removals, Stump Removals, Routine Pruning Program, Young Tree Training Program, and
Tree Planting with Maintenance Costs. Overall inventory maintenance should be prioritized by
addressing trees with the highest risk first. The inventory noted some Extreme and High Risk
trees (2% of trees assessed). These trees should be removed or pruned immediately to promote
public safety. Low and Moderate Risk trees should be addressed after all Extreme and High
Risk tree maintenance has been completed. Trees should be planted to mitigate removals and
create canopy.
Cayuga Heights’ urban forest will benefit greatly from a three-year Young Tree Training cycle
and a five-year Routine Pruning Cycle. Proactive pruning cycles improve the overall health of
the tree population and may eventually reduce program costs. In most cases, pruning cycles
will correct defects in trees before they worsen, which will avoid costly problems. Based on
inventory data, at least 300 young trees should be structurally pruned each year during the
young tree training cycle, and approximately 500 trees should be cleaned each year during the
routine pruning cycle.
Planting trees is necessary to maintain and increase canopy cover, and to replace trees that have
been removed or lost to natural mortality (expected to be 1–3% per year) or other threats (for
example, construction, invasive pests, or impacts from weather events such as drought,
flooding, ice, snow, storms, and wind). DRG recommends planting at least 25 trees of a variety
of species each year to offset these losses, increase canopy, maximize benefits, and account for
ash tree loss.
Tree planting throughout the Village should focus on replacing tree canopy recommended for
removal and establishing new canopy in areas that promote economic growth, such as business
districts, recreational areas, trails, parking lots, areas near buildings with insufficient shade, and
areas where there are gaps in the existing canopy. A variety of tree species should be planted;
however, the planting of Norway maple should cease at this time. Due to the threat posed by
emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis), all Fraxinus spp. (ash) trees should be
temporarily removed from the planting list.
Urban Forest Program Needs
Adequate funding will be needed for the Village to implement an effective management
program that will provide short-term and long-term public benefits, ensure that priority
maintenance is performed expediently, and establish proactive maintenance cycles. The
estimated total cost for the first year of this five-year program is $109,617. The total cost of the
5-year program is $516,224. Costs can be reduced by extending the time frame of the program.
Increasing the program to 10 years would cost approximately $50,000 annually. The
overarching goal of the budget is to provide estimated annual costs of reducing existing public
risk as noted in the July, 2019 tree inventory.
Davey Resource Group v September 2019
In the 5-year program, the total
annual cost will decrease by
approximately $2,500 per year by
Year 5 of the program. High-priority
removal and pruning is costly; since
most of this work is scheduled during
the first year of the program, the
budget is higher for that year. After
high-priority work has been
completed, the urban forestry
program will mostly involve
proactive maintenance, which is
generally less costly. Budgets for
later years are thus projected to be
lower. Annual estimated costs for a
5-year program and the
recommended actions are provided in
Figure 1 on the following page.
Over the long term, supporting
proactive management of trees
through funding will reduce
municipal tree care management
costs and potentially minimize the
costs to build, manage, and support
certain Village infrastructure.
Maintaining the inventory data using
TreeKeeper® or similar software is
crucial for making informed
management decisions and projecting
accurate maintenance budgets.
Cayuga Heights has many
opportunities to improve its urban
forest. Planned tree planting and a
systematic approach to tree
maintenance will help ensure a cost-
effective, proactive program. Investing
in this tree management program will
promote public safety, improve tree
care efficiency, and increase the
economic and environmental benefits
the community receives from its trees.
$109,617FY 2020
•55 Extreme or High Risk Removals
•18 Extreme or High Risk Prunes
•9 Stump Removals
•RP Cycle: 1/5th of Public Trees Cleaned, 544 Trees
•YTT Cycle: 300 Trees
•25 Trees Recommended for Planting and Follow-Up Care
•Newly Found Priority Tree Work (Removal or Pruning): Costs TBD
$104,421FY 2021
•29 Moderate or Low Risk Removals
•25 Stump Removals
•RP Cycle: 1/5th of Public Trees Cleaned, 521 Trees
•YTT Cycle: 297 Trees
•25 Trees Recommended for Planting and Follow-Up Care
•Newly Found Priority Tree Work (Removal or Pruning): Costs TBD
$103,588FY 2022
•53 Moderate or Low Risk Removals
•22 Stump Removals
•RP Cycle: 1/5 of Public Trees Cleaned, 521 Trees
•YTT Cycle: 297 Trees
•25 Trees Recommended for Planting and Follow-Up Care
•Newly Found Priority Tree Work (Removal or Pruning): Costs TBD
$102,597FY 2023
•117 Moderate or Low Risk Removals
•RP Cycle: 1/5 of Public Trees Cleaned, 521 Trees
•YTT Cycle: 297 Trees
•25 Trees Recommended for Planting and Follow-Up Care
•Newly Found Priority Tree Work (Removal or Pruning): Costs TBD
$96,003FY2024
•165 Moderate or Low Risk Removals
•RP Cycle: 1/5 of Public Trees Cleaned, 521 Trees
•YTT Cycle: 297 Trees
•25 Trees Recommended for Planting and Follow-Up Care
•Newly Found Priority Tree Work (Removal or Pruning): Costs TBD
Davey Resource Group vi September 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tree Management Plan Purpose ...................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1: Tree Inventory Analysis................................................................................................. 3
Section 2: Benefits of the Urban Forest ........................................................................................ 24
Section 3: Tree Management Program ......................................................................................... 39
Section 4: Storm Response Readiness .......................................................................................... 50
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 55
References ..................................................................................................................................... 56
Tables
1. Observations Recorded During the Street Tree Inventory ................................................................... 13
2. Trees Noted to be Conflicting with Overhead Utility Concerns .......................................................... 15
3. ALB Species in the Inventory .............................................................................................................. 19
4. Top Air Quality Benefits per Tree Species in the Inventory ................................................................ 28
5. Trees with Highest Emitting BVOCs in the Inventory ........................................................................ 29
6. Top Performing Tree Species for Carbon Storage and Sequestration .................................................. 31
7. Top Performing Individual Tree Species for Carbon Storage and Sequestration ................................ 32
8. Top Performing Tree Species for Stormwater Benefits in the Inventory ............................................. 34
9. Top Performing Individual Trees for Stormwater Benefits in the Inventory ....................................... 35
10. Trees with Highest Structural Value in the Inventory .......................................................................... 36
11. Individual Trees with Highest Structural Values in the Inventory ....................................................... 37
12. Estimated Costs for Five-Year Urban Forestry Management Program ............................................... 49
13. Storm Prone Tree Species in the Inventory .......................................................................................... 53
Figures
1. Sites collected during the July 2019 inventory. ...................................................................................... 3
2. Five most abundant species of the inventoried population compared to the 10% Rule. ........................ 5
3. Five most abundant genera of the inventoried population compared to the 20% Rule. ......................... 6
4. Norway maple distribution in Cayuga Heights. ..................................................................................... 7
5. Comparison of diameter size class distribution for inventoried trees to the ideal distribution. ............ 8
6. Conditions of inventoried trees. ............................................................................................................. 9
7. Tree condition by relative age during the July 2019 inventory. ........................................................... 10
8. Top ten species in poor condition. ........................................................................................................ 10
9. Village map showing trees requiring further inspection. ..................................................................... 17
Davey Resource Group vii September 2019
10. Oak inventory for Cayuga Heights. ...................................................................................................... 20
11. Potential impact of insect and disease threats noted during the 2019 inventory. ................................. 22
12. New York State Integrated Pest Management SLF Known Distribution Map .................................... 23
13. Annual functional benefits of the inventoried trees.............................................................................. 27
14. Monthly air pollutants removed per contaminant in Cayuga Heights. ................................................. 28
15. Tree removals by risk rating and diameter size class. .......................................................................... 42
16. Pruning by risk and diameter size class. ............................................................................................... 43
17. Relationship between average tree condition class and the number of years since the most recent
pruning (adapted from Miller and Sylvester 1981). ............................................................................ 44
18. Trees recommended for the YTT Cycle by diameter size class. .......................................................... 46
19. Trees recommended for the RP Cycle by diameter size class. ............................................................. 47
Appendices
A. Data Collection and Site Location Methods
B. Suggested Tree Species
C. Risk Assessment/Priority and Proactive Maintenance
D. Invasive Pests and Diseases
E. Storms and the Urban Forest
Davey Resource Group 1 September 2019
INTRODUCTION
The Village of Cayuga Heights is home
to more than 3,600 full-time residents
who enjoy the beauty and benefits of
their urban forest. The Village’s forestry
program manages and maintains trees on
public property, including trees, stumps,
and planting sites in specified parks,
public facilities, and along the street
rights-of-way (ROW). Cayuga Heights’
public works department maintains a
staff committed to developing a strong
urban forest. Funding for the Village’s
urban forestry program comes from the
Shade Tree Fund. The Village has a tree
ordinance, tree board, maintains a budget
of $2.78 per capita for tree-related expenses, celebrates Arbor Day, and has been a Tree City USA
community for 6 years. Past urban forestry projects have demonstrated a desire to improve the
environment through higher levels of public tree care.
Approach to Tree Management
The best approach to managing an urban forest is to develop an organized, proactive program using
tools (such as a tree inventory and a tree management plan) to set goals and measure progress.
These tools can be utilized to establish tree care priorities, build strategic planting plans, draft cost-
effective budgets based on projected needs, and ultimately minimize the need for costly, reactive
solutions to crises or urgent hazards.
In summer of 2019, Cayuga Heights worked with DRG to inventory trees and develop a
management plan. This plan considers the diversity, distribution, and general condition of the
inventoried trees, but also provides a prioritized system for managing public trees. The following
tasks were completed:
● Inventory of trees, stumps, and planting sites along the street ROW and within one public
park.
● Analysis of tree inventory data.
● Development of a plan that prioritizes the recommended tree maintenance.
● Evaluation of tree inventory for storm prone species.
Photograph 1. Trees along Marcham Hall
in Cayuga Heights.
Davey Resource Group 2 September 2019
This plan is divided into four sections:
● Section 1: Tree Inventory Analysis summarizes the tree inventory data and presents trends,
results, and observations.
● Section 2: Benefits of the Urban Forest summarizes the economic, environmental, and
social benefits that trees provide to the community. This section presents statistics of an
i-Tree Eco benefits analysis conducted for Cayuga Heights.
● Section 3: Tree Management Program utilizes the inventory data to develop a prioritized
maintenance schedule and projected budget for the recommended tree maintenance over a
five-year period. This section also addresses Tree Risk Reduction Guidelines.
● Section 4: Storm Response Readiness utilizes the inventory data to evaluate tree risks
associated with weather events within the regional context of Cayuga Heights.
Davey Resource Group 3 September 2019
SECTION 1: TREE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
In July 2019, DRG arborists assessed and inventoried trees, stumps, and planting sites along the
street rights-of-way. A total of 3,380 sites were collected during the inventory: 2,851 trees, 57
stumps, 472 planting sites. Figure 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the number and type of sites
inventoried.
Figure 1. Sites collected during the July 2019 inventory.
Trees Stumps Vacant
Sites
Number of Sites 2,851 57 472
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
S
i
t
e
s
Davey Resource Group 4 September 2019
Assessment of Tree Inventory Data
Data analysis and professional judgment are used to make
generalizations about the state of the inventoried tree
population. Recognizing trends in the data can help guide
short-term and long-term management planning. See
Appendix A for more information on data collection and site
location methods. In this plan, the following criteria and
indicators of the inventoried tree population were assessed:
● Species Diversity, the variety of species in a specific
population, affects the population’s ability to
withstand threats from invasive pests and diseases.
Species diversity also impacts tree maintenance
needs and costs, tree planting goals, and canopy
continuity.
● Diameter Size Class Distribution, the statistical
distribution of a given tree population's trunk-size
class, is used to indicate the relative age of a tree
population. The diameter size class distribution
affects the valuation of tree-related benefits as well
as the projection of maintenance needs and costs,
planting goals, and canopy continuity.
● Condition, the general health of a tree population,
indicates how well trees are performing given their
site-specific conditions. General health affects both
short-term and long-term maintenance needs and costs as well as canopy continuity.
● Street ROW Stocking Level is the proportion of existing street trees compared to the total
number of potential street trees (number of inventoried trees plus the number of potential
planting spaces); stocking level can help determine tree planting needs and budgets.
● Other Observations include inventory data analysis that provides insight into past
maintenance practices and growing conditions; such observations may affect future
management decisions.
● Further Inspection indicates whether a particular tree requires additional inspection, such
as a Level III risk inspection in accordance with ANSI A300, Part 9 (ANSI 2011), or
periodic inspection due to particular conditions that may cause the tree to be a safety risk
and, therefore, hazardous.
● Species Diversity affects maintenance costs, planting goals, canopy continuity, and the
forestry program’s ability to respond to threats from invasive pests or diseases. Low species
diversity (large number of trees of the same species) can lead to severe losses in the event
of species-specific epidemics such as the devastating results of Dutch elm disease
(Ophiostoma novo-ulmi) throughout New England and the Midwest.
Photograph 2. Davey’s ISA
Certified Arborists inventoried
trees along street ROW and in
community parks to collect
information about trees that could
be used to assess the state
of the urban forest.
Davey Resource Group 5 September 2019
Due to the spread of Dutch elm disease in the 1930s, combined with the disease’s prevalence today,
massive numbers of Ulmus americana (American elm), a popular street tree in northeastern cities
and towns, perished (Karnosky 1979). Several Midwestern communities were stripped of most of
their mature shade trees, creating a drastic void in canopy cover. Many of these communities have
replanted to replace the lost elm trees. Ash and maple trees were popular replacements for
American elm in the wake of Dutch elm disease. Unfortunately, some of the replacement species
for American elm trees are now overabundant, which is a biodiversity concern. Emerald ash borer
(EAB, Agrilus planipennis) and Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora glabripennis) are
non-native insect pests that attack some of the most prevalent urban shade trees and certain
agricultural trees throughout the country.
The composition of a tree population should follow the 10-20-30 Rule (Santamour 1990) for
species diversity: a single species should represent no more than 10% of the urban forest, a single
genus no more than 20%, and a single family no more than 30%.
Findings
Analysis of Cayuga Heights tree inventory data indicated that the overall tree inventory had
relatively good diversity, with 58 genera and 123 species represented.
Figure 2 uses the 10% Rule to compare the percentages of the most common species i dentified
during the inventory of the street tree populations. Acer platanoides (Norway maple) and Pinus
strobus (white pine) exceed the recommended 10% maximum for a single species in a population,
comprising 15% and 11% of the inventoried tree population, respectively. No other species are
approaching this 10% threshold.
Figure 2. Five most abundant species of the inventoried population compared to the 10% Rule.
Norway maple white pine red oak sugar maple Norway spruce
Cayuga Heights 15%11%6%6%5%
10% Rule 10%10%10%10%10%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Cayuga Heights 10% Rule
Davey Resource Group 6 September 2019
Figure 3 uses the 20% Rule to compare the percentages of the most common genera identified
during the inventory to the street tree population. Acer (maple) exceeds the recommended 20%
maximum for a single genus in a population, comprising 26% of the inventoried tree population.
No other genera approach the 20% threshold.
Figure 3. Five most abundant genera of the inventoried population compared to the 20% Rule.
Discussion
Acer platanoides (Norway maple) exceeds the 10% rule, creating a biodiversity concern due to its
abundance in the landscape. Continued diversity of tree species is an important objective that will
ensure the street tree population of Cayuga Heights is sustainable and resilient to future invasive
pest infestations. Norway maple is also considered an invasive species in New York State.
Continued planting is not recommended to prevent the spread of the species. Consider planting
non-maple native trees as a substitute.
Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of Norway maple in Cayuga Heights based on the 2019
inventory data. Although widely distributed, its highest concentration is along Kline, Overlook,
and Wyckoff Roads.
maple pine oak spruce cherry
Cayuga Heights 26%13%11%9%4%
20% Rule 20%20%20%20%20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Cayuga Heights 20% Rule
Davey Resource Group 7 September 2019
Figure 4. Norway maple distribution in Cayuga Heights.
Diameter Size Class Distribution
Analyzing the diameter size class distribution provides an estimate of the relative age of a tree
population and offers insight into maintenance practices and needs.
The inventoried trees were categorized into the following diameter size classes: young trees (0–8
inches DBH), established trees (9–17 inches DBH), maturing trees (18–24 inches DBH), and
mature trees (greater than 24 inches DBH). These categories were chosen so that the population
could be analyzed according to Richards’ ideal distribution (1983). Richards proposed an ideal
diameter size class distribution for street trees based on observations of well-adapted trees in
Syracuse, New York. Richards’ ideal distribution suggests that the largest fraction of trees
(approximately 40% of the population) should be young (less than 8 inches DBH), while a smaller
fraction (approximately 10%) should be in the large-diameter size class (greater than 24 inches
DBH). A tree population with an ideal distribution would have an abundance of newly planted and
young trees, and lower numbers of established, maturing, and mature trees.
Davey Resource Group 8 September 2019
Figure 5. Comparison of diameter size class distribution for
inventoried trees to the ideal distribution.
Figure 5 compares the diameter size class distribution of inventoried trees to the ideal distribution
proposed by Richards (1983). The inventory distribution trends toward the ideal with the
percentage of young trees exceeding the percentages of maturing and mature trees. However, there
are too few young trees relative to the number of established trees and the number of maturing
trees should be greater relative to the number of mature trees.
Discussion
The inventory has too few maturing and young trees, and perhaps too many established trees,
which indicates that the distribution is somewhat non-ideal. DRG recommends that Cayuga
Heights support increased levels of new plantings to ensure that enough young, healthy trees are
in place to fill gaps in the tree canopy and replace older declining trees. Additionally, the bulge in
the number of established trees will likely lead to an overabundance of maturing trees, which will
require increased levels of pruning and maintenance. Therefore, while the Village should plant
more young trees to normalize the population, it will also need to be proactive in caring for its
existing trees to ensure their long term survival.
Special attention should be given to the large numbers of maturing and mature Pinus strobus (white
pine) planted as an allee along the length of The Parkway. These pines contribute to the Village's
identity and sense of place, but they are nearing the end of their service lives and will need to be
replaced.
36%
40%
15%
10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0"–8"
Young
9"–17"
Established
18"–24"
Maturing
>24"
Mature
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Diameter Size Class
Cayuga Heights Ideal
Davey Resource Group 9 September 2019
Condition
DRG assessed the condition of individual trees
based on methods defined by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Several factors
were considered for each tree, including root
characteristics, branch structure, trunk, canopy,
foliage condition, and the presence of pests. The
condition of each inventoried tree was rated
Good, Fair, Poor, or Dead.
In this plan, the general health of the inventoried
tree population was characterized by the most
prevalent condition noted during the inventory in
July 2019. Comparing the condition of the
inventoried tree population with relative tree age
(or trunk diameter size class distribution) can
provide insight into the stability of the
population. Since tree species have different
lifespans and mature at different diameters,
heights, and crown spreads; actual tree age
cannot be determined from diameter size class
alone. However, general classifications of size
can be extrapolated into relative age classes. The
following categories are used to describe the
relative age of a tree: young (0–8 inches DBH),
established (9–17 inches DBH), maturing (18–24
inches DBH), and mature (greater than 24 inches
DBH).
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the general health and distribution of young, established, mature, and
maturing trees relative to their condition.
Condition Rating
Good 855
Fair 1,620
Poor 261
Dead 115
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
e
e
s
Figure 6. Conditions of inventoried trees.
Planting trees is necessary to increase canopy cover
and replace trees lost to natural mortality (expected to be 1%–
3% per year) and other threats (for example, invasive pests or
impacts from weather events such as storms, wind, ice, snow,
flooding, and drought). Planning for the replacement of
existing trees and identifying the best places to create new
canopy is critical.
Davey Resource Group 10 September 2019
Figure 7. Tree condition by relative age during the July 2019 inventory.
Findings
Most of the inventoried trees were recorded to be in Good or Fair condition, 30% and 57%,
respectively (Figure 6). Based on these data, the general health of the overall inventoried tree
population is rated Fair. Figure 7 illustrates that most of the young, established, and maturing trees
were rated to be in Fair condition, and that most of the mature trees were rated to be in Fair
condition. Figure 8 is a graph of the top ten species noted in Poor condition and their corresponding
amount in the inventory.
Figure 8. Top ten species in poor condition in the inventory.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Mature
Maturing
Established
Young
Percent of Trees
Poor to Dead
Fair
Good to Excellent
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ag
e
Davey Resource Group 11 September 2019
Discussion
The condition of Cayuga Heights inventoried tree population is in Fair condition. Data inspection
has provided the following insights into maintenance needs and historical maintenance practices:
Dead trees and trees in poor condition should be removed because of their failed health; these trees
will likely not recover, even with increased care.
● Younger trees rated in Fair or Good condition may benefit from improvements in structure
that may improve their health over time. Pruning should follow ANSI A300 (Part 1) (ANSI
2008).
● Poor condition ratings among mature trees were generally due to visible signs of decline
and stress, including decay, dead limbs, sparse branching, or poor structure. These trees
will require corrective pruning, regular inspections, and possible intensive plant health care
to improve their vigor. The larger trees may require secondary professional inspections.
● Proper tree care practices are needed for the long-term general health of the urban forest.
Following guidelines developed by ISA and those recommended by ANSI A300 (Part 6)
(ANSI 2012) will ensure that tree maintenance practices ultimately improve the health of
the urban forest.
Street ROW Stocking Level
Stocking is a traditional forestry term used to measure the density and distribution of trees. For an
urban/community forest such as Cayuga Heights, stocking level is used to estimate the total
number of sites along the street ROW that could contain trees. Park trees and public property trees
are typically excluded from this measurement.
Stocking level is the ratio of street ROW spaces occupied by trees to the total street ROW spaces
suitable for trees. For example, a street ROW tree inventory of 1,000 total sites with 750 existing
trees and 250 planting sites would have a stocking level of 75%.
For an urban area, DRG recommends that the street ROW stocking level be at least 90% so that
no more than 10% of the potential planting sites along the street ROW are vacant.
Street ROW stocking levels may be estimated using information about the community, tree
inventory data, and common street tree planting practices. Inventory data that contain the number
of existing trees and planting sites along the street ROW will increase the accuracy of the
projection. However, street ROW stocking levels can be estimated using only the number of trees
present and the number of street miles in the community.
To estimate stocking level based on total street ROW miles and the number of existing trees, it is
assumed that any given street ROW should have room for one tree for every 50 feet along each
side of the street. For example, 10 linear miles of street ROW with spaces for trees to grow at 50-
foot intervals along each side of the street account for a potential 2,110 trees. If the inventory found
that 1,055 trees were present, the stocking level would be 50%.
Davey Resource Group 12 September 2019
The potential stocking level for a community with ten street miles is as follows:
5,280 feet/mile ÷ 50 feet = 106 trees/mile
106 trees/mile × 2 sides of the street = 212 trees/mile
212 trees per street mile × 10 miles = 2,120 potential sites for trees 1,055
inventoried trees ÷ 2,110 potential sites for trees = 50% stocked
When the estimated stocking level is determined using theoretical assumptions, the actual number
of planting sites may be significantly less than estimated due to unknown growing space
constraints, including inadequate growing space size, proximity of private trees, and utility
conflicts.
Cayuga Heights inventory data set included planting sites. Since the data included vacant planting
sites, the stocking level can be more accurately projected and compared to the theoretical stocking
level.
Findings
Calculations of trees per capita are important in determining the density of a Village’s urban forest.
The more residents and greater housing density a Village possesses, the greater the need for trees
to provide benefits.
The inventory found 472 planting sites. Of the inventoried sites, 125 were potential planting sites
for large-size trees (8-foot-wide and greater growing space size); 198 were potential sites for
medium-size trees (6- to 7-foot-wide growing space sizes); and 149 were potential sites for small-
size trees (4- to 5-foot-wide growing space sizes). Based on the data collected during this
inventory, Cayuga Heights’ current street ROW tree stocking level is 86%, including stumps and
standing dead. If existing stumps and dead trees were to become vacant sites in the inventory, the
stocking level would be 82%.
Based on a theoretical stocking level, the Village has 21 linear miles of street ROW (Cayuga
Heights, 2014 Comprehensive Plan) and 2,787 trees, which is an average of 133 trees per street
mile. In theory, any given street should have growing space for one tree every 50 feet along each
side of a street, or 212 trees per mile. This equates to 4,452 theoretical sites. This suggests that
there is room for an additional 1,665 street trees in Cayuga Heights to reach full theoretical
stocking potential.
In Cayuga Heights, the ratio of street trees per capita is 0.758, which falls significantly above the
mean ratio of 0.37 reported for 22 U.S. cities (McPherson and Rowntree 1989). According to the
inventory, there is one tree for every 1.3 residents. Cayuga Heights’s potential is one tree for every
1.2 residents.
Discussion
Inadequate tree planting and maintenance budgets, along with tree mortality, will result in lower
stocking levels. Nevertheless, working to attain a fully stocked street ROW is important to promote
canopy continuity and environmental sustainability. Fully stocking the street ROW with trees is
an excellent goal. Removing every existing dead tree and stump in the current inventory and
installing a new tree for every removal would increase the stocking level to 86%, which is a good
percentage.
Davey Resource Group 13 September 2019
The Village could consider improving its street ROW population’s stocking level of 82% and work
toward achieving the ideal of 90% or better. Generally, this entails a planned program of planting,
care, and maintenance for the Village’s street trees. As is, the Village would need to plant 255
trees (after removal of dead trees and stumps) to accommodate a 90% ROW coverage.
The Village estimates that it plants 5 to 10 trees per year and the inventory revealed an ample total
of 472 available planting sites along the street right of way. At 10 plantings per year, it would take
approximately 25 years for the Village to reach the recommended stocking level of 90%. If budgets
allow, DRG recommends that Cayuga Heights plant 25 trees per year based on a 10-year plan. If
possible, exceed this recommendation to better prepare for impending threats and to increase the
benefits provided by the urban forest. The ample available sites will allow the Village to scrutize
the selection of each site before planting.
Other Observations
Observations were recorded during the inventory to further describe a tree’s health, structure, or
location when more detail was needed. Further detail can be found in the Comments or Notes
portion of the data where the inventorying arborist describes with greater specificity issues of
concern to the managing municipality.
Findings
Dead and dying parts and missing or decayed wood were most frequently observed and recorded
(33.28% and 6.89% of inventoried trees, respectively). Of all the trees noted for defects, 419 trees
were recommended for removal, and eight were rated to be High or Extreme Risk trees. Table 1
provides the numbers and percentages of trees either in good, fair or poor condition with significant
defects in the inventory. Dead trees, stumps, or sites were not included.
Table 1. Observations Recorded During the Street Tree Inventory
Defects Noted Number of Trees Percent
Broken and/or hanging branches 40 1.46%
Cracks 12 0.44%
Dead and dying parts 1049 38.34%
Missing or decayed wood 200 7.31%
Nothing noted 986 36.04%
Other 216 7.89%
Root problems 3 0.11%
Tree architecture 14 0.51%
Weakly attached/codominant 216 7.89%
Total good, fair, poor rated trees 2736
Davey Resource Group 14 September 2019
Discussion
Unless slated for removal, trees noted as having dead and
dying parts (1,125 trees) or missing and decayed wood (233
trees) should be regularly inspected. Corrective actions
should be taken when warranted. If their condition worsens,
removal may be required. Of the 233 trees noted for missing
and decayed wood, 108 were recommended for removal. Of
the 1,125 trees noted for dead and dying parts, 218 were
recommended for removal.
New tree staking should only be installed when necessary
to keep trees from leaning (windy sites) or to prevent
damage from pedestrians and/or vandals. Stakes should
only be attached to trees with a loose, flexible material.
Installed hardware that has been attached to any tree for
more than one year, and hardware that may no longer be
needed for its intended purposes, should be inspected and
removed as appropriate.
The costs for treating deficient trees must be considered to
determine whether removing and replacing the tree is the
more viable option.
Infrastructure Conflicts
In an urban setting, space is limited both above and below ground. Trees in this environment may
conflict with infrastructure such as buildings, sidewalks, and utility wires and pipes, which may
pose risks to public health and safety. Existing or possible conflicts between trees and
infrastructure recorded during the inventory include:
● Clearance Requirements: The inventory noted trees blocking the visibility of traffic signs
or signals, streetlights, or other safety devices. This information should be used to schedule
pruning activities.
● Overhead Utilities: The presence of overhead utility lines above a tree or planting site was
noted; it is important to consider these data when planning pruning activities and selecting
tree species for planting.
● Hardscape Damage: Trees can adversely impact hardscape, which affects tree root and
trunk systems. The inventory recorded damage related to trees, causing curbs, sidewalks,
and other hardscape features to lift. These data should be used to schedule pruning and plan
repairs to damaged infrastructure. To limit hardscape damage caused by trees, trees should
only be planted in growing spaces where adequate above ground and below ground space
is provided.
Photograph 3. This tree is noted
as standing dead is and
should be removed.
Davey Resource Group 15 September 2019
Findings
Within the inventory, there were 361 trees recorded with some type of clearance issue for overhead
utilities. Of those trees, 16 were noted as standing dead with DBHs between 2 and 18. There were
625 trees with utilities directly above, or passing through, the tree canopy but not conflicting.
Table 2 below notes the type and percentages of trees with overhead utilities. Trees of all condtion
were included in this table. Stumps and planting sites were not included.
Table 2. Trees Noted to be Conflicting with Overhead Utility Concerns
Discussion
Tree canopy should not interfere with vehicular or
pedestrian traffic, nor should it rest on buildings or block
signs, signals, or lights. Pruning to avoid clearance issues
and raise tree crowns should be completed in accordance
with ANSI A300 (Part 9) (2011). DRG’s clearance
distance guidelines are as follows: 14 feet over streets; 8
feet over sidewalks; and 5 feet from buildings, signs,
signals, or lights.
Planting only small-growing trees within 20 feet of
overhead utilities, medium-size trees within 20–40 feet,
and large-growing trees outside 40 feet will help improve
future tree conditions, minimize future utility line
conflicts, and reduce the costs of maintaining trees under
utility lines.
When planting around hardscape, it is important to give
the tree enough growing room above ground. Guidelines
for planting trees among hardscape features are as follows:
give small-growing trees 4–5 feet, medium-growing trees
6–7 feet, and large-growing trees 8 feet or more between
hardscape features. In most cases, this will allow for the
spread of a tree’s trunk taper, root collar, and immediate
larger diameter structural roots. Completing these
recommendations will reduce conflicts with Cayuga
Heights infrastructure and citizens.
Conflict Presence Number of
Trees Percent
Overhead Utilities
Present and Conflicting 361 12.41%
Present and Not Conflicting 625 21.49%
Not Present 1,922 66.09%
Total
Photograph 4. Trees along ROW
where powerlines are conflicting.
Davey Resource Group 16 September 2019
Growing Space
Information about the type and size of the growing space was recorded. Growing space size was
recorded as the minimum width of the growing space needed for root development. Growing space
types are categorized as greater than or less than four feet.
Findings
Of the inventoried sites, 3,291 (97%) were located in tree lawns 4 feet wide or larger, and only 89
sites (3%) were located in tree lawns less than 4 feet wide.
Discussion
To prolong the useful life of street trees, small-growing tree species should be planted in tree lawns
4–5 feet wide, medium-size tree species in tree lawns 6–7 feet wide, and large-growing tree species
in tree lawns at least 8 feet wide. The useful life of a public tree ends when the cost of maintenance
exceeds the value contributed by the tree. This can be due to increased maintenance required by a
tree in decline, or it can be due to the costs of repairing damage caused by the tree’s presence in a
restricted site. Appendix B provides suggested tree species for plantings.
The largest benefits are provided from the largest trees, but there are site specific considerations
that will impact the tree selection. Believe firmly in the right tree, right place mantra. There are
excellent street trees that can become a financial headache in the long run if planted in a
constrictive space or in poor soil conditions. While gaining the maximum ecological benefit from
each street tree is an excellent objective, trees should not be planted without first assessing the site.
Further Inspection
This data field indicates whether a particular tree requires further inspection, such as a Level III
risk inspection in accordance with ANSI A300, Part 9 (ANSI, 2011), or periodic inspection due to
particular conditions that may cause it to be a safety risk and, therefore, hazardous. If a tree was
noted for further inspection, Village staff should investigate as soon as possible to determine
appropriate corrective actions. Risk Assessment guidelines can be found in Appendix C.
Davey Resource Group 17 September 2019
Findings
DRG recommends 323 trees for further inspection. Figure 9 shows the 52 trees for insect
monitoring, 223 for multi-year annual inspection, and 48 for a Level 3 assessment.
Figure 9. Village map showing trees requiring further inspection.
Davey Resource Group 18 September 2019
Discussion
An ISA Certified Arborist should perform additional inspections of the identified trees. If it is
determined that these trees exceed the threshold for acceptable risk, the defective part(s) of the
trees should be corrected or removed, or the entire tree may need to be removed.
Potential Threats from Pests
Insects and diseases pose serious threats to tree health. Awareness and early diagnosis are essential
to ensure the health and continuity of street and park trees. Appendix D provides information about
some of the current potential threats to trees in Cayuga Heights and includes websites where more
detailed information can be found.
Many pests target a single species or an entire genus. The inventory data were analyzed to provide
a general estimate of the percentage of trees susceptible to some of the known pests in New York.
It is important to note that Figure 10 only presents data collected from the inventory. More trees
throughout Cayuga Heights, including those on other public and private property, may be
susceptible to these invasive pests.
Photograph 5. This hemlock was noted as requiring further inspection.
Observations from the ground were noted as being infected with an insect
pest. The extent of the infection and need for treatment should be
further evaluated. An ISA Certified Arborist should
perform the additional inspection.
Davey Resource Group 19 September 2019
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). EAB first arrived in the U.S. in 2002 near Detroit and attacks all
native ash trees, including white, green, blue, and black ash. Among the public trees managed by
the Village, 3% (87 trees) are ash and thus susceptible to EAB. Treatment options exist but can be
costly. However, without treatment, the mortality rate is 100%. Management options are provided
in the recommendations. Initial symptoms include yellowing and/or thinning of the foliage and
longitudinal bark splitting. The entire canopy may die back, or symptoms may be restricted to
certain branches. Declining trees may sprout epicormic shoots at the tree base or on branches.
Adults exit from the trunk and branches in a characteristic D-shaped exit hole that is about 1/8 inch
in diameter. The loss of water and nutrients from the intense larvae tunneling can cause trees to
lose between 30% and 50% of their canopies during the first year of infestation; trees can die
within two years following infestation Once an ash tree is infested with EAB, branches become
weak which can lead to limb failure from wind events or snow loading. Eventually, if left untreated
and the infestation becomes worse, complete tree failure is probable.
The inventory contains 3% ash including 32 white ash and 51 green ash trees. Of these 87 ash
trees, 55 are rated Fair, 14 are rated Good, 15 are rated Poor and 3 were Dead. These totals do not
include additional ash trees that may be located on private property and public sites which were
not inventoried. With the ongoing threat posed by the emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus
planipennis), these trees warrant periodic inspection and a plan of action should be developed to
deal with them.
Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB). ALB is a serious threat to a large number of America’s
hardwood tree species. Like EAB, this invasive pest arrived from Asia within the last few decades.
However, unlike EAB, ALB targets many common species (maple, birch, horse chestnut, poplar,
willow, elm, and ash) and is, for the most part, untreatable. Within the inventory, 903 trees are
potentially at risk from ALB.
Table 3. ALB Genera of Cayuga Heights’s Inventory
Genus Common Amount in
Inventory
Acer Maple 725
Betula Birch 27
Aesculus Horse Chestnut 4
Populus Poplar 27
Salix Willow 7
Ulmus Elm 26
Fraxinus Ash 87
Because it is untreatable, if found, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) institutes
an immediate removal of host trees and a strict quarantine to stop the spread of this devastating
pest. Proper identification and destruction of host trees is the only acceptable control practice.
Davey Resource Group 20 September 2019
The management of ALB is under state and federal regulations. Eradication is possible, but the
impact of the process can be devastating to a community. First found in Brooklyn in 1996, ALB
has since been detected in Worcester, Massachusetts, southwest Ohio, and Central Long Island.
The most important thing is early detection, which requires vigilant monitoring. This is why
educating the public and Village staff is so important.
Oak Wilt. Oak wilt comes from a fast-acting fungus (Ceratocystis fagacearum) considered to be
an invasive and aggressive disease. It can result in the decline and death of oak trees in as little as
two weeks by clogging the trees’ vascular system. Oaks comprise 300 individuals of Cayuga
Heights' public trees and likely the similar number of private trees. Within New York State, oak
wilt has been found near Albany, Canandaigua, and in Queens. The fungus is spread from tree to
tree by borers and through root grafts underground. This disease is most devastating to trees in the
red oak subgenus, including Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak), Q. imbricaria (shingle oak),
Q. palustris (pin oak), Q. phellos (willow oak), and Q. rubra (northern red oak). Oak wilt also
attacks trees in the white oak subgenus, though it is not as prevalent and spreads at a much slower
pace in these trees. The most resistant species include Q. macrocarpa (bur oak) and
Q. muehlenbergii (chinkapin). Control and management of oak wilt involves a thorough
knowledge of preventive strategies and control protocols such as wound dressings. The best
preventive strategy is to limit wounding (including pruning wounds) of oak during warm weather
when the insect vectors are flying.
Figure 10. Oak inventory for Cayuga Heights.
Other Diseases. Aside from EAB, ALB, and oak wilt, there are other diseases and pest issues that
can affect trees in Cayuga Heights, including anthracnose and verticillium wilt. These diseases
require proper management and steps to minimize impact to canopy levels.
Davey Resource Group 21 September 2019
Anthracnose has been reported on American sycamore and London plane trees in New York State
in recent years. It is a common foliar disease of shade trees caused by fungi. Leaf tissue will be
killed, and defoliation may occur, thus reducing the aesthetic value and vitality of the affected
trees. While certain management steps can be taken to reduce the prevalence of this disease (noted
below), the best long term course is to focus on planting resistant tree varieties.
The fungus generally overwinters in infected, dead leaves on the ground. In sycamore, it also
overwinters in infected buds or in cankers formed at the base of an infected leaf or twig. During
cool and wet springs, minute blister-like swellings in the infected tissues release thousands of
spores. These get blown around, land on newly developed leaves, and cause infection and death of
the tissue, resulting in tan to brown areas on the leaves. Varying amounts of leaf drop take place,
depending upon the severity of the disease that season. Conditions are then ready to repeat the
cycle the following year. Current recommendations for preventing or correcting anthracnose in
shade trees include the following:
1. Rake and destroy infected leaves and prune off cankered branches. This will reduce the
potential for infection.
2. Fungicidal treatments during leaf development will help prevent leaf infection and
defoliation. Trunk injections of Arbortect® can also be used to manage sycamore
anthracnose.
3. Over the long term, Cayuga Heights should understand that anthracnose will periodically
surface on susceptible species. The effects over the Village’s entire tree canopy can be
reduced by planting tree species resistant to the fungus.
Verticillium Wilt is caused by a soil-borne fungus. It is often associated with maple but can affect
several other species, including ash, Kentucky coffee tree, elm, and plum. Symptoms include
yellow foliage, abnormally heavy seeding, and dieback of shoots and branches. Streaking of
vascular tissue can accompany external symptoms. The fungus will persist in the soil indefinitely.
If replacement of trees affected with Verticillium wilt is needed, replace with species not
susceptible to the fungus such as birch, gingko, pear, or poplar.
Findings
Granulate ambrosia beetle (Xylosandrus crassiusculus) and Asian longhorned beetle (ALB or
Anoplophora glabripennis) are known threats to a large percentage of the inventoried street trees
(54% and 27%, respectively). These pests were not detected in Cayuga Heights during the
inventory, but if they were detected, the Village could see severe losses in its tree population.
Figure 11 represents the findings and their suspectable associated known pests.
Davey Resource Group 22 September 2019
Figure 11. Potential impact of insect and disease threats noted during the 2019 inventory.
Discussion
Cayuga Heights should be aware of the signs and symptoms of potential infestations and should
be prepared to act if a significant threat is observed in its tree po pulation or a nearby community.
An integrated pest management plan should be established. The plan should focus on identifying
and monitoring threats, understanding the economic threshold of tree removal or treatment,
selecting the correct treatment, properly timed management strategies, recordkeeping, and
evaluating results. The most immediate threat is the EAB and the inventory identified 87 ash trees.
The Village should closely monitor its ash trees and keep informed about the EAB both locally
and in New York State.
A newer pest of concern is the Spotted Lanternfly (SLF, Lycorma delicatula). Figure 12 is a New
York State Department of Agriculture map representing the regional spread of SLF. This pest is
known to infest over 70 species of plants. The invasive tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is a
common host. There are 14 tree-of-heavens in the inventory, 13 of which are in Good condition.
Those trees could be a concern should the SLF arrive in Cayuga Heights. See appendix D for
further information about pests affecting the region.
0%
3%
2%
3%
27%
12%
37%
13%
13%
54%
1%
27%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Dutch elm disease
emerald ash borer
hemlock woolly adelgid
Thousand Cankers disease
Asian longhorned beetle
oak wilt
gypsy moth
Sirex woodwasp
pine shoot beetle
granulate ambrosia beetle
sudden oak death
Xm ambrosia beetle
Percent of Tree Population
Th
r
e
a
t
s
t
o
T
r
e
e
s
Davey Resource Group 23 September 2019
Figure 12. New York State Integrated Pest Management SLF Known Distribution Map
https://nysipm.cornell.edu/environment/invasive-species-exotic-pests/spotted-lanternfly/
Davey Resource Group 24 September 2019
SECTION 2: BENEFITS OF THE URBAN FOREST
There is a growing understanding and validation of the importance of trees to a community. The
urban forest plays an important role in supporting and improving the quality of life in urban areas.
A tree's shade and beauty contribute to a community’s quality of life and soften the hard
appearance of urban landscapes and streetscapes. Scientists and researchers have studied the
positive effects of trees on air quality, stormwater runoff, human behavior, and lower crime rates.
When properly maintained, trees provide communities abundant economic, environmental, and
social benefits that far exceed the time and money invested in planting, pruning, protection, and
removal. This section will highlight each element of the collective benefits the trees in the
inventory provide.
Both the functional and structural benefits of trees can be assessed by i-Tree Eco. The functional
benefits of trees are associated with their ability to provide ecosystem benefit. The benefit of
utilizing i-Tree Eco is that it provides a better understanding of the structure and function of trees
as a resource. It also provides municipalities the means to advocate for the funding needed to
manage trees effectively. i-Tree Streets has moved into a legacy role and the new Eco v6, which
includes the functionality of the Streets model, is the most up-to-date eco-benefit estimator
available. Trees are evaluated based upon the population (collective group of species) and
individual tree performances within the inventory data collected.
i-Tree Eco can be utilized with a complete inventory to simplify the benefit quantification process.
Regional data, including energy prices and stormwater costs, are required inputs to generate the
environmental and economic benefits trees provide. If community program costs or local economic
data are not available, i-Tree Eco uses frequently updated economic inputs for georeferenced
locations selected by the United States Forest Service (USFS) for the local climate zone. The entire
inventory collected during in the 2019 collection was uploaded into i-Tree Eco v6 model to
generate benefit estimates.
Functional benefits include atmospheric removal of carbon (C), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), particulate matter up to the tenth of a micron (PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These
services are quantifiable by i-Tree Eco through tree growth algorithms incorporating tree data
supplied by the inventory. Trees improve air quality. During photosynthesis, trees remove carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere to form carbohydrates that are used in plant structure/function
and return oxygen (O2) back to the atmosphere as a byproduct. Trees, therefore, act as a carbon
sink. Urban forests cleanse the air by intercepting and slowing particulate materials and by
absorbing pollutant gases on their leaf surfaces. Pollutants partially controlled by trees include
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), CO2, ozone (O3), and small
particulates less than ten microns in size (PM10). Coder (1996) found that trees could reduce
cemetery level air pollution by up to 60%. Lovasi et al. (2008) suggested that children who live in
communities with an abundance of trees have lower rates of asthma.
When location in the landscape is matched with healthy, high-quality tree species, tree valuation
can be readily quantified utilizing the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraiser’s methodology
within the i-Tree Eco suite of software. The monetary values of trees are based on four
characteristics, which are condition, location, species, and trunk area. This information has been
complemented with USFS software programs like i-Tree Eco to provide benefit-based assessments
of what trees are worth on an economic level (McPherson 2007) and (Nowak et al. 2008).
Davey Resource Group 25 September 2019
Structural values are on the comparable cost of replacing the specific tree with a similar tree. i-
Tree Eco determines these values via an appraisal methodology utilized by the Council of Tree
and Landscape Appraisers. Carbon storage is considered a structural value as it is not considered
an annual benefit but is amassed over the life of the tree. Carbon storage and sequestration will be
discussed in the same section, although they are separate classes of ecological benefits.
Planting trees in strategic areas can augment the function of existing stormwater infrastructure,
increasing its capacity, delaying onsets of peak flows, and improving water quality. Because trees
act as mini-reservoirs, planting trees can reduce the long-term costs to manage runoff. Leafy tree
canopies catch precipitation before it reaches the ground, allowing some water to gently drip and
the rest to evaporate. This lessens the initial impact of storms and reduces runoff and erosion. For
every 5% of tree cover added to a community, stormwater runoff is reduced by approximately 2%
(Coder 1996). Research by the USFS indicates that 100 mature tree crowns intercept about 100,000
gallons of rainfall per year, reducing runoff and providing cleaner water (United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 2003(a)). trees will retain approximately 10 million gallons
of rainwater per year (United States Department
Trees are associated with reduced crime rates, decreased amounts of human stress, and shorter
lengths of hospital stays. Kuo and Sullivan (2001(a)) studied apartment buildings in Chicago and
found that buildings with high levels of greenery had 52% fewer crimes than those without any
trees, and buildings with medium amounts of greenery had 42% fewer crimes. Trees create a sense
of serenity and add to the overall landscape athletics of a location. Ulrich (1984, 1986) found that
hospital patients who were recovering from surgery and had a view of a grove of trees through
their windows required fewer pain relievers, experienced fewer complications, and left the
hospital. sooner than similar patients who had a view of a brick wall A typical community forest
of 10,000 of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 2003(b).
The graphic below summarizes the science behind the community tree benefits provided by the
urban forest.
Davey Resource Group 26 September 2019
Environmental Benefits
Economic Benefits
Social Benefits
Tree-lined streets are safer; traffic speeds and the amount of stress drivers feel are reduced, which likely reduces road
rage/aggressive driving (Wolf 1998a, Kuo and Sullivan 2001a).
Chicago apartment buildings with medium amounts of greenery had 42% fewer crimes than those without any trees (Kuo and
Sullivan 2001b).
Chicago apartment buildings with high levels of greenery had 52% fewer crimes than those without any trees (Kuo and
Sullivan 2001a).
Employees who see trees from their desks experience 23% less sick time and report greater job satisfaction than those who
do not (Wolf 1998a).
Hospital patients recovering from surgery who had a view of a grove of trees through their windows required fewer pain
relievers, experienced fewer complications, and left the hospital sooner than similar patients who had a view of a brick wall
(Ulrich 1984, 1986).
Trees in a yard or neighborhood increase residential property values by an average of 7%.
Commercial property rental rates are 7% higher when trees are on the property (Wolf 2007).
Trees moderate temperatures in the summer and winter, saving on heating and cooling expenses (North Carolina State
University 2012, Heisler 1986).
On average, consumers will pay about 11% more for goods in landscaped areas, with this figure being as high as 50% for
convenience goods (Wolf 1998b, Wolf 1999, and Wolf 2003).
Consumers also feel that the quality of products is better in business districts surrounded by trees than those considered
barren (Wolf 1998b).
The quality of landscaping along the routes leading to business districts had a positive influence on consumers’
perceptions of the area (Wolf 2000).
Trees decrease energy consumption and moderate local climates by providing shade and acting as windbreaks.
Trees act as mini reservoirs, helping to slow and reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that reaches storm drains, rivers, and
lakes. One hundred mature tree crowns intercept roughly 100,000 gallons of rainfall per year (U.S. Forest Service 2003a).
Trees help reduce noise levels, cleanse atmospheric pollutants, produce oxygen, and absorb carbon dioxide.
Trees can reduce street-level air pollution by up to 60% (Coder 1996). Lovasi (2008) suggested that children who live on tree-
lined streets have lower rates of asthma.
Trees stabilize soil and provide a habitat for wildlife.
Davey Resource Group 27 September 2019
Findings
Cayuga Heights currently receives $10,246 annually in total functional ecological benefits from the 2,787 trees in
the 2019 inventory (not including unknown trees). These cumulative benefits can be valued at an annual average
of approximately $3.68 per tree in the inventory. Figure 13 displays the annual dollar amounts for each functional
benefit.
Functional Values
Figure 13. Annual functional benefits of the inventoried trees.
$2,978
$3,369
$3,898
Air Quality
Carbon Sequestration
Stormwater
Davey Resource Group 28 September 2019
Air Quality
The inventoried tree population annually removes 1,278 pounds of air pollutants, including ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, the latter through deposition. Figure 14
conveys the months of the year where the trees provide the highest return to the community in the
form of improved air quality. The total inventory produces 52.7 tons per year of oxygen. Table 4
presents the top performing species populations in the 2019 inventory.
Figure 14. Monthly air pollutants removed per contaminant in Cayuga Heights.
Table 4. Top Air Quality Benefits per Tree Species in Inventory
Species Tree Count Air Quality (ton/yr) ($/yr)
Norway maple 431 0.12000 $556.33
Eastern white pine 313 0.10000 $451.21
Northern red oak 178 0.06000 $300.41
Norway spruce 145 0.05000 $217.21
Sugar maple 164 0.04000 $187.61
Black walnut 84 0.04000 $165.11
Silver maple 41 0.02000 $97.16
Pin oak 47 0.02000 $94.99
Black locust 80 0.02000 $89.54
White oak 39 0.02000 $71.67
American basswood 47 0.01000 $63.10
Shagbark hickory 57 0.01000 $43.97
Green ash 51 0.01000 $43.19
Black cherry 30 0.01000 $25.95
White ash 32 0.01000 $25.34
Total Eco Inventory 2,787 0.64000 $2,978.33
Davey Resource Group 29 September 2019
The i-Tree Eco calculation takes into account the biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC’s)
that are released from trees. Trees emit various BVOCs such as isoprenes and monoterpenes,
which can also contribute to formation of ozone, a harmful gas that pollutes the air and damages
vegetation. These BVOC emissions are accounted for in the air quality net benefit. The inventory
produces 297.4 pounds per year of monoterpenes and 470.7 pounds per year per year. Total VOCs
per year are 768.1 pounds per year. The inventoried trees removed or avoided more pollutants than
they emitted, resulting in a positive economic value. Table 5 lists the largest emitters of BVOCs
in the current inventory.
Table 5. Trees with Highest Emitting BVOCs in the Inventory
Species
Amount in
Inventory Monoterpene (lb/yr) Isoprene (lb/yr)
Total
VOCs (lb/yr)
Northern red oak 178 3.00 209.30 212.30
Norway spruce 145 94.40 81.80 176.20
Pin oak 47 1.10 75.20 76.30
Eastern white pine 313 75.60 0.50 76.10
White oak 39 0.70 45.60 46.30
Norway maple 431 30.50 0.40 30.90
Black walnut 84 25.20 0.20 25.40
Blue spruce 56 9.70 8.40 18.10
Eastern cottonwood 15 0.10 13.40 13.50
Sugar maple 164 11.50 0.10 11.60
White spruce 32 4.90 4.30 9.20
Black locust 80 0.60 8.40 9.00
Scots pine 32 5.80 0.00 5.90
Silver maple 41 5.20 0.10 5.30
Chestnut oak 4 0.10 4.20 4.20
Total Eco Inventory 2,787 297.40 470.70 768.10
Davey Resource Group 30 September 2019
Carbon Sequestration and Storage
Trees store some of the carbon dioxide
(CO2) they absorb. This prevents CO2
from reaching the upper atmosphere,
where it can react with other compounds
and form harmful gases like ozone,
which adversely affects air quality. These
trees also sequester some of the CO2
during growth (Nowak et al. 2013).
The i-Tree Eco calculation takes into
account the carbon emissions that are not
released from power stations due to the
heating and cooling effect of trees (i.e.,
conserved energy in buildings and
homes). It also calculates emissions
released during tree care and
maintenance, such as driving to the site
and operating equipment.
Cayuga Heights’ tree inventory
sequesters 19.76 tons of carbon annually,
based on reduction amounts of
atmospheric carbon. The carbon storage
amount reflects the amount of carbon the
trees have amassed during their lifetimes.
The total carbon storage of the complete inventory was valued at $238,078.27, with an annual
sequestration total of $3,369.34. The average carbon storage per tree was valued at $85.42, with
an average $1.21 per tree.
Per the inventory, the population of northern red oaks provided the most carbon benefits, with each
tree storing an annual average of $241.60 and sequestering $2.75 worth of carbon. All of the red
oaks in the inventory have amassed $43,005.23 worth of carbon. Table 6 lists the top performing
carbon storage and sequestration tree species population in the inventory.
On an average per tree basis, the top carbon storing tree species was pin oak at $461.51 per tree.
Pin oaks also accounted for the most annual carbon sequestration at $4.44 average per tree.
Existing overall population within the inventory, size and tree species characteristics all contribute
to these amounts. Table 7 lists the top performing carbon storage and sequestration tree species on
an average per tree basis in the inventory.
Photograph 6. Trees improve quality of life and help
enhance the character of a community. Trees filter
air, water, and sunlight, moderate local climate, slow
wind and stormwater, shade homes, and provide
shelter to animals and recreational areas for people.
Davey Resource Group 31 September 2019
Table 6. Top Performing Tree Species for Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Species Tree
Count
Total
Carbon
Storage(ton)
Total
Carbon
Storage ($)
Total Carbon
Sequestration
(ton/yr)
Carbon
Sequestration
($/yr)
northern red oak 178 252.15 $43,005.23 2.87 $489.44
eastern white pine 313 196.27 $33,473.98 2.27 $387.17
Norway maple 431 155.48 $26,518.06 2.85 $485.92
pin oak 47 127.18 $21,691.09 1.22 $208.89
silver maple 41 83.06 $14,165.87 0.57 $96.58
white oak 39 74.18 $12,651.13 0.79 $134.81
sugar maple 164 66.44 $11,331.72 1.27 $217.29
Norway spruce 145 58.43 $9,964.53 0.87 $147.65
black locust 80 54.84 $9,353.24 0.78 $132.98
black walnut 84 40.46 $6,901.20 0.76 $129.27
black cherry 30 19.22 $3,278.71 0.28 $47.68
shagbark hickory 57 17.27 $2,945.90 0.44 $75.11
boxelder 26 14.85 $2,532.69 0.16 $27.13
American basswood 47 13.04 $2,224.61 0.26 $44.02
green ash 51 12.93 $2,206.01 0.18 $30.15
white mulberry 30 12.69 $2,164.01 0.21 $35.22
honeylocust 22 11.90 $2,029.15 0.21 $36.52
eastern cottonwood 15 10.53 $1,795.18 0.12 $19.86
red maple 22 8.25 $1,407.40 0.15 $25.13
white ash 32 7.91 $1,349.13 0.19 $33.23
Siberian elm 12 7.90 $1,347.58 0.10 $16.38
apple species 35 7.68 $1,309.29 0.17 $28.76
Scots pine 32 7.58 $1,293.36 0.13 $21.98
blue spruce 56 6.79 $1,158.61 0.15 $26.08
northern hackberry 16 6.75 $1,150.77 0.13 $22.29
Total Eco Inventory 2,787 1395.94 $238,078.27 19.76 $3,369.34
Davey Resource Group 32 September 2019
Table 7. Top Performing Individual Tree Species for Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Species
Tree Count
Avg Carbon
Storage per Tree
(ton)
Avg Carbon
Storage per Tree
($)
Avg Carbon
Sequestration
(ton/yr/) per tree
Carbon
Sequestration
($/yr) per tree
pin oak 47 2.706 $461.51 0.026 $4.44
silver maple 41 2.026 $345.51 0.014 $2.36
white oak 39 1.902 $324.39 0.020 $3.46
northern red oak 178 1.417 $241.60 0.016 $2.75
eastern cottonwood 15 0.702 $119.68 0.008 $1.32
black locust 80 0.686 $116.92 0.010 $1.66
Siberian elm 12 0.658 $112.30 0.008 $1.37
black cherry 30 0.641 $109.29 0.009 $1.59
eastern white pine 313 0.627 $106.95 0.007 $1.24
boxelder 26 0.571 $97.41 0.006 $1.04
honeylocust 22 0.541 $92.23 0.010 $1.66
black walnut 84 0.482 $82.16 0.009 $1.54
white mulberry 30 0.423 $72.13 0.007 $1.17
northern hackberry 16 0.422 $71.92 0.008 $1.39
sugar maple 164 0.405 $69.10 0.008 $1.32
Norway spruce 145 0.403 $68.72 0.006 $1.02
red maple 22 0.375 $63.97 0.007 $1.14
Norway maple 431 0.361 $61.53 0.007 $1.13
shagbark hickory 57 0.303 $51.68 0.008 $1.32
American basswood 47 0.277 $47.33 0.006 $0.94
green ash 51 0.254 $43.26 0.004 $0.59
white ash 32 0.247 $42.16 0.006 $1.04
Scots pine 32 0.237 $40.42 0.004 $0.69
apple species 35 0.219 $37.41 0.005 $0.82
blue spruce 56 0.121 $20.69 0.003 $0.47
Total Eco Inventory 2,787 0.501 $85.42 0.007 $1.21
Davey Resource Group 33 September 2019
Stormwater Benefits
Trees intercept rainfall, which helps lower the cost of managing stormwater runoff. In the absence
of trees, precipitation results in quicker supersaturation of the soil which increases peak stormwater
flows. Leaf area attenuates the precipitation and the trees uptake some of the water. The
inventoried trees in Cayuga Heights intercept 1,977,922 gallons of rainfall annually based on
124.26 acres of total leaf area. The total avoided runoff is 435,274 gallons and the annual savings
for the Village in stormwater runoff management is $3,889. The avoided runoff model is based on
local weather station data and computed rainfall interception. i-Tree Eco models contrast the
calculated leaf area for a given geography versus zero leaf area for the same geography.
In the inventory, Norway maples contributed the most annual stormwater benefits. This is
attributable to the prevalence of Norway maple in the inventory, the size of these trees, and their
combined leaf area. The population of Norway maple (15.5% of the inventory) intercepted
approximately 369,409 gallons of rainfall. Table 8 lists the top performing tree genera for
stormwater benefits in the inventory.
On a per tree basis, large trees with leafy canopies provided the most value. An eastern cottonwood
in the inventory led the inventory with 3,878 gallons intercepted and 853 gallons of avoided runoff.
This cottonwood provided $7.63 annually in stormwater benefits. White oak, red oak, black
walnut, London planetree and other large-statured trees with big canopies are other top performers.
Table 8 lists the top individual trees for stormwater benefits in the inventory.
Davey Resource Group 34 September 2019
Table 8. Top Performing Tree Species for Stormwater Benefits in Cayuga Heights
Top 20 Species for Avoided Runoff in
Dollars Inventoried
Tree Count
Percent of
Inventory Total Rainfall
Interception
Total Avoided
Runoff
Common Name
Leaf Area
(acres) 2,787 Gallons / Year Dollars / Year
Norway maple 23.21 431 15.5 369,409 $726.55
eastern white pine 18.82 313 11.2 299,608 $589.26
northern red oak 12.53 178 6.4 199,473 $392.32
Norway spruce 9.06 145 5.2 144,232 $283.67
sugar maple 7.83 164 5.9 124,577 $245.02
black walnut 6.89 84 3.0 109,636 $215.63
silver maple 4.05 41 1.5 64,516 $126.89
pin oak 3.96 47 1.7 63,074 $124.05
black locust 3.74 80 2.9 59,457 $116.94
white oak 2.99 39 1.4 47,591 $93.60
American basswood 2.63 47 1.7 41,900 $82.41
shagbark hickory 1.83 57 2.0 29,197 $57.42
green ash 1.8 51 1.8 28,677 $56.40
black cherry 1.08 30 1.1 17,233 $33.89
white ash 1.06 32 1.1 16,823 $33.09
eastern red cedar 0.97 36 1.3 15,439 $30.37
Scots pine 0.97 32 1.1 15,426 $30.34
white mulberry 0.95 30 1.1 15,167 $29.83
eastern hemlock 0.95 61 2.2 15,095 $29.69
European beech 0.94 13 0.5 15,038 $29.58
blue spruce 0.91 56 2.0 14,559 $28.63
boxelder 0.91 26 0.9 14,446 $28.41
red maple 0.9 22 0.8 14,246 $28.02
northern hackberry 0.89 16 0.6 14,220 $27.97
eastern cottonwood 0.88 15 0.5 14,076 $27.68
eastern redbud 0.7 54 1.9 11,182 $21.99
Davey Resource Group 35 September 2019
Table 9. Top Performing Individual Trees for Stormwater Benefits in the Inventory
Tree
ID
Species
Name
Leaf
Area(ft²)
Potential
Evapotranspiration
(gal/yr)
Evaporation
(gal/yr)
Transpiration(
gal/yr)
Water
Intercepted
(gal/yr)
Avoided
Runoff
(gal/yr)
Avoided
Runoff
Value
($/yr)
1136 eastern
cottonwood
10613.90
17,457
3,873
6,083
3,878
853
$7.63
2230 white oak 9614.00 15,813 3,509 5,511 3,513 773 $6.91
1617 northern
red oak 9212.50 15,152 3,362 5,280 3,366 741 $6.62
5076 European
beech 8990.40 14,787 3,281 5,153 3,285 723 $6.46
4192 white oak 8870.00 14,589 3,237 5,084 3,241 714 $6.37
4334 black
walnut 8744.90 14,383 3,191 5,012 3,195 703 $6.28
4948 black
walnut 8744.90 14,383 3,191 5,012 3,195 703 $6.28
3909 silver
maple 8539.10 14,044 3,116 4,894 3,120 687 $6.14
1848 London
planetree 8536.90 14,041 3,115 4,893 3,119 687 $6.13
1588 northern
red oak 8407.00 13,828 3,068 4,819 3,072 676 $6.04
1634 northern
red oak 8407.00 13,828 3,068 4,819 3,072 676 $6.04
4608 northern
red oak 8407.00 13,828 3,068 4,819 3,072 676 $6.04
4779 northern
red oak 8407.00 13,828 3,068 4,819 3,072 676 $6.04
1559 northern
red oak 8162.90 13,426 2,979 4,679 2,983 657 $5.87
1466 Norway
spruce 8040.20 13,224 2,934 4,608 2,938 646 $5.78
2168 Norway
spruce 8040.20 13,224 2,934 4,608 2,938 646 $5.78
2319 Norway
spruce 8040.20 13,224 2,934 4,608 2,938 646 $5.78
4277 black
walnut 8004.10 13,165 2,921 4,587 2,925 643 $5.75
4222 northern
red oak 7705.00 12,673 2,812 4,416 2,815 619 $5.54
Davey Resource Group 36 September 2019
Structural Values
The most straightforward way to establish a monetary value for an urban forest is by establishing
a structural value. Generally, this value represents the amount it would cost to replace all of the
trees in the urban forest. The structural value provides an approximation of the investment in
planning, resources, and time that have gone into the establishment and maintenance of the urban
forest. Carbon storage is considered a structural value and is noted as $238,078.27 and reviewed
in the previous carbon sequestration and carbon heading.
Tree Values
The structural value of the entire inventory is valued at $5,219,503, with a per tree average of
$1,872. The 25 highest valued populations in the inventory are listed in Table 10. The population
of eastern white pines was found to be the highest valued street tree species. Table 11 lists the 25
highest valued individual trees in the inventory; a baldcypress was the top valued tree.
Table 10. Trees with Highest Structural Value in the Inventory
Species Trees in
Inventory
Structural Value in
Dollars
Structural Value per
Tree in Dollars
eastern white pine 313 $1,156,684.06 $3,695.48
northern red oak 178 $803,119.43 $4,511.91
Norway maple 431 $546,033.04 $1,266.90
Norway spruce 145 $313,067.10 $2,159.08
pin oak 47 $300,354.45 $6,390.52
sugar maple 164 $265,204.71 $1,617.10
white oak 39 $237,492.78 $6,089.56
black walnut 84 $159,226.84 $1,895.56
black locust 80 $130,574.36 $1,632.18
silver maple 41 $121,140.28 $2,954.64
American basswood 47 $95,114.12 $2,023.70
shagbark hickory 57 $72,763.51 $1,276.55
green ash 51 $64,448.85 $1,263.70
northern white cedar 62 $55,254.93 $891.21
Scots pine 32 $50,679.92 $1,583.75
honeylocust 22 $45,947.89 $2,088.54
black cherry 30 $40,598.34 $1,353.28
blue spruce 56 $39,237.45 $700.67
white mulberry 30 $36,922.60 $1,230.75
eastern red cedar 36 $34,390.71 $955.30
white ash 32 $34,359.06 $1,073.72
red maple 22 $31,708.57 $1,441.30
eastern hemlock 61 $31,194.45 $511.38
apple species 35 $30,640.08 $875.43
Total 2,787 $5,219,503.40 $1,872.80
Davey Resource Group 37 September 2019
Table 11. Individual Trees in the Inventory with Highest Structural Values
Species Tree ID # in
Inventory
Structural Value in
Dollars
Structural Value per
Tree in Dollars
baldcypress 1 $7,185.82 $7,185.82
pin oak 47 $300,354.45 $6,390.52
white oak 39 $237,492.78 $6,089.56
chestnut oak 4 $18,954.04 $4,738.51
northern red oak 178 $803,119.43 $4,511.91
bur oak 2 $9,018.95 $4,509.48
eastern white pine 313 $1,156,684.06 $3,695.48
black maple 1 $3,603.21 $3,603.21
London planetree 2 $6,912.74 $3,456.37
silver maple 41 $121,140.28 $2,954.64
American yellowwood 1 $2,833.69 $2,833.69
Norway spruce 145 $313,067.10 $2,159.08
honeylocust 22 $45,947.89 $2,088.54
Douglas fir 5 $10,134.47 $2,026.89
American basswood 47 $95,114.12 $2,023.70
black walnut 84 $159,226.84 $1,895.56
European beech 13 $24,428.08 $1,879.08
horse chestnut 2 $3,712.24 $1,856.12
black oak 4 $7,165.53 $1,791.38
Freeman maple 4 $6,608.39 $1,652.10
hawthorn species 2 $3,299.97 $1,649.99
birch species 1 $1,644.20 $1,644.20
black locust 80 $130,574.36 $1,632.18
sugar maple 164 $265,204.71 $1,617.10
Total Inventory 2,787 $5,219,503.40 $1,872.80
Discussion
The i-Tree Eco analysis found that the inventoried trees provide environmental and economic
benefits to the community by virtue of their mere presence on the streets. Trees manage stormwater
through rainfall interception, provide shade and windbreaks to reduce energy usage, and store and
sequester CO2.
To increase the benefits that its street trees provide, the Village should prioritize planting large-
statured tree species where site conditions permit. Working with the i-Tree species tool in
conjunction with site analysis can provide appropriate tree selections for Cayuga Heights
(https://species.itreetools.org/).
Davey Resource Group 38 September 2019
● The net air quality improvement provided by inventoried trees is valued at approximately
$2,980 per year with the removal of 1,278 pounds annually. Norway maple and eastern
white pine are the largest contributors to air quality improvement due to their prevalence
in the inventory.
● Carbon sequestration totals 19.76 tons per year and is valued at $3,369 annually.
● Carbon storage in the form of tree biomass amounts to 1,400 tons with an estimated value
of $238,078.
● 52.7 tons of Oxygen is produced annually.
● Inventoried trees intercept 1,977,922 gallons of stormwater per year and 435,274 gallons
of avoided runoff. This is an average of 156 gallons per tree. The total annual value of this
benefit is $3,889 for an average value of $1.40 per tree.
● The structural value of Village street trees is $5.22 million dollars (replacement cost).
● Inventoried trees account for 24.99 acres of tree cover and 124.26 acres of leaf area.
Davey Resource Group 39 September 2019
SECTION 3: TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
This tree management program was developed to uphold Cayuga Heights’ comprehensive vision
for preserving its urban forest. This five-year program is based on the 2019 tree inventory data.
The program was designed to reduce risk through prioritized tree removal and pruning, and to
improve tree health and structure through proactive pruning cycles. Tree planting to mitigate
removals and increase canopy cover and public outreach are important parts of the program as
well.
While implementing a tree care program is an ongoing process, tree work must always be
prioritized to reduce public safety risks. DRG recommends completing the work identified during
the inventory based on the assigned risk rating; however, routinely monitoring the tree population
is essential so that other Extreme or High Risk trees can be identified and systematically addressed.
While regular pruning cycles and tree planting are important, priority work (especially for Extreme
and High Risk trees) must sometimes take precedence to ensure that risk is expediently managed.
Inspections
Inspections are essential to uncovering potential problems with trees. They should be performed
by a qualified arborist who is trained in the art and science of planting, caring for, and maintaining
individual trees. An example would be an arborist who is an ISA Certified Arborist with Tree Risk
Assessment Qualification (TRAQ). Arborists are knowledgeable about the needs of trees and are
trained and equipped to provide proper care.
Trees along the street ROW should be regularly inspected and attended to as needed based on the
inspection findings. When trees need additional or new work, they should be added to the
maintenance schedule and budgeted appropriately. Utilize computer management software, such
as TreeKeeper®, to update inventory data and work records. In addition to locating potential new
hazards, inspections are an opportunity to look for signs and symptoms of pests and diseases.
Cayuga Heights has a large population of trees that are susceptible to pests and diseases, such as
ash, oak, and maple. Ongoing inspections are paramount to a good urban forestry management
program.
Davey Resource Group 40 September 2019
Priority and Proactive Maintenance
In this plan, the recommended tree maintenance work was divided into either priority or proactive
maintenance. Priority maintenance includes tree removals and pruning of trees with an assessed
risk rating of High and Extreme. Proactive tree maintenance includes pruning of trees with an
assessed risk of Moderate Risk, Low Risk and young trees. Tree planting, inspections, and
community outreach are also considered proactive maintenance.
•Perform tree maintenance immediately to reduce hazards
•Includes tree removal and pruning
•Mostly high-use areas
Extreme • Risk
•Perform tree maintenance immediately to reduce hazards and improve tree health
•Includes tree removal and pruning
•Generally high-use areas
High Risk
•Perform tree maintenance as soon as possible to improve tree health
•Includes tree removal and pruning
•May be high- or low-use areas
Moderate Risk
•Perform tree maintenance when convenient to improve aesthetics and eliminate nuisance trees and
stumps
•Includes tree removals and pruning
•Mostly low-use areas but may be high-use areas as well Low Risk
Routine
Pruning
•Perform tree maintenance when convenient to improve aesthetics and eliminate nuisance trees
Training
Prune
•Perform corrective pruning to young trees to increase structural integrity and develop a strong
architecture of branches before serious problems develop
Davey Resource Group 42 September 2019
Tree and Stump Removal
Although tree removal is usually considered a last resort and may sometimes create a reaction from
the community, there are circumstances in which removal is necessary. Trees fail from natural
causes, such as diseases, insects, weather conditions, physical injury due to vehicles, vandalism
and root disturbances. DRG recommends that trees be removed when corrective pruning will not
adequately eliminate the hazard or when correcting problems would be cost- prohibitive. Trees
that cause obstructions or interfere with power lines or other infrastructure should be removed
when their defects cannot be corrected through pruning or other maintenance practices. Diseased
and nuisance trees also warrant removal.
Tree removal priority is based upon the evaluated risk assessment and DBH of the inventoried
trees. Even though large short-term expenditures may be required, it is important to secure the
funding needed to complete priority tree removals. Expedient removal reduces risk and promotes
public safety. Figure 15 presents tree removals by risk rating and diameter size class.
Figure 15. Tree removals by risk rating and diameter size class.
The inventory identified two Extreme Risk trees, 53 High Risk trees, 95 Moderate Risk trees, and
269 Low Risk trees that are recommended for removal. Healthy trees growing in poor locations or
undesirable species are also included in this category. The diameter size classes for High Risk trees
ranged between 4 and 42 inches DBH. These trees should be removed based on their assigned risk.
Most Moderate Risk trees were smaller than 19 inches DBH. These trees should be removed as
soon as possible after all Extreme and High Risk removals have been completed. Low Risk
removals pose little threat; these trees are generally small, dead, invasive, or poorly formed trees
that need to be removed when feasible. Eliminating these trees will reduce breeding site locations
1″–3″4″–6″7″–12″13″–18″19″–24″25″–30″31″–36″37″–42″≥43″
Low 21 56 132 35 20 4 1
Moderate 5 34 33 14 7 1 1
High 5 22 12 9 2 1 2
Extreme 1 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
e
e
s
Diameter Size Class
Ri
s
k
R
a
t
i
n
g
Davey Resource Group 43 September 2019
for insects and diseases and will increase the aesthetic value of the area. The inventory identified
57 stumps recommended for removal. Stump removals should occur when convenient; they are an
aesthetic concern and a safety issue for larger sized diameter stumps. The stump sizes range from
2 to 55 inches.
Discussion
Trees not recommended for removal, but with defects noted as having dead or dying parts (907
trees) or missing and decayed (125 trees), should be inspected on a regular basis. Corrective action
should be taken when warranted. If their condition worsens, tree removal may be required.
Proactive tree maintenance that actively mitigates elevated risk situations will promote public
safety.
Continue to update this new tree inventory data. Doing so can streamline workload management
and lend insight into setting accurate budgets and staffing levels. Inventory updates should be
made electronically and can be implemented using TreeKeeper® or similar computer software.
Tree Pruning
Extreme and High Risk pruning generally requires cleaning the canopy of both small and large
trees to remove defects such as dead and/or broken branches that may be present even when the
rest of the tree is sound. In these cases, pruning the branch or branches can correct the problem
and reduce risk associated with the tree. Figure 16 presents the number of trees recommended for
pruning by risk and size class. Trees in the below chart represent trees noted as pruning required
during inventory collection; not every tree in the inventory will require pruning.
Figure 16. Pruning by risk and diameter size class.
1″–3″4″–6″7″–12″13″–18″19″–24″25″–30″31″–36″37″–42″≥43″
Extreme 0
High 1 3 6 3 1 3 1
Moderate 7 28 10 8 1 4
Low 30 128 388 334 206 122 38 28 8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
e
e
s
Diameter Size Class
Davey Resource Group 44 September 2019
Discussion
The inventory identified 18 High Risk trees and 58
Moderate Risk trees recommended for pruning.
High Risk trees ranged in diameter size classes
from 13–18 inches DBH to 25–30 inches DBH.
This pruning should be performed immediately
based on assigned risk and may be performed
concurrently with other Extreme and High Risk
removals. Moderate and Low Risk trees
recommended for pruning should be included in a
proactive, routine pruning cycle after all the higher
risk trees are addressed. Figure 17 represents the
association between condition rating and time
between pruning for urban trees.
Pruning Cycles
The goals of pruning cycles are to visit, assess, and
prune trees on a regular schedule to improve health
and reduce risk. DRG recommends that pruning
cycles begin after all Extreme and High Risk trees
are corrected through removal or pruning.
However, due to the long-term benefits of pruning
cycles, DRG recommends that the cycles be implemented as soon as possible. To ensure that all
trees receive the type of pruning they need to mature with better structure and lower associated
risk, two pruning cycles are recommended: the young tree training cycle (YTT Cycle) and the
routine pruning cycle (RP Cycle). The cycles differ in the type of pruning, the general age of the
target tree, and cycle length.
The recommended number of trees in the pruning cycles will need to be modified to reflect changes
in the tree population as trees are planted, age, and die. Newly planted trees will enter the YTT
Cycle once they become established. As young trees reach maturity, they will be shifted from the
YTT Cycle into the RP Cycle. When a tree reaches the end of its useful life, it should be removed,
eliminated from the RP Cycle and the inventory updated.
Figure 17. Relationship between average
tree condition class and the number of
years since the most recent pruning
(adapted from Miller and Sylvester 1981).
Why Prune Trees on a Cycle?
Miller and Sylvester (1981) examined the frequency of
pruning for 40,000 street and boulevard trees in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. They documented a decline in tree health as the
length of the pruning cycle increased. When pruning was
not completed for more than 10 years, the average tree
condition was rated 10% lower than when trees had been
pruned within the last several years. Miller and Sylvester
suggested that a pruning cycle of five years is optimal for
urban trees.
Davey Resource Group 45 September 2019
For many communities, a proactive tree management program is considered unfeasible. An on-
demand response to urgent situations is commonplace. Research has shown that a proactive
program that includes a routine pruning cycle will improve the overall health of a tree population
(Miller and Sylvester 1981). Proactive tree maintenance has many advantages over on-demand
maintenance, the most significant of which is reduced risk. In a proactive program, trees are
regularly inspected and pruned, which helps detect and eliminate most defects before they escalate
to a hazardous situation with an unacceptable level of risk. Other advantages of a proactive
program include increased environmental and economic benefits from trees, more predictable
budgets and projectable workloads, and reduced long term tree maintenance costs.
Young Tree Training Cycle
YTT pruning is performed to improve tree
form or structure; the recommended length
of a YTT Cycle is three years because young
trees tend to grow at faster rates (on average)
than more mature trees.
Trees included in the YTT Cycle are
generally less than 8 inches DBH. These
younger trees sometimes have branch
structures that can lead to potential problems
as the tree ages. Potential structural
problems include codominant leaders,
multiple limbs attaching at the same point on
the trunk or crossing/interfering limbs. If
these problems are not corrected, they may
worsen as the tree grows, increasing risk and
creating potential liability.
The YTT Cycle differs from the RP Cycle in
that these trees generally can be pruned from
the ground with a pole pruner or pruning
shear. The objective is to increase structural
integrity by pruning for one dominant
leader. YTT Pruning is species-specific,
since many trees such as Betula nigra (river birch) may naturally have more than one leader. For
such trees, YTT pruning is performed to develop a strong structural architecture of branches so
future growth will lead to a healthy, structurally sound tree.
Discussion
DRG recommends that Cayuga Heights implement a three-year YTT Cycle to begin after all
Extreme and High Risk trees are removed or pruned. During the inventory, 554 trees smaller than
7 inches DBH were inventoried and recommended for young tree training. Since the number of
existing young trees is relatively small, and the benefit of beginning the YTT Cycle is substantial,
DRG recommends that an average of 285 trees be structurally pruned each year over 3 years,
beginning in Year One of the management program.
Photograph 7. An Ulmus hybrid, “Accolade” in
Cayuga Heights with proper planting technique
and protection in place.
Davey Resource Group 46 September 2019
When new trees are planted, they will need to enter the YTT Cycle after establishment, typically
a 2 years after planting. Figure 18 displays the number of trees in each DBH range which are
recommended to enter the YTT as of the 2019 inventory.
In future years, the number of trees in the YTT Cycle will be based on tree planting efforts and
growth rates of young trees. The Village should strive to prune approximately one-third of its
young trees each year.
Figure 18. Trees recommended for the YTT Cycle by diameter size class.
Routine Pruning Cycle
The RP Cycle includes established, maturing, and mature trees (mostly greater than 8 inches DBH)
that need cleaning, crown raising, and reducing to remove deadwood and improve structure. Over
time, routine pruning can reduce reactive maintenance, minimize instances of elevated risk, and
provide the basis for a more defensible risk management program. Included in this cycle are
Moderate and Low Risk trees that require pruning and pose some risk but have a smaller size of
defect and/or less potential for target impact. The defects found within these trees can usually be
remediated during the RP Cycle.
The length of the RP Cycle is based on the size of the tree population and what was assumed to be
a reasonable number of trees for a program to prune per year. Generally, the RP Cycle
recommended for a tree population is five years but may extend to seven years if the population is
large or budget restrictions.
1-3"4-6"7-12"
Young Tree Training 184 370 867
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
e
e
s
Young Tree Training
Davey Resource Group 47 September 2019
Figure 19. Trees recommended for the RP Cycle by diameter size class.
Discussion
DRG recommends that the Village establish a five-year RP Cycle in which approximately one-
fifth of the tree population is to be pruned each year. The 2019 tree inventory identified
approximately 2,787 trees with Moderate and Low Risk that should be pruned over a five-year RP
Cycle. An average of 550 trees should be pruned each year over the course of the cycle. DRG
recommends that the RP Cycle begin in Year One of this five-year plan, after all Extreme and High
Risk trees are pruned.
As of the 2019 tree inventory, 1,358 trees (48%) were identified during inventory collection which
recommended routine pruning at this time. Figure 19 shows that a variety of tree sizes will enter
the RPP and possibly require pruning; however, most of the trees that require routine pruning were
smaller than 24 inches DBH.
Maintenance Schedule
Utilizing data from the 2019 Village of Cayuga Heights tree inventory, an annual maintenance
schedule was developed which details the number and type of tasks recommended for completion
each year. DRG made budget projections using industry knowledge and public bid tabulations. A
summary of the maintenance schedule is presented; a complete table of estimated costs for Cayuga
Heights’ five-year tree management program follows.
The schedule provides a framework for completing the inventory maintenance recommendations
over the next five years. Following this schedule can shift tree care activities from an on-demand
system to a more proactive tree care program. The current budget of $10,000 appears to be
inadequate to catch up with the deferred maintenance costs and enacting a proactive program.
1″–3″4″–6″7″–12″13″–18″19″–24″25″–30″31″–36″37″–42″≥43″
Moderate 0 5 45 63 24 15 2 5 0
Low 206 411 949 520 293 153 53 35 8
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
e
e
s
Diameter Size Class
Ri
s
k
R
a
t
i
n
g
Davey Resource Group 48 September 2019
To implement the maintenance schedule, the Village’s tree maintenance budget should be no less
than $109,617 for the first year of implementation, with decreasing amounts to $96,003 by the
fifth year. Annual budget funds are needed to ensure that Extreme and High Risk trees are
remediated and that crucial YTT and RP Cycles can begin. With proper professional tree care, the
safety, health, and beauty of the urban forest will improve. If routing efficiencies and/or contract
specifications allow for the completion of more tree work, or if the schedule requires modification
to meet budgetary or other needs, then the schedule should be modified accordingly. Unforeseen
situations such as severe weather events may arise and change the maintenance needs of trees.
Should conditions or maintenance needs change, budgets and equipment will need to be adjusted
to meet the new demands.
This proposed budget makes an extraordinary assumption of unlimited funds and offers cost
estimates to complete all the work identified in the inventory within five years. The overarching
goal of budget terms is to create a sense of cost for cleaning the existing inventory and eliminating
all observed risk in the inventory. Existing budgets will define the value of the resource but
consider eliminating the items of highest risk with larger DBH to begin the process of moving into
a proactive urban forestry program. It is understood the total budget numbers are quite larger than
the actual line items for the existing program.
Davey Resource Group
49 September 2019
Table 12. Estimated Costs for Five-Year Urban Forestry Management Program
Estimated Costs for Each Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Five-Year
Cost Activity Diameter Cost/Tree # of
Trees Total Cost # of
Trees Total Cost # of
Trees Total Cost # of
Trees Total Cost # of
Trees Total Cost
Extreme and
High Risk
Removals
1-3" $28 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0
4-6" $58 5 $288 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $288
7-12" $138 22 $3,025 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $3,025
13-18" $314 13 $4,076 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $4,076
19-24" $605 9 $5,445 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $5,445
25-30" $825 3 $2,475 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $2,475
31-36" $1,045 1 $1,045 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $1,045
37-42" $1,485 2 $2,970 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $2,970
43"+ $2,035 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0
Activity Total(s) 55 $19,323 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $19,323
Moderate and
Low Risk
Removals
1-3" $28 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 21 $578 $578
4-6" $58 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 61 $3,508 $3,508
7-12" $138 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 83 $11,413 83 $11,413 $22,825
13-18" $314 0 $0 0 $0 34 $10,659 34 $10,659 0 $0 $21,318
19-24" $605 0 $0 15 $9,075 19 $11,495 0 $0 0 $0 $20,570
25-30" $825 0 $0 11 $9,075 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $9,075
31-36" $1,045 0 $0 2 $2,090 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $2,090
37-42" $1,485 0 $0 1 $1,485 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $1,485
43"+ $2,035 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0
Activity Total(s) 0 $0 29 $21,725 53 $22,154 117 $22,072 165 $15,498 $81,448
Stump
Removals
1-3" $18 0 $0 0 $0 1 $18 0 $0 0 $0 $18
4-6" $28 0 $0 0 $0 2 $55 0 $0 0 $0 $55
7-12" $44 0 $0 0 $0 19 $836 0 $0 0 $0 $836
13-18" $72 0 $0 11 $787 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $787
19-24" $94 0 $0 14 $1,309 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $1,309
25-30" $110 4 $440 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $440
31-36" $138 3 $413 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $413
37-42" $160 1 $160 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $160
43"+ $182 1 $182 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $182
Activity Total(s) 9 $1,194 25 $2,096 22 $909 0 $0 0 $0 $4,198
High Risk
Pruning
1-3" $20 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0
4-6" $30 1 $30 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $30
7-12" $75 3 $225 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $225
13-18" $120 6 $720 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $720
19-24" $170 3 $510 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $510
25-30" $225 1 $225 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $225
31-36" $305 3 $915 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $915
37-42" $380 1 $380 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $380
43"+ $590 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0
Activity Total(s) 18 $3,005 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $3,005
Routine
Pruning
(5-year cycle)
1-3" $20 46 $920 40 $800 40 $800 40 $800 40 $800 $4,120
4-6" $30 91 $2,730 80 $2,400 80 $2,400 80 $2,400 80 $2,400 $12,330
7-12" $75 189 $14,175 190 $14,250 190 $14,250 190 $14,250 190 $14,250 $71,175
13-18" $120 104 $12,480 104 $12,480 104 $12,480 104 $12,480 104 $12,480 $62,400
19-24" $170 53 $9,010 60 $10,200 60 $10,200 60 $10,200 60 $10,200 $49,810
25-30" $225 33 $7,425 30 $6,750 30 $6,750 30 $6,750 30 $6,750 $34,425
31-36" $305 13 $3,965 10 $3,050 10 $3,050 10 $3,050 10 $3,050 $16,165
37-42" $380 7 $2,660 7 $2,660 7 $2,660 7 $2,660 7 $2,660 $13,300
43"+ $590 8 $4,720 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $4,720
Activity Total(s) 544 $58,085 521 $52,590 521 $52,590 521 $52,590 521 $52,590 $268,445
Young Tree
Training
Pruning
(3-year cycle)
1-3" $20 37 $740 37 $740 37 $740 37 $740 36 $720 $3,680
4-6" $30 74 $2,220 74 $2,220 74 $2,220 74 $2,220 74 $2,220 $11,100
7-12" $75 174 $13,050 174 $13,050 173 $12,975 173 $12,975 173 $12,975 $65,025
Activity Total(s) 285 $16,010 285 $16,010 284 $15,935 284 $15,935 283 $15,915 $79,805
Replacement
Tree Planting
Purchasing $170 25 $4,250 25 $4,250 25 $4,250 25 $4,250 25 $4,250 $21,250
Planting $110 25 $2,750 25 $2,750 25 $2,750 25 $2,750 25 $2,750 $13,750
Activity Total(s) 50 $7,000 50 $7,000 50 $7,000 50 $7,000 50 $7,000 $35,000
Replacement
Young Tree
Maintenance
Mulching $100 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 $12,500
Watering $100 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 25 $2,500 $12,500
Activity Total(s) 50 $5,000 50 $5,000 50 $5,000 50 $5,000 50 $5,000 $25,000
Activity Grand Total 961 910 930 972 1,019
Cost Grand Total $109,617 $104,421 $103,588 $102,597 $96,003 $516,224
Davey Resource Group 50 September 2019
SECTION 4: STORM RESPONSE READINESS
The Village of Cayuga Heights, New York lies in a climate zone that exhibits four distinct seasons.
This creates the potential for rapid changes in temperature, humidity and barometric pressure. It
also sets the stage for severe weather events, such as tornadoes, thunderstorms, hurricanes, hail,
high winds, ice, and snow. Severe weather can create catastrophic damage and significant volumes
debris that needs to be processed. Therefore, proactive municipalities have developed emergency
response and recovery plans. Traditionally, these readiness plans address serious public safety and
health issues, but commonly overlook trees and woody debris in the mitigation efforts.
When catastrophic disasters such as tornadoes, ice storms, and severe straight-line winds strike a
metropolitan center, thousands to millions of cubic yards of debris are produced. Trees and
vegetation can account for approximately 30% of this debris volume. Beyond the task of collecting
and disposing of this debris are additional urban forest management considerations, including
increased threat to life, hindrance to life-saving efforts, power outages and property damage. The
impacts of these additional tree-related considerations are not always quantifiable but can
overwhelm smaller community capabilities and slow down the recovery process.
Global climate change manifested by increased rainfall and atmospheric instability present a sense
of urgency for urban forestry professionals. Although beginning off the coast of western Africa,
hurricanes do have a history of engaging Tompkins County. Hurricane Nate from 2017 was the
most recent, followed by Ernesto, 2006; Dennis, 1999; and Frederic, 1979. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration reports from 1961 through 2011, only seven tornadoes have
touched down in Tompkins County. Further they were of smaller scale, level one on the Fujita -
Pearson scale. The threat of tornadoes, and the resulting damage that occurs, is relatively low in
Cayuga Heights. Nationally, New York State is classified as a moderate risk for tornadoes based
on the number of confirmed touch downs, but with the changing climate, the region is experiencing
more frequent and severe non-tornado weather events and challenging winter storms.
There are a number of threats facing Cayuga Heights in the coming years that will stress and likely
reduce the overall canopy cover. The loss of canopy poses a threat to air and water quality and
leads to higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere, more heat stress, and a degradation of quality
of neighborhoods and property values. The following sections provide a summary of potential
future threats. The main urban forestry concerns for this Village are the threats of winter storms
including ice storms.
Increased Frequency of Severe Storms
As a result of sea level changes, increases in the frequency and severity of storms are occurring
throughout the East Coast and into central New York State. This impacts the urban forest in several
ways:
• More storm damage and subsequent loss of trees.
• Poorly or infrequently managed trees are more susceptible to breakage in storms.
• Premature post-storm tree removals on private land tend to occur, often as a result of fear
and lack of professional assessment.
• Power outages occur when the wrong trees are situated next to power lines.
• High volumes of stormwater runoff due to extensive hard surfaces and less green land
Davey Resource Group 51 September 2019
cover exacerbate an already difficult problem.
A comprehensive urban forest management plan greatly reduces storm hazards through proper
planting and preventive maintenance. However, when disasters occur, an emergency plan as an
addendum to this plan can provide solid data, facts, and protocols to ensure service continuity and
timely recovery and restoration.
Funding and Budget for Urban Forest Emergencies
While the scope of this plan does not permit detailed budgeting estimates, Cayuga Heights is
strongly encouraged to analyze past storm events (winter storm events) and provide for enough
regular funding and contingency funding to support an adequate response for various levels of
storm damage. Storm and emergency response will require funding for staff overtime, contractual
services, and equipment rental.
Removal of debris from public property is eligible for reimbursement from FEMA under most
cases when a Federal Disaster has been declared and when it constitutes an immediate threat to
life, public safety, or improved property. This includes the removal of tree debris (downed limbs,
trees) and the pruning or removal of trees to remove imminent hazards (hanging limbs or trees so
damaged that they are structurally unstable). Any tree debris located on public rights-of-way are
eligible. This includes material that originated on private property that is dragged to the right-of-
way by residents during a specified period.
In order to receive FEMA funding, it is critical to be prepared and fully document all losses and
money spent (updated tree inventory). Most damage assessments through FEMA must be done
immediately after the disaster event. The calculated dollar amount is then sent to the County
Emergency Management Director. FEMA has a public assistance program that is open to
municipal departments and non- profit hospitals. These grants can be applied for to assist with a
variety damages, including debris removal and emergency protective measures.
Historically, FEMA funding for storm damage mitigation reimbursements has been made available
in New York. In 2014 $9.6 million in public assistance grants were provided in the state after a
severe winter storm occurred in January.
FEMA Funding Programs
Following is a summary of key federal disaster aid programs that were offered by FEMA and
administered by the state in 2014 when under a presidential disaster declaration:
• Payment of not less than 75% of the eligible costs for emergency protective measures taken
to save lives and protect property and public health. Emergency protective measures
assistance is available to state and eligible local governments on a cost-sharing basis
(Source: FEMA funded; state administered).
Davey Resource Group 52 September 2019
• Payment of no less than 75% of the eligible costs for repairing or replacing damaged public
facilities, such as roads, bridges, utilities, buildings, schools, recreational areas and similar
publicly owned property, as well as certain private non-profit organizations engaged in
community service activities (Source: FEMA funded, state administered).
• Payment of no less than 75% for snow assistance, for a specific period of time during or
proximate to the incident period. Snow Assistance may include snow removal, de-icing,
salting, snow dumps, and sanding of roads (Source: FEMA funded, state administered).
• Payment of no more than 75% of the approved costs for hazard mitigation projects
undertaken by state and local governments to prevent or reduce long-term risk to life and
property from natural or technological disasters (Source: FEMA funded; state
administered).
Storm Related Training
The Cayuga Heights forestry staff should receive safety and technical training through in-the-field
and classroom methods. To ensure safe and effective work, staff should receive regular and
updated training sessions for first-aid, CPR, chainsaw use, tree risk assessment, and minimum
approach distances for energized electric lines. These topics should be considered as basic
minimum training opportunities.
Additional training should be provided to key personnel in topics that include electric hazard
assessment (EHAP), aerial lift training, advanced climbing, crane operations, and aerial rescue.
Consider having key staff members receive training to become ISA Certified Arborists. Develop
annual scenario training with tree emergency response topics and situations. More storm related
information can be found in Appendix E.
Findings
Tree Population Characteristics Related to Storm Damage Risks
With the recent tree inventory data, the vulnerability of Cayuga Heights’ urban forest from severe
weather events can be assessed. Certain species of trees are more prone to breaking and splitting
in storms (i.e., silver maple and callery pear). Trees that are under utility lines and have been poorly
pruned in the past are more prone to storm damage; trees in poor condition or with crown, trunk,
or root defects can fail in even moderate storms. Trees under stress from insect and disease
pressures are also more likely to fail in a storm. Therefore, it is beneficial to examine the urban
forest data to do a generalized vulnerability assessment of the Cayuga Heights in terms of its urban
forest resource.
Tree Condition
The Village tree inventory collected data on 2,851 total trees with condition ratings. Cayuga
Heights is recommended to remove the dead trees, perform recommended maintenance along
major arterials to avoid road blockage along their important routes. Certainly, the deferred
maintenance of the Dead and Poor rated trees should be a removal priority and replaced with
healthy trees of substantial caliber suited for weather conditions of the region. Approximately 9%
of the inventory are Poor rated trees, with 4% being Dead.
Davey Resource Group 53 September 2019
In addition to health of a tree, maturity has shown to be a factor during storms. Mature trees that
may fail during a storm can create a higher risk of causing damage and creating excessive debris.
Mature trees that have been adjacent to recent construction pose an increased risk due to potential
for stress and damage to the tree's critical root system.
Storm Prone Species Frequency
Cayuga Heights’ urban forest shows concern for diversity. Maple is the only genus that exceeds
the desired 20% rule. Norway maple which can also suffer large damage in storms make up 15%
of Cayuga Heights’ species. Tree species such as silver maple and Siberian elm should be avoided
when possible. These trees, which are fast-growing and weak-wooded species, are more prone to
storm damage and should be monitored closely for defects and disease. Additionally, Hauer et al
(2006) describe Siberian elm, honeylocust, Bradford pear, common hackberry, pin oak, sycamore,
green ash, and tulip tree as trees species susceptible to ice damage in Illinois. Larger diameter trees
with broader crowns incurred the most ice damage with larger DBH trees and exhibited increased
removal rates among the species mentioned. Finally, Sisinni et al (1995) analyzed storm event data
from Rochester, New York and found that green ash, silver maple, London planetree, callery
(Bradford) pear, Norway maple, honeylocust, red maple, littleleaf linden, and sugar maple were
the tree species most susceptible to ice storm damage.
Table 13 below combines the findings made in these two studies and lists the most prevalent tree
species in Cayuga Heights’ inventory susceptible to storm damage. Norway maple is not only the
most prevalent of these species, but it is also designated as an invasive species in New York State.
Removal of these trees and replacement with a native species where appropriate is recommended.
Table 13. Storm Prone Tree Species in the Inventory
Insect and Disease Issues
Urban forests are consistently under pressure from invasive insects and diseases, but the frequency
and severity of such problems are likely to worsen throughout the United States as the climate
warms. The solution for local communities lies in proper proactive care (budgeting, monitoring,
smart management) as well as planting more resistant tree species. Appendix D contains more
information for regional pests.
Discussion
With this Storm Response Readiness Strategy, and other urban forest management resources
available to Cayuga Heights, such as the tree inventory, TreeKeeper® software, and the urban
forest management plan, the Village of Cayuga Heights is fairly well prepared to handle the severe
weather events that inevitably will impact Cayuga Heights’ trees.
Species Amount in Inventory Percent of Tree Inventory
Norway maple 431 14.8%
Littleleaf linden 24 0.82%
Red Maple 22 0.76%
Honeylocust 22 0.76%
Callery (Bradford) pear 8 0.27%
London planetree 2 0.07%
Davey Resource Group 54 September 2019
With only minor adjustments in its approach to storm response, Cayuga Heights should be able to
manage future events and be better prepared to seek reimbursement for the large expenses that
sometimes accompany large storm events. Be sure all staff are signed up for the Emergency Alert
System through Tompkins County (Swift 911 system). Also visit http://tompkinscountyny.gov/doer
for helpful strategies for personal safety concerns.
During and after a storm emergency and depending on the severity of the storm and the damage
sustained, Cayuga Heights may call upon municipal employees to address the community’s needs.
The Cayuga Heights Department of Public Works is staffed and equipped to address infrastructure
damage. Contractors are also used to supplement Cayuga Heights staff where needed. These
personnel resources have the trucks and equipment to manage and mitigate tree related storm damage.
Storm response and mitigation in Cayuga Heights, especially after severe events, will require the
resources and expertise of a variety of external partners. Multiple partnerships are a reality in storm
response given the variety of legal, jurisdictional, and operational missions even within a municipal
boundary. These partnerships can produce an effective and efficient response when the expertise and
resources of each possible partner is acknowledged. See Appendix E for further storm readiness
information.
Recommendations for improving storm response and recovery program and actions:
● Continue to update Cayuga Heights’ street tree inventory utilizing the software already in
place. Current data will provide much needed information that will help to reduce future storm
damage.
● Utilize Homeland Security office to provide quick notification to New York Department of
Homeland Security (IDHS) and FEMA if reimbursement from disaster funds is anticipated.
Develop a clear system of record keeping that will provide required information so that
reimbursement is achieved where allowed. This step can save Cayuga Heights several
thousands of dollars in costs for cleanup of storm debris from future storm events.
● Complete the Tree Emergency Plan Worksheet and distribute appropriately. Annually review
the Worksheet and update information as needed.
● Address High Risk trees and EAB-infested trees promptly to remove them from the
population to reduce preventable damage.
● Remove Low Risk but storm prone species from the population when their service lives are
over and replace with more resilient species.
● Communicate to all appropriate Cayuga Heights staff and partners the procedures for
prioritizing and managing urban forest damage after storms per the three storm categories (see
Appendix E).
● Provide staff training, particularly on tree risk and working with potential electrical hazards.
● Commit to providing the citizens timely messaging about Cayuga Heights’ response and
recovery activities and about tree damage and correction topics. Prepare public relations
materials ahead of time so they are easily accessible when storms strike.
Davey Resource Group 55 September 2019
CONCLUSIONS
Public trees in Cayuga Heights are supporting and improving the quality of life in the Village. When
properly maintained, trees provide numerous environmental, economic, and social benefits that far
exceed the time and money invested in planting, pruning, protection, and removal.
Managing trees in urban areas is often complicated. Navigating the recommendations of experts, the
needs of residents, the pressures of local economics and politics, concerns for public safety and
liability, physical components of trees, forces of nature and severe weather events, and the expectation
that these issues are resolved all at once is a considerable challenge.
The Village must carefully consider these challenges to fully understand the needs of maintaining an
urban forest. With the knowledge and wherewithal to address the needs of the Village’s trees, Cayuga
Heights is well positioned to thrive. If the management program is successfully implemented, the
health and safety of Cayuga Heights’ trees and citizens will be maintained for years to come.
DRG recommends that the inventory and management plan be updated using an appropriate
computer software program so that the Village can sustain its program and accurately project future
program and budget needs:
● Perform routine inspections of public trees. Windshield surveys (inspections performed from
a vehicle) in line with ANSI A300 (Part 9) (ANSI 2011).
● Update the tree maintenance schedule and the budget as needed in order to efficiently perform
tree work. If the recommended work cannot be completed as suggested, modify maintenance
schedules and budgets accordingly. Remember to keep risk mitigation priorities as an
overlying theme.
● Ensure staff are up to date on best management practices in the industry through professional
organizations such as the International Society of Arborists and the Society of Municipal
Arborists.
● Conduct inspections of trees after all severe weather events. Record changes in tree condition,
maintenance needs and risk rating in the inventory database.
● Update the inventory database using TreeKeeper® as work is performed. Add new tree work
to the schedule when work is identified through inspections or a citizen call process.
● Re-inventory the street ROW, and update all data fields in five years, or a portion of the
population (20%) every year over the course of five years.
● Plant native trees which are suitable for site restrictions and storm readiness parameters.
● Revise the Tree Management Plan after five years when the re-inventory has been completed.
Davey Resource Group 56 September 2019
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. 2008. ANSI A300 (Part 1)–2008, American National
Standard for Tree Care Operations—Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management—
Standard Practices (Pruning). Londonderry: Tree Care Industry Association, Inc.
———. 2011. ANSI A300 (Part 9)–2011, American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations—Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices (Tree Risk
Assessment a Tree Structure Assessment). Londonderry: Tree Care Industry Association, Inc.
———. 2012. ANSI A300 (Part 6)–2012, American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations—Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices
(Transplanting). Londonderry: Tree Care Industry Association, Inc.
Casey Trees. 2008. Tree Space Design: Growing the Tree Out of the Box. Washington, D.C.: Casey
Trees.
Coder, K. D. 1996. “Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests.” University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension Service, Forest Resources Publication FOR96-39.
Heisler, G. M. 1986. “Energy Savings with Trees.” J. Arbor 12(5):113–125. Prepared by Ryan
Bell and Jennie Wheeler.
Karnosky, D. F. 1979. “Dutch Elm Disease: A Review of the History, Environmental Implications,
Control, and Research Needs.” Environ Cons 6(04): 311–322.
Kuo, F., and W. Sullivan. 2001a. “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation
Reduce Crime?” Environment and Behavior 33(3): 343–367.
———. 2001b. Aggression and Violence in the Inner City - Effects of Environment via Mental
Fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33(4): 543–571.
Lovasi, G. S., J. W. Quinn, K. M. Neckerman, M. S. Perzanowski, and A. Rundle. 2008. “Children
living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma.” J. Epidemiol
Community Health 62:647–9.
McPherson, E. G., R.A. Rowntree. 1989. “Using structural measures to compare 22 US street tree
populations.” Landscape J. 8(1):13–23.
Miller, R. W., and W. A. Sylvester. 1981. “An Economic Evaluation of the Pruning Cycle.”
J. Arbor 7(4):109–112.
North Carolina State University. 2012. “Americans are Planting Trees of Strength.”
http://www.treesofstrength.org/benefits.htm. Accessed May 12, 2012.
Nowak, D. J., E. J. Greenfield, R. E. Hoehn, and E. Lapoint. 2013. “Carbon storage and
sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States.” Environmental
Pollution 178(July):229-236. doi:10.1016.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Position Statement: Master Street Tree Planting
Plans. http://ohiodnr.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uq3ki%2FMX51w%3D&tabid=5443.
Accessed April 3, 2012.
Davey Resource Group 57 September 2019
Pokorny, J.D., J.G. O’Brien, R.J. Hauer, G.R. Johnson, J.S. Albers, M. MacKenzie, T.T. Dunlap,
and B.J. Spears. 1992. Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community Guide to Program Design
and Implementation. U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-
TP-03-03. St. Paul, MN: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service.
Richards, N. A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population.” Urban Ecology
7(2):159–171.
Smiley, E. T., N. Matheny, and S. Lilly. 2011. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment.
Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture.
Stamen, R.S. “Understanding and Preventing Arboriculture Lawsuits.” Presented at the Georgia
Urban Forest Council Annual Meeting, Madison, Georgia, November 2–3, 2011.
Ulrich, R. 1984. “View through Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science
224(4647): 420–421.
———. 1986. “Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 13:29–44.
Ulrich R.S., R.F. Simmons, B.D. Losito, E. Fiority, M.A. Miles and M. Zeison. 1991. “Stress
Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments.” J. Envir Psych 11(3): 201-
230.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2003a. “Benefits of Urban
Trees. Urban and Community Forestry: Improving Our Quality of Life.” Forestry Report R8-
FR 71.
———. 2003b. Is All Your Rain Going Down the Drain? Look to Bioretainment—Trees are a
Solution. Davis, CA: Center for Urban Forest Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Wolf, K. L. 1998a. “Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants.”
University of Washington, College of Forest Resources Fact Sheet. 1(November).
———. 1998b. “Trees in Business Districts: Positive Effects on Consumer Behavior!”
University of Washington College of Forest Resources Fact Sheet. 5(November).
———. 1999. “Grow for the Gold.” TreeLink Washington DNR Community Forestry Program.
14(spring).
———. 2000. “Community Image: Roadside Settings and Public Perceptions.” University of
Washington College of Forest Resources Factsheet. 32(August).
———. 2003. “Public Response to the Urban Forest in Inner City Business Districts.” J. Arbor
29(3):117–126.
———. 2007. “City Trees and Property Values.” Arborist News (August):34-36.
———. 2009. “Trees & Urban Streets: Research on Traffic Safety & Livable Communities.”
http://www.naturewithin.info/urban.html. Accessed November 10, 2011.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
APPENDIX A
DATA COLLECTION AND SITE LOCATION
METHODS
Data Collection Methods
DRG collected tree inventory data using a system that utilizes a customized ArcPad program
loaded onto pen-based field computers equipped with geographic information system (GIS) and
global positioning system (GPS) receivers. The knowledge and professional judgment of DRG’s
arborists ensure the high quality of inventory data.
Data fields are defined in the glossary of the management plan. At each site, the following data
fields were collected:
• Last Change (collector name) • Inspection Recommendation
• Inspection Date • Overhead Utility
• Notes (thoughts during inspection) • ResiRisk
• ID (Unique Tree Number) • Assessment Recommendation
• Inventory Date • Parcel ID
• Inspection Time • Defects
• Species • Risk Assessment (multiple fields)
• DBH* • Growing Space
• Multi-Stem • Address
• Condition • X and Y Location
• Primary Maintenance Task • Long / Lat Location
* measured in inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground (or diameter at breast height [DBH])
Maintenance needs are based on ANSI A300 (Part 1) (ANSI 2008). Best Management Practices:
Tree Risk Assessment (International Society of Arboriculture [ISA] 2017).
The data collected were provided in an ESRI® shapefile, Access™ database, and Microsoft Excel™
spreadsheet on a CD-ROM that accompanies this plan.
Site Location Methods
Equipment and Base Maps
Inventory arborists use CF-19 Panasonic Toughbook® unit(s) and Trimble® GPS Pathfinder®
ProXH™ receiver(s).
Base map layers were loaded onto these unit(s) to help locate sites during the inventory. The table
below lists the base map layers, utilized along with source and format information for each layer.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Base Map Layers Utilized for Inventory
Imagery/Data
Source Date Projection
Tompkins County GIS
Portal
http://tompkinscounty
ny.gov/gis
2018 NAD 1983StatePlane
NY Central; Feet
NYGIS
Clearinghouse
ttp://gis.ny.gov/
2018 NAD 1983StatePlane
NY Central; Feet
Street ROW Site Location
Individual street ROW sites (trees, stumps, or planting
sites) were located using a methodology that identifies
sites by address number, street name, side, site number,
or block side. This methodology was developed by DRG
to help ensure consistent assignment of location.
Address Number and Street Name
The address number was recorded based on visual
observation by the arborist at the time of the inventory
(the address number was posted on a building at the
inventoried site). Where there was no posted address
number on a building, or where the site was located by a
vacant lot with no GIS parcel addressing data available,
the arborist used his/her best judgment to assign an
address number based on opposite or adjacent addresses.
An X was then added to the number in the database to
indicate that it was assigned (for example, 37X Choice
Avenue).
Sites in medians or islands were assigned an address
number using the address on the right side of the street in the direction of collection closest to the
site. Each segment was numbered with an assigned address that was interpolated from addresses
facing that median/island. If there were multiple median/islands between cross streets, each
segment was assigned its own address.
The street name assigned to a site was determined by street ROW parcel information and posted
street name signage.
Front
Street
ROW
Median
Street
ROW
Side values for
street ROW sites.
Si
d
e
A
w
a
y
Si
d
e
T
o
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Side Value and Site Number
Each site was assigned a side value and site number. Side values include front, side to, side away,
median (includes islands), or rear based on the site’s location in relation to the lot’s street frontage
(Figure). The front side is the side that faces the address street. Side to is the name of the street the
arborist walks toward as data are being collected. Side from is the name of the street the arborist
walks away from while collecting data. Median indicates a median or island. The rear is the side
of the lot opposite the front.
All sites at an address are assigned a site number. Site numbers are not unique; they are sequential
to the side of the address only. The only unique number is the tree identification number assigned
to each site. Site numbers are collected in the direction of vehicular traffic flow. The only exception
is a one-way street. Site numbers along a one-way street are collected as if the street was a two-
way street; therefore, some site numbers will oppose traffic.
A separate site number sequence is used for each side value of the address (front, side to, side
away, median, or rear). For example, trees at the front of an address may have site numbers from
1 through 999; if trees are located on the side to, side away, median, or rear of that same address,
each side will also be numbered consecutively beginning with the number 1.
Block Side
Block side information for a site includes the on street, from street, and to street.
● The on street is the street on which the site is located. The on street may not match the
address street. A site may be physically located on a street that is different from its street
address (i.e., a site located on a side street).
● The from street is the first cross street encountered when proceeding along the street in the
direction of traffic flow.
● The to street is the second cross street encountered when moving in the direction of traffic
flow.
Park and/or Public Space Site Location
Park and/or public space site locations were collected using the same methodology as street ROW
sites; however, the on street, from street, and to street would be the park and/or public space’s
name (not street names).
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Site Location Examples
The tree trimming crew in the truck traveling westbound on E. Mac Arthur Street is
trying to locate an inventoried tree with the following location information:
Address/Street Name: 226 E. Mac Arthur Street
Side: Side To
Site Number: 1
On Street: Davis Street
From Street: Taft Street
To Street: E. Mac Arthur Street
The tree site circled in red signifies the crew’s target site. Because the tree is located on the side of the
lot, the on street is Davis Street, even though it is addressed as 226 East Mac Arthur Street. Moving
with the flow of traffic, the from street is Taft Street, and the to street is East Mac Arthur Street.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Location information collected for inventoried trees at Corner Lots A and B.
Corner Lot A Corner Lot B
Address/Street Name: 205 Hoover St. Address/Street Name: 226 E Mac Arthur St.
Side/Site Number: Side To / 1 Side/Site Number: Side To / 1
On Street: Taft St. On Street: Davis St.
From Street: E Mac Arthur St. From Street: Hoover St.
To Street: Hoover St. To Street: E Mac Arthur St.
Address/Street Name: 205 Hoover St. Address/Street Name: 226 E Mac Arthur St.
Side/Site Number: Side To / 2 Side/Site Number: Front / 1
On Street: Taft St. On Street: E Mac Arthur St.
From Street: E Mac Arthur St. From Street: Davis St.
To Street: Hoover St. To Street: Taft St.
Address/Street Name: 205 Hoover St. Address/Street Name: 226 E Mac Arthur St.
Side/Site Number: Side To / 3 Side/Site Number: Front / 2
On Street: Taft St. On Street: E Mac Arthur St.
From Street: 19th St. From Street: Davis St.
To Street: Hoover St. To Street: Taft St.
Address/Street Name: 205 Hoover St.
Side/Site Number: Front / 1
On Street: Hoover St.
From Street: Taft St.
To Street: Davis St.
Corner Lot A
Corner Lot B
Davey Resource Group September 2019
APPENDIX B
SUGGESTED TREE SPECIES
Proper landscaping and tree planting are critical components of the atmosphere, livability, and
ecological quality of a community’s urban forest. The tree species listed below have been
evaluated for factors such as size, disease and pest resistance, seed or fruit set, and availability.
The following list is offered to assist all relevant community personnel in selecting appropriate
tree species. These trees have been selected because of their aesthetic and functional characteristics
and their ability to thrive in the majority of soil and climate conditions found throughout the eastern
United States.
Large Trees: Greater than 50 Feet in Height When Mature
Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar
Acer rubrum red maple
‘Autumn Flame’ ‘Bowhall’
‘Brandywine’ ‘Karpick’
‘Northwood’ ‘October Glory’
‘Red Sunset’
Acer saccharum sugar maple
‘Commemoration’ ‘Green
Mountain’
‘Legacy’
Acer × freemanii Freeman maple
‘Armstrong’ ‘Autumn Blaze’
‘Celebration’ ‘Scarlet
Sentinel’
Celtis laevigata sugar hackberry ‘All Seasons’
Celtis occidentalis hackberry ‘Prairie Pride’
Eucommia ulmoides hardy rubber tree
Ginkgo biloba ginkgo (Choose male trees only)
Gleditsia triacanthos inermis thornless honeylocust ‘Shademaster’ ‘Skyline’
Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky coffeetree Prairie Titan®
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum
Metasequoia glyptostroboides dawn redwood ‘Emerald Feathers’
Nyssa sylvatica black tupelo
Platanus × acerifolia London planetree ‘Bloodgood’
Quercus acutissima sawtooth oak
Quercus bicolor swamp white oak
Quercus ellipsoidalis northern pin oak
Quercus imbricaria shingle oak
Quercus macrocarpa bur oak
Quercus palustris pin oak
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Large Trees: Greater than 50 Feet in Height When Mature (Continued)
Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar
Quercus robur English oak ‘Attention’ ‘Skymaster’
‘Skyrocket’
Quercus rubra northern red oak ‘Splendens’
Quercus shumardii shumard oak
Taxodium distichum common baldcypress ‘Shawnee Brave’
Tilia cordata littleleaf linden
‘Chancole’ ‘Corzam’
‘Fairview’ ‘Glenleven’
‘Greenspire’
Tilia americana American linden ‘Redmond’
Tilia tomentosa silver linden ‘Sterling’
Tilia × euchlora Crimean linden
Ulmus × hybrid elm
‘Frontier’ ‘Homestead’
‘Pioneer’ ‘Regal’
‘Urban’
‘Accolade’
Zelkova serrata Japanese zelkova ‘Green Vase’ ‘Halka’
‘Village Green’
Medium Trees: 26 to 49 Feet in Height When Mature
Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar
Acer campestre hedge maple ‘Queen Elizabeth’
‘St. Gregory’
Acer miyabei Miyabe maple ‘State Street’
Acer truncatum × Norwegian sunset maple ‘Keithsform’
Acer truncatum × Pacific sunset maple ‘Warrenred’
Aesculus × carnea red horsechesnut ‘Briotii’
Carpinus betulus European hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura
Cladrastis kentukea American yellowwood ‘Rosea’
Corylus colurna Turkish filbert
Gleditsia triacanthos inermis thornless honeylocust ‘Imperial’
Halesia tetraptera Carolina silverbell
Koelreuteria paniculata goldenraintree
Ostrya virginiana American hophornbeam
Parrotia persica Persian parrotia ‘Vanessa’
Phellodendron amurense Amur corktree ‘Macho’
Styphnolobium japonicum Japanese pagodatree ‘Princeton Upright’ ‘Regent’
Ulmus parvifolia lacebark elm ‘Dynasty’ ‘Ohio’
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Small Trees: 10 to 25 Feet in Height when Mature
Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar
Acer buergerianum trident maple
Acer tataricum ssp. ginnala Amur maple Red Rhapsody™
Acer griseum paperbark maple
Acer pensylvanicum stripled maple
Amelanchier spp. serviceberry.
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud ‘Forest Pansy’
Chionanthus retusus Chinese fringetree
Cornus kousa Kousa dogwood
‘Galzam’ ‘Milky Way’
‘Propzam’
‘Samzam’ ‘Satomi’
Cornus racemosa gray dogwood ‘Cuyzam’ ‘Ottzam’
Crataegus species hawthorn
Malus spp. flowering crabapple (Disease resistant only)
Syringa reticulata Japanese tree lilac ‘Ivory Silk’
Special Use Trees
In certain areas of the city, such as the downtown business district or in areas of restricted
aboveground space, the best tree choice may be those varieties that grow more upright in what is
termed a fastigiate, or columnar, manner. This form achieves two purposes: because of their
tighter, upright habit, there is minimal storefront blockage; and they will not be wide branching, thus
avoiding sidewalk clearance concerns. The following tree species and varieties offer the described
characteristics and should be considered for tight space situations:
Scientific Name Common Name Cultivar
Acer campestre hedge maple ‘Evelyn’
Acer rubrum red maple ‘Bowhall’ ‘Karpick’
Amelanchier arborea downy serviceberry ‘Cumulus’ ‘Robin Hill’
Carpinus betulus European hornbeam ‘Fastigiata’
Ginkgo biloba ginkgo ‘Lakeview’ Princeton Sentry®
Malus species
flowering crabapple
‘Centurion’
‘Harvest Gold’ Madonna™
‘Sentinel’
Prunus sargentii sargent cherry ‘Columnaris’
Prunus serrulata Japanese flowering cherry ‘Amanogawa’
Quercus robur English oak ‘Regal Prince’
‘Skyrocket™’
Quercus robur x bicolor English oak hybrid ‘Long’
Dirr’s Hardy Trees and Shrubs (Dirr 2013) and Manual of Woody Landscape Plants (5th Edition)
(Dirr 1988) were consulted to compile this suggested species list. Cultivar selections are
recommendations only and are based on DRG’s experience. Tree availability will vary based on
availability in the nursery trade. The newest iteration of Dirr’s book is written with Keith Warren
and is titled, “The Tree Book – Superior Selection for Landscapes Streetscapes, and Gardens.” It
was released in Spring 2019.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
APPENDIX C
RISK ASSESSMENT/PRIORITY AND PROACTIVE
MAINTENANCE
Risk Assessment
Every tree has an inherent risk of tree failure or
defective tree part failure. During the inventory, DRG
performed a Level 2 qualitative risk assessment for
each tree and assigned a risk rating based on the ANSI
A300 (Part 9), and the companion publication Best
Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment (ISA
2011). Trees can have multiple failure modes with
various risk ratings. One risk rating per tree will be
assigned during the inventory. The failure mode
having the greatest risk will serve as the overall tree
risk rating. The specified time period for the risk
assessment is one year.
• Likelihood of Failure—Identifies the most
likely failure and rates the likelihood that the
structural defect(s) will result in failure based
on observed, current conditions.
o Improbable—The tree or branch is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions
and may not fail in many severe weather conditions within the specified time period.
o Possible—Failure could occur but is unlikely during normal weather conditions within
the specified time period.
o Probable—Failure may be expected under normal weather conditions within the
specified time period.
• Likelihood of Impacting a Target—The rate of occupancy of targets within the target
zone and any factors that could affect the failed tree as it falls toward the target.
o Very low—The chance of the failed tree or branch impacting the target is remote.
− Rarely used sites
− Examples include rarely used trails or trailheads
− Instances where target areas provide protection
o Low—It is not likely that the failed tree or branch will impact the target.
− Occasional use area fully exposed to tree
− Frequently used area partially exposed to tree
− Constant use area that is well protected
Davey Resource Group September 2019
o Medium—The failed tree or branch may or may not impact the target.
− Frequently used areas that are partially exposed to the tree on one side
− Constantly occupied area partially protected from the tree
o High—The failed tree or branch will most likely impact the target.
− Fixed target is fully exposed to the tree or tree part
• Categorizing Likelihood of Tree Failure Impacting a Target—The likelihood for
failure and the likelihood of impacting a target are combined in the matrix below to
determine the likelihood of tree failure impacting a target.
Likelihood of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very Low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very Likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
• Consequence of Failure—The consequences of tree failure are based on the categorization
of target and potential harm that may occur. Consequences can vary depending upon size
of defect, distance of fall for tree or limb, and any other factors that may protect a target
from harm. Target values are subjective and should be assessed from the client’s
perspective.
o Negligible—Consequences involve low value damage and do not involve personal
injury.
− Small branch striking a fence
− Medium-sized branch striking a shrub bed
− Large tree part striking structure and causing monetary damage
− Disruption of power to landscape lights
o Minor—Consequences involve low to moderate property damage, small disruptions to
traffic or communication utility, or very minor injury.
− Small branch striking a house roof from a high height
− Medium-sized branch striking a deck from a moderate height
− Large tree part striking a structure, causing moderate monetary damage
− Short-term disruption of power at service drop to house
− Temporary disruption of traffic on neighborhood street
Davey Resource Group September 2019
o Significant—Consequences involve property damage of moderate to high value,
considerable disruption, or personal injury.
− Medium-sized part striking a vehicle from a moderate or high height
− Large tree part striking a structure resulting in high monetary damage
− Disruption of distribution of primary or secondary voltage power lines, including
individual services and street-lighting circuits
− Disruption of traffic on a secondary street
o Severe—Consequences involve serious potential injury or death, damage to high-value
property, or disruption of important activities.
− Injury to a person that may result in hospitalization
− Medium-sized part striking an occupied vehicle
− Large tree part striking an occupied house
− Serious disruption of high-voltage distribution and transmission power line
disruption of arterial traffic or motorways
• Risk Rating—The overall risk rating of the tree will be determined based on combining
the likelihood of tree failure impacting a target and the consequence of failure in the matrix
below.
Risk Rating Matrix Table
Likelihood of Failure
Consequences
Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Trees have the potential to fail in more than one way and can affect multiple targets.
Tree risk assessors will identify the tree failure mode having the greatest risk, and report
that as the tree risk rating. Generally, trees with the highest qualitative risk ratings should
receive corrective treatment first. The following risk ratings will be assigned:
o None—Used for planting and stump sites only.
o Low—The Low Risk category applies when consequences are negligible, and
likelihood is unlikely; or consequences are minor and likelihood is somewhat likely.
Some trees with this level of risk may benefit from mitigation or maintenance
measures, but immediate action is not usually required.
o Moderate—The Moderate Risk category applies when consequences are minor, and
likelihood is very likely or likely; or likelihood is somewhat likely and consequences
are significant or severe. In populations of trees, Moderate Risk trees represent a
lower priority than High or Extreme Risk trees.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
o High—The High Risk category applies when consequences are significant and
likelihood is very likely or likely, or consequences are severe, and likelihood is likely.
In a population of trees, the priority of High Risk trees is second only to Extreme
Risk trees.
o Extreme—The Extreme Risk category applies in situations where tree failure is
imminent and there is a high likelihood of impacting the target, and the consequences
of the failure are severe. In some cases, this may mean immediate restriction of access
to the target zone area to avoid injury to people.
Trees with elevated (Extreme or High) risk levels are usually recommended for removal or
pruning to eliminate the defects that warranted their risk rating. However, in some
situations, risk may be reduced by adding support (cabling or bracing) or by moving the
target away from the tree. DRG recommends only removal or pruning to alleviate risk. But
in special situations, such as a memorial tree or a tree in a historic area, Cayuga Heights
may decide that cabling, bracing, or moving the target may be the best option for reducing
risk.
PR Priority Maintenance
Identifying and ranking the maintenance needs of a tree population enables tree work to be
assigned priority based on observed risk. Once prioritized, tree work can be systematically
addressed to eliminate the greatest risk and liability first (Stamen 2011).
Risk is a graduated scale that measures potential tree-related hazardous conditions. A tree is
considered hazardous when its potential risks exceed an acceptable level. Managing trees for risk
reduction provides many benefits, including:
● Lower frequency and severity of accidents, damage, and injury
● Less expenditure for claims and legal expenses
● Healthier, long-lived trees
● Fewer tree removals over time
● Lower tree maintenance costs over time
Determination of acceptable risk ultimately lies with municipal
managers. Since there are inherent risks associated with
trees, the location of a tree is an important factor in the
determination and acceptability of risk for any given tree. The
level of risk associated with a tree increases as the frequency
of human occupation increases in the vicinity of the tree. For
example, a tree located next to a heavily traveled street will
have a higher level of risk than a similar tree in an open field.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Regularly inspecting trees and establishing tree maintenance cycles generally reduce the risk of
failure, as problems can be found and addressed before they escalate.
In this plan, all tree removals and Extreme and High Risk prunes are included in the priority
maintenance program.
Proactive Maintenance
Proactive tree maintenance requires that trees are managed and maintained under the responsibility
of an individual, department, or agency. Tree work is typically performed during a cycle.
Individual tree health and form are routinely addressed during the cycle. When trees are plant ed,
they are planted selectively and with purpose. Ultimately, proactive tree maintenance should
reduce crisis situations in the urban forest, as every tree in the inventoried population is regularly
visited, assessed, and maintained. DRG recommends proactive tree maintenance that includes
pruning cycles, inspections, and planned tree planting.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
APPENDIX D
INVASIVE PESTS AND DISEASES
In today’s worldwide marketplace, the volume of international trade brings increased potential for
pests and diseases to invade our country. Many of these pests and diseases have seriously harmed
rural and urban landscapes and have caused billions of dollars in lost revenue and millions of
dollars in cleanup costs. Keeping these pests and diseases out of the country is the number one
priority of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS). Updated maps can be found
at: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/tools/afpe/maps/
Although some invasive species naturally enter the United States via wind, ocean currents, and
other means, most invasive species enter the country with some help from human activities. Their
introduction to the U.S. is a byproduct of cultivation, commerce, tourism, and travel. Many species
enter the United States each year in baggage, cargo, contaminants of commodities, or mail.
Once they arrive, hungry pests grow and spread rapidly because controls, such as native predators,
are lacking. Invasive pests disrupt the landscape by pushing out native species, reducing biological
diversity, killing trees, altering wildfire intensity and frequency, and damaging crops. Some pests
may even push species to extinction. The following sections include key pests and diseases that
adversely affect trees in America at the time of this plan’s development. This list is not
comprehensive and may not include all threats.
It is critical to the management of community trees to routinely check APHIS, USDA Forest
Service, and other websites for updates about invasive species and diseases in your area and in our
country so that you can be prepared to combat their attack.
APHIS, Plant Health, Plant Pest Program
Information
•www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info
The University of Georgia, Center for
Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health
•www.bugwood.org
USDA National Agricultural Library
•www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/microbes
USDA Northeastern Areas Forest Service,
Forest Health Protection
•www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Asian Longhorned Beetle
The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, Anoplophora
glabripennis) is an exotic pest that threatens a wide
variety of hardwood trees in North America. The
beetle was introduced in Chicago, New Jersey, and
New York City, and is believed to have been
introduced in the United States from wood pallets
and other wood-packing material accompanying
cargo shipments from Asia. ALB is a serious threat
to America’s hardwood tree species.
Adults are large (3/4- to 1/2-inch long) with very
long, black and white banded antennae. The body is
glossy black with irregular white spots. Adults can be
seen from late spring to fall depending on the climate.
ALB has a long list of host species; however, the beetle prefers hardwoods, including several
maple species. Examples include: Acer negundo (box elder); A. platanoides (Norway maple); A.
rubrum (red maple); A. saccharinum (silver maple); A. saccharum (sugar maple); Aesculus glabra
(buckeye); A. hippocastanum (horsechestnut), Betula (birch), Platanus × acerifolia (London
planetree), Salix (willow), and Ulmus (elm).
Dutch Elm Disease
Considered by many to be one of the most destructive,
invasive diseases of shade trees in the United States,
Dutch elm disease (DED) was first found in Ohio in
1930; by 1933, the disease was present in several East
Coast cities. By 1959, it had killed thousands of elms.
Today, DED covers about two-thirds of the eastern
United States, including Illinois, and annually kills
many of the remaining and newly planted elms. The
disease is caused by a fungus that attacks the vascular
system of elm trees blocking the flow of water and
nutrients, resulting in rapid leaf yellowing, tree
decline, and death.
There are two closely related fungi that are collectively
referred to as DED. The most common is Ophiostoma
novo-ulmi, which is thought to be responsible for most
of the elm deaths since the 1970s. The fungus is
transmitted to healthy elms by elm bark beetles. Two
species carry the fungus: native elm bark beetle
(Hylurgopinus rufipes) and European elm bark beetle
(Scolytus multistriatus).
The species most affected by DED is the Ulmus
americana (American elm).
Adult Asian longhorned beetle
Photograph courtesy of New Bedford Guide
2011
Branch death, or flagging, at multiple
locations in the crown of a diseased elm
Photograph courtesy of Steven Katovich,
USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org
(2011)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Emerald Ash Borer
Emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis) is
responsible for the death or decline of tens of millions of
ash trees in 14 states in the American Midwest and
Northeast. Native to Asia, EAB has been found in China,
Japan, Korea, Mongolia, eastern Russia, and Taiwan. It
likely arrived in the United States hidden in wood-
packing materials commonly used to ship consumer
goods, auto parts, and other products. The first official
United States identification of EAB was in southeastern
Michigan in 2002.
Adult beetles are slender and 1/2-inch long. Males are
smaller than females. Color varies but adults are usually
bronze or golden green overall with metallic, emerald-
green wing covers. The top of the abdomen under the
wings is metallic, purplish-red and can be seen when the
wings are spread. The EAB-preferred host tree species
are in the genus Fraxinus (ash).
Close-up of the emerald ash borer
Photograph courtesy of APHIS
(2011)
New York State EAB Spread Map (2019)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Gypsy Moth
The gypsy moth (GM) (Lymantria dispar) is native to
Europe and first arrived in the United States in
Massachusetts in 1869. This moth is a significant pest
because its caterpillars have an appetite for more than
300 species of trees and shrubs. GM caterpillars’
defoliate trees, which makes the species vulnerable to
diseases and other pests that can eventually kill the tree.
Male GMs are brown with a darker brown pattern on
their wings and have a 1/2-inch wingspan. Females are
slightly larger with a 2-inch wingspan and are nearly
white with dark, saw-toothed patterns on their wings.
Although they have wings, the female GM cannot fly.
The GMs prefer approximately 150 primary hosts but
feed on more than 300 species of trees and shrubs. Some
trees are found in these common genera: Betula (birch),
Juniperus (cedar), Larix (larch), Populus (aspen,
cottonwood, poplar), Quercus (oak), and Salix (willow).
Close-up of male (darker brown) and
female (whitish color) European
gypsy moths
Photograph courtesy
of APHIS (2011b)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Granulate Ambrosia Beetle
The granulate ambrosia beetle
(Xylosandrus crassiusculus),
formerly the Asian ambrosia beetle,
was first found in the United States in
1974 on peach trees near Charleston,
South Carolina. The native range of
the granulate ambrosia beetle is
probably tropical and subtropical
Asia. The beetle is globally present in
countries such as equatorial Africa,
Asia, China, Guinea, Hawaii, India,
Japan, New South Pacific, Southeast Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the United States. In the United
States, this species has spread along the lower Piedmont region and coastal plain to East Texas,
Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina. Populations were found in Oregon and Virginia in 1992,
and in Indiana in 2002.
Adults are small and have a reddish-brown appearance with a downward facing head. Most
individuals have a reddish head region and a dark brown to black elytra (hard casings protecting
the wings). Light-colored forms that appear almost yellow have also been trapped. A granulated
(rough) region is located on the front portion of the head and long setae (hairs) can be observed on
the back end of the wing covers. Females are 2–2.5mm and males are 1.5mm long. Larvae are
C-shaped with a defined head capsule.
The granulate ambrosia beetle is considered an aggressive species and can attack trees that are not
highly stressed. It is a potentially serious pest of ornamentals and fruit trees and is reported to be
able to infest most trees and some shrubs (azalea, rhododendron) but not conifer. Known hosts in
the United States include: Acer (maple); Albizia (albizia); Carya (hickory); Cercis canadensis
(eastern redbud); Cornus (dogwood); Diospyros (persimmon); Fagus (beech); Gleditsia or
Robinia (locust); Juglans (walnut); Koelreuteria (goldenrain tree); Lagerstroemia (crapemyrtle);
Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum); Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip poplar); Magnolia (magnolia);
Populus (aspen); Prunus (cherry); Quercus (oak); and Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese elm). Carya
illinoinensis (pecan) and Pyrus calleryana (Bradford pear) are commonly attacked in Florida and
in the southeastern United States.
Adult granulate ambrosia beetle
Photograph courtesy of Paul M. Choate, University of
Florida (Atkinson et al. 2011)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Xm Ambrosia Beetle
The Xm ambrosia beetle
(Xylosandrus mutilatus), is native to
Asia and was first detected in the
United States in 1999 in traps near
Starkville, Mississippi. By 2002, the
beetle spread throughout Missouri
and quickly became well established
in Florida. The species also has been
found in Alabama, northern Georgia,
and Texas. In addition to its
prevalence in the southeastern United
States, the Xm ambrosia beetle is
currently found in China, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaya,
Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Sri
Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand.
This species generally targets weakened and dead trees. Since the beetle attack’s small diameter
material, it may be commonly transported in nursery stock. Female adults are prone to dispersal
by air currents and can travel 1–3 miles in pursuit of potential hosts. This active capability results
in a broad host range and high probability of reproduction. The species is larger than any other
species of Xylosandrus (greater than three millimeters) in the U.S. and is easily recognized by its
steep declivity and dark brown to black elytra (hard casings protecting the wings). Larvae are white
and C-shaped with an amber colored head capsule.
Known hosts in the U.S. include: Acer (maple); Albizia (silktree); Benzoin (northern spicebush);
Camellia (camellia); Carpinus laxiflora (looseflower hornbeam); Castanae (sweet chestnut);
Cinnamomum camphora (camphor tree); Cornus (dogwood); Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese
cedar); Fagus crenata (Japanese beech); Lindera erythrocarpa (spicebush); Machilus thurnbergii
(Japanese persea); Ormosia hosiei (ormosia); Osmanthus fragrans (sweet osmanthus); Parabezion
praecox; Platycarpa; and Sweitenia macrophylla (mahogany).
Xm ambrosia beetle
Photograph courtesy of Michael C. Thomas, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(Rabaglia et al 2003)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid
The hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA, Adelges tsugae) was
first described in western North America in 1924 and first
reported in the eastern United States in 1951 near
Richmond, Virginia.
In their native range, populations of HWA cause little
damage to the hemlock trees, as they feed on natural
enemies and possible tree resistance has evolved with this
insect. In eastern North America and in the absence of
natural control elements, HWA attacks both Tsuga
canadensis (eastern or Canadian hemlock) and
T. caroliniana (Carolina hemlock), often damaging and
killing them within a few years of becoming infested.
The HWA is now established from northeastern Georgia
to southeastern Maine and as far west as eastern
Kentucky and Tennessee.
Oak Wilt
Oak wilt was first identified in 1944 and is caused by
the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum. While considered
an invasive and aggressive disease, its status as an
exotic pest is debated since the fungus has not been
reported in any other part of the world. This disease
affects the oak genus and is most devastating to those in
the red oak subgenus, such as Quercus coccinea (scarlet
oak), Q. imbricaria (shingle oak), Q. palustris (pin oak),
Q. phellos (willow oak), and Q. rubra (red oak). It also
attacks trees in the white oak subgenus, although it is
not as prevalent and spreads at a much slower pace in
these trees.
Just as with DED, oak wilt disease is caused by a fungus
that clogs the vascular system of oaks and results in
decline and death of the tree. The fungus is carried from
tree to tree by several borers common to oaks, but the
disease is more commonly spread through root grafts. Oak species within the same subgenus (red
or white) will form root colonies with grafted roots that allow the disease to move readily from
one tree to another. Oak wilt has been identified in the Finger Lakes Region (Canadaigua, New
York).
Hemlock woolly adelgids on a branch
Photograph courtesy of USDA Forest
Service (2011a)
Oak wilt symptoms on red and
white oak leaves
Photograph courtesy of USDA Forest
Service (2011a)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Pine Shoot Beetle
The pine shoot beetle (Tomicus piniperda L.), a native of Europe, is
an introduced pest of Pinus (pine) in the United States. It was first
discovered in the United States at a Christmas tree farm near
Cleveland, Ohio in 1992. Following the first detection in Ohio, the
beetle has been detected in parts of 19 states (Connecticut, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin).
The beetle attacks new shoots of pine trees, stunting the growth of
the trees. The pine shoot beetle may also attack stressed pine trees by
breeding under the bark at the base of the trees. The beetles can cause
severe decline in the health of the trees and, in some cases, kill the
trees when high populations exist.
Adult pine shoot beetles range from 3 to 5 millimeters long, or about
the size of a match head. They are brown or black and cylindrical.
The legless larvae are about five millimeters long with a white body
and brown head. Egg galleries are 10–25 centimeters long. From
April to June, larvae feed and mature under the pine bark in separate
feeding galleries that are 4–9 centimeters long. When mature, the
larvae stop feeding, pupate, and then emerge as adults. From July
through October, adults tunnel out through the bark and fly to new or
1-year-old pine shoots to begin maturation feeding. The beetles enter the shoot 15 centimeters or
less from the shoot tip and move upwards by hollowing out the center of the shoot for a distance
of 2.5–10 centimeters. Affected shoots droop, turn yellow, and eventually fall off during the
summer and fall.
P. sylvestris (Scots pine) is preferred, but other pine species, including P. banksiana (jack pine),
P. nigra (Austrian pine), P. resinosa (red pine), and P. strobus (eastern white pine), have been
infested in the Great Lakes region.
Mined shoots on a
Scotch pine
Photograph courtesy of
USDA Forest Service
(1993)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Sirex Woodwasp
Sirex woodwasp (Sirex noctillio) has been the most
common species of exotic woodwasp detected at
United States ports-of-entry associated with solid
wood-packing materials. Recent detections of sirex
woodwasp outside of port areas in the United States
have raised concerns because this insect has the
potential to cause significant mortality of pines.
Awareness of the symptoms and signs of a sirex
woodwasp infestation increases the chance of early
detection, thus increasing the rapid response
needed to contain and manage this exotic forest
pest.
Woodwasps (or horntails) are large robust insects, usually 1.0 to 1.5 inches long. Adults have a
spear-shaped plate (cornus) at the tail end; in addition, females have a long ovipositor under this
plate. Larvae are creamy white, legless, and have a distinctive dark spine at the rear of the
abdomen. More than a dozen species of native horntails occur in North America.
Sirex woodwasps can attack living pines, while native woodwasps attack only dead and dying
trees. At low populations, sirex woodwasp selects suppressed, stressed, and injured trees for egg
laying. Foliage of infested trees initially wilts, and then changes color from dark green to light
green, to yellow, and finally to red, during the three to six months following attack. Infested trees
may have resin beads or dribbles at the egg laying sites, but this is more common at the mid-bole
level. Larval galleries are tightly packed with very fine sawdust. As adults emerge, they chew
round exit holes that vary from 1/8 to 3/8 inch in diameter.
Southern Pine Beetle
The southern pine beetle (SPB, Dendroctonus frontalis)
is the most destructive insect of pest pine in the southern
United States. It attacks and kills all species of southern
yellow pines including P. strobus (eastern white pine).
Trees are killed when beetles construct winding,
S-shaped egg galleries underneath the bark. These
galleries effectively girdle the tree and destroy the
conductive tissues that transport food throughout the
tree. Furthermore, the beetles carry blue staining fungi
on their bodies that clog the water conductive tissues
(wood), which transport water within the tree. Signs of
attack on the outside of the tree are pitch tubes and
boring dust, known as frass, caused by beetles entering
the tree.
Adult SPBs reach an ultimate length of only 1/8 inch,
similar in size to a grain of rice. They are short-legged, cylindrical, and brown to black in color.
Eggs are small, oval-shaped, shiny, opaque, and pearly white.
Adult southern pine beetles
Photograph courtesy of Forest
Encyclopedia Network (2012)
Close-up of female Sirex Woodwasp
Photograph courtesy of USDA (2005)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Sudden Oak Death
The causal agent of sudden oak death (SOD, also known as
Phytophthora canker disease), Phytophthora ramorum,
was first identified in 1993 in Germany and the Netherlands
on ornamental rhododendrons. In 2000, the disease was
found in California. Since its discovery in North America,
SOD has been confirmed in forests in California and
Oregon and in nurseries in British Columbia, California,
Oregon, and Washington. SOD has been potentially
introduced into other states through exposed nursery stock.
Through ongoing surveys, APHIS continues to define the
extent of the pathogen’s distribution in the United States
and limit its artificial spread beyond infected areas through
quarantine and a public education program.
Identification and symptoms of SOD may include large
cankers on the trunk or main stem accompanied by
browning of leaves. Tree death may occur within several
months to several years after initial infection. Infected trees may also be infested with ambrosia
beetles (Monarthrum dentiger and M. scutellarer), bark beetles (Pseudopityophthorus
pubipennis), and sapwood rotting fungus (Hypoxylon thouarsianum). These organisms may
contribute to the death of the tree. Infection on foliar hosts is indicated by dark gray to brown
lesions with indistinct edges. These lesions can occur anywhere on the leaf blade, in vascular
tissue, or on the petiole. Petiole lesions are often accompanied by stem lesions. Some hosts with
leaf lesions defoliate and eventually show twig dieback.
This pathogen is devastating to Quercus (oak) but also affects several other plant species.
Thousand Cankers Disease
A complex disease referred to as Thousand cankers
disease (TCD) was first observed in Colorado in 2008
and is now thought to have existed in Colorado as early
as 2003. TCD is considered to be native to the United
States and is attributed to numerous cankers developing
in association with insect galleries.
TCD results from the combined activity of the
Geosmithia morbida fungus and the walnut twig beetle
(WTB, Pityophthorus juglandis). The WTB has
expanded both its geographical and host range over the
past two decades, and coupled with the Geosmithia
morbida fungus, Juglans (walnut) mortality has
manifested in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and
Washington. In July 2010, TCD was reported in Knoxville, Tennessee. The infestation is believed
to be at least 10 years old and was previously attributed to drought stress. This is the first report
east of the 100th meridian, raising concerns that large native populations of J. nigra (black walnut)
in the eastern United States may suffer severe decline and mortality.
The tree species preferred as hosts for TCD are walnuts.
Walnut twig beetle, side view
Photograph courtesy of USDA
Forest Service (2011b)
Drooping tanoak shoot
Photograph courtesy of Indiana
Department of Natural Resources
(2012)
Davey Resource Group September 2019
References
APHIS. Plant Health, Plant Pest Program Information. www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
plant_pest_info. Accessed April 24, 2012.
Atkinson, T.H., J.L. Foltz, R.C. Wilkinson, and R.F. Mizell. 2011. Granulate Ambrosia Beetle,
Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
Scolytinae). The University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Publication: #EENY131.
———. 2002. Plant Protection and Quarantine. Pine Shoot Beetle Fact Sheet.
———. 2011a. Beetle Detectives EAB. APHIS 81-35-016.
———. 2011b. Hungry Pests-Gypsy Moth. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/hungrypests/
GypsyMoth.shtml. Accessed December 29, 2011.
Forest Encyclopedia Network. Southern Pine Beetle. http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p2901.
Accessed March 23, 2012.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Entomology and Plant Pathology. Sudden Oak Death.
http://www.in.gov/dnr/entomolo/4532.htm. Accessed July 20, 2012.
Katovich, S. USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org. Dutch elm disease. September 7, 2005.
Invasives.org, http://www.invasive.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1398053 (October
21, 2011.)
New Bedford Guide. 2011. Volunteers Needed for Asian Longhorned Beetle Survey.
http://www.newbedfordguide.com/volunteers-needed-for-asian-longhorned-beetle-
survey/2011/03/30. Accessed April 3, 2012.
Rabaglia, R. 2003. Xylosandrus mutilatas. 2003. http://www.invasivespecies.net/
database/species/ecology.asp?si=963&fr=1&sts=. Accessed April 2015.
Rexrode, C.O. and D. Brown. 1983. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet, #29-Oak Wilt. USDA
Forest Service.
Thomas, M.C. November 4, 2002. Bugwood, http://www.forestryimages.org/
browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1460068 (April 7, 2015).
University of Georgia. Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. www.bugwood.org.
Accessed April 24, 2012.
USDA Forest Service. 2011a.. Forest Health Protection—Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.
http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/. Accessed December 29, 2011.
———. 2011b. (Revised). Pest Alert-Thousand Cankers Disease. Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry. NA–PR–02–10.
USDA National Agricultural Library. National Invasive Species Information Center.
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/microbes. Accessed April 24, 2012.
USDA Northeastern Areas Forest Service. Forest Health Protection. www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp.
Accessed April 24, 2012.
USDA Northeastern Areas Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection.
1993. Pest Alert Common Pine Shoot Beetle. NA-TP-05-93.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
APPENDIX E
STORMS AND THE URBAN FOREST
This material is intended as a supplemental companion to the Storm Response Readiness section,
information is provided as informational purposes only. Further research and inquiries to listed
emergency agencies as to proper storm related procedures and protocols is the responsibility of the
Village.
Storm severity and resulting damage in the urban forest will vary; the degrees of response and
resources need to respond will vary as well. For planning purposes, severe weather can generally
be classified into three classes: Class I, II, and III. The following descriptions of these classes and
the response required by Cayuga Heights are offered for Village consideration and adoption as
part of an official Cayuga Heights’ wide emergency response plan.
Storm Classification
Class I Minor Storm Event
Class I storms are those that are moderate in severity Cayuga Heights-wide and/or those which are
more severe, but damage is restricted to very few locations or a small geographic area of Cayuga
Heights.
Damage reports and service requests are made to Cayuga Heights directly by citizens and from
staff inspections. Damage is corrected, and debris is disposed by Cayuga Heights staff and
contractors on site or following customary procedures.
Generally, Class I storms require no outside assistance for parks or streets personnel, and only
limited (if any) assistance from contractors or others. Storm damage remediation and cleanup are
achieved by Cayuga Heights staff and/or contractors, requires no additional funding or special
equipment, and is completed quickly.
Class I Storm Mitigation Procedures
• Cayuga Heights staff receive calls/reports from citizens and Cayuga Heights agencies.
• Cayuga Heights staff inspects and determines appropriate mitigation; utility company is
called as required.
• Cayuga Heights staff and/or contractors immediately resolve damage and dispose of debris.
• Cayuga Heights staff perform a final inspection, complete a work order and/or otherwise
note the occurrence in the tree inventory database.
Class II Large Storm Event
Class II storms are those that are long in duration or are severe enough to cause widespread damage
in the Cayuga Heights. Damage mitigation may also include trees on private property that fall into
or threaten the public right-of-way or other property. Mitigation priority areas will be major roads,
public health and services facilities, and areas or sites where public safety is at risk.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Class II storms exceed the normal staff and resources of the Cayuga Heights and/or contractors
alone. Damage mitigation for these storms will usually require the assistance of outside contractors
and from other Cayuga Heights departments. The assistance will come in the forms of additional
staff and equipment, communication assistance, public safety measures, electrical hazard
reduction, and customer service.
Class II Storm Mitigation Procedures
• Cayuga Heights staff assess damage and immediately communicate with police and fire to
determine the extent of the damage.
• The informal EOC should be convened to receive calls/reports and to coordinate mitigation
response.
• Cayuga Heights staff inspect damage, determine mitigation levels and needs, and set work
priorities.
• Cayuga Heights designate personnel and equipment resources under the guidance of the
EOC leader.
• Cayuga Heights and contractual staff resolve damage, process debris on site where
appropriate, or transport debris to storage site.
• Cayuga Heights staff make final inspection and update the tree inventory database.
• Debris is processed appropriately.
• Cayuga Heights staff should communicate with the citizens about its response activities
and status using the Cayuga Heights’ website, social media platforms, etc.
Class III Catastrophic Storm Event
Class III storms will be rare but can and have occurred in Tompkins County. Generally, these will
result from strong widespread ice storms or possibly hurricane remnants. Damage will be severe
and widespread on both public and private property.
A State of Emergency will likely be called during and after a Class III storm event. A full EOC
should be convened by the mayor. Other local, state, and federal emergency management agencies
will become involved, as well as NYDOT, New York State Electric and Gas, and other controlling
utility companies. It will become necessary to identify Cayuga Heights funds that can be used to
finance additional contractual services, equipment, and staff overtime for the mitigation efforts.
Mitigation priorities will be first determined by public safety, health, and welfare needs. The first
priority of roads to be cleared are those primary streets and highways that provide for evacuation
and/or access to hospitals, shelters, police, fire and rescue stations, and other facilities providing
vital public services.
The second priority of streets and highways to be cleared of debris are those that provide access to
components of the public and private utility systems that are vital to the restoration of essential
utility services, such as electrical power stations and substations, municipal water and sanitary
sewer pumping stations, and communication stations and towers. The last priority of roadways to
be cleared are residential streets and alleys/access ways.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
No debris is intended to be removed during the initial emergency road-clearing operations. Rather,
debris is to be moved to the side of the roadway that will allow for a minimum of one lane of traffic
in each direction and not create conflict with future utility restoration efforts by others.
Class III Storm Mitigation Procedures
• Cayuga Heights staff assesses damage and immediately communicates with the EOC and
the designated Cayuga Heights staff leader to determine the extent of the damage.
Tompkins County and the State of New York Emergency Management agencies may also
be in the communication channels.
• Cayuga Heights secures additional regional tree debris disposal site(s) as needed.
• Cayuga Heights staff inspect tree-related damage, determine mitigation levels and needs,
and set work priorities.
• Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, NYSDOT, and other agencies combine sufficient and
appropriate personnel and equipment resources under the guidance of Cayuga Heights to
mitigate tree-related situations.
• Cayuga Heights, allied agencies, and contractual staff resolve damage, process debris on
site where appropriate, or transport debris to storage site.
• Cayuga Heights staff make final inspection and update the tree inventory database.
• Debris is processed appropriately.
• Cayuga Heights staff assist EOC team members and Mayor with completion of required
state and FEMA forms.
• Cayuga Heights staff should communicate with the citizens about its response activities
and status, and advise for the treatment of private trees that have been damaged using the
Cayuga Heights website, social media platforms, etc.
Outside Partners
Utility Agencies
Electric distribution lines in Tompkins County are controlled by New York State Electric and Gas
Corporation and are a key partner during a storm emergency. Only NYSEG staff are qualified to
work around energized lines. They have the resources to mobilize quick and appropriate responses
to emergency situations involving trees and utilities. During a widespread storm event, the Cayuga
Heights will likely also need to communicate and coordinate with the Tompkins County Public
Utility Service Agency or New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. Where whole trees or
limbs are down or resting on energized lines, rescue and cleanup efforts cannot proceed until power
lines have been addressed by the trained personnel of these agencies. Prioritization of where utility
agencies respond first generally are: three-phase aerial electric lines; single-phase aerial electric
lines; secondary electric lines; and then service (or residential) drops.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
New York Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
NYSDOT is responsible for the safety and maintenance of interstate and state routes within and
around the Village of Cayuga Heights. The Village is within Region 3 of NYDOT. During a storm
emergency, they can respond with staff and equipment to clear such rights-of-way and assist with
Cayuga Heights streets if authorized. Below is a map from 511NY.org for Cayuga Heights area,
and freely available online. It provides current information for incidents, including winter road
conditions.
Contractors
Labor and equipment for debris clearance, removal, and disposal should be available from local
contractors. It is advisable to have contractors, such as tree service companies, debris processing
companies, and equipment and tool rentals, already under contractual agreements with Cayuga
Heights. During an emergency, Cayuga Heights could enter into new emergency contracts and
modify existing contracts to supply the personnel and equipment necessary to efficiently deal with
storm mitigation efforts.
State of New York
When the response efforts appear to be beyond the capability of Cayuga Heights or the county, the
State can normally provide the next level of assistance by declaring a state of emergency. The New
York Department of Homeland Security’s Division of Emergency Response and Recovery aids
local emergency response leaders for major or complex emergencies or disasters. The division also
assists local jurisdictions with recovery from natural or man-made disasters, in addition to
coordinating mitigation programs designed to reduce the impact of future disasters on a
community.
The division typically evaluates the disaster situation and provides advice to the governor on the
availability of state resources to assist local efforts.
The Department of Homeland Security’s website, http://www.in.gov/dhs/3312.htm, offers a
toolbox of information to assist with the process of requesting aid and making claims for
reimbursement. It offers several guide sheets and forms that provide excellent information about
the application process and how to maintain adequate records of debris cleanup costs and
contracting procedures.
Federal Government
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be able to respond for up to 10 days without a Presidential
Declaration; the Federal Highway Administration may provide grant assistance to New York for
debris clearing, tree removal, and repair of roads; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) provides financial and administrative assistance after storms that are declared a federal
emergency.
FEMA is the major federal agency that will be a partner of Cayuga Heights in the event of a severe
storm emergency. FEMA recommends that communities have an Emergency Operation Plan and,
since debris removal is reported as the most significant storm related problem, a Debris
Management Plan.
FEMA will reimburse Cayuga Heights for debris removal costs if a federal disaster is declared.
FEMA will also reimburse Cayuga Heights for removing certain trees during a federal disaster.
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Trees which sustain greater than 50% crown loss and are on the public right-of-way are eligible
for removal cost reimbursement. However, trees that are completely on the ground after a storm
and can be moved away with other debris are usually included in the debris estimates. FEMA often
does not cover stump removal unless a hazard situation is present.
Finally, FEMA will also reimburse Cayuga Heights for hazard reduction pruning immediately
following a storm during a federal disaster. In general, broken or hanging branches that are two
inches or greater in diameter and that are still in the crown of a tree can be pruned under the hazard
reduction reimbursement policy. The pruning cost is not extended to the entire tree but is limited
only to the removal of branches contributing directly to the hazard.
Final reimbursement of storm related damages from FEMA is dependent on accurate record
keeping and documentation of storm related cleanup work.
Local Partner Information
Tompkins County Emergency Response
http://tompkinscountyny.gov/doer
Tompkins READY – Emergency Preparation site
http://tompkinscountyny.gov/tompkinsready
Department of New York Homeland Security and Emergency Services
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oct/
New York State / Disaster Preparedness Commission
http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/disaster-prep/
New York State Park Police
https://parks.ny.gov/employment/park-police/contact-us.aspx
Ready.gov – personal concerns for hurricanes
https://www.ready.gov/hurricanes
Disaster Relief Grants
https://www.grantwatch.com/cat/48/disaster-relief-grants.html
United Way disaster relief
http://www.uwwp.org/disaster-fund.shtml
FEMA Disaster Management Toolkit
Debris Management Guide -- https://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/demagde.pdf
Davey Resource Group September 2019
Storm Event Communications
Communication is critical to surviving disasters, especially when dealing with the public and those
who have been impacted by the storm event. If information is not actively managed during tree
emergencies, disorganization will and complicate recovery work. Public relations should be
coordinated through the emergency services or the mayor’s office.
Guidelines for General Public Relations
• Publicize the phone numbers and staff person/position for public contact.
• Work with the media early and often.
o Take time to get accurate information out.
o Be frank about the extent of damage and the estimated time needed for recovery.
o Publicize your next actions and decisions. People get most upset when they do not
know what is going to happen or when.
• Deliver important messages to the community.
o Stay safe—watch for hangers, leaning trees, downed wires, chainsaw injuries, etc.
o Stay calm—it may not be a bad as it seems, help is on the way, panic results in poor decision
making.
o Get help from arborists who are insured, and preferably Certified Arborists.
o Think critically when deciding to remove a tree or not—as long as no hazard is present.
• Indicate how the public can help.
o Placing debris at the curbside properly.
o Keeping debris away from fire hydrants and valves.
o Separating recyclable and flammable materials.
• Emphasize the need for careful professional damage assessment.
o People often feel deeply about trees after a disaster, wanting either to kill or save them all,
and they need to hear voices of reason from Cayuga Heights officials.
o Trees can recover from substantial damage. Sometimes unrecoverable trees at first glance
may be judged as much less serious by an experienced professional arborist.