Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3. Urban Forestry Management Plan Update 09/10/2013
Mount 1 li Mount Prospect Public Works Department 9. TREE CM USA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL A. JANONIS SUBJECT: URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: AUGUST 22, 2013 I am very pleased to announce the completion of a proposed comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan for the Village of Mount Prospect. Copies are being distributed with this memo. The plan was written by staff from Urban Forestry LLC of Rochester, New York, with input from our Forestry /Grounds Division staff. Significant findings from the plan will be presented to the Village Board at the September 10, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting. Simply put, this plan takes a look at the past, present and future of our urban forest management activities in the Village. The last time we prepared a plan of this kind was in 1993, and in my opinion an update was long overdue. Last year I learned that federal Urban and Community Forestry Assistance grant funds had become available to help communities complete urban forest management plans, so we applied and were approved to receive a $15,000 grant. Subsequently, I contacted the author of our 1993 plan and co- owner of Urban Forestry LLC, Dr. Chris Luley. I was pleased to learn that he would be willing to work with us again on an updated plan. I felt that Dr. Luley would be in a unique position to evaluate the progress of our program over the last 20 years. Also, since development of an Urban Forest Storm Mitigation Plan was to be part of the project, I welcomed his expertise in this area as well. As seen in the attached Executive Summary, the majority of the Village's nearly 24,000 parkway trees are in very good to excellent condition. In total, they have an appraised value of nearly $118 million. Additionally, these trees are providing to our community a variety of environmental benefits worth nearly $3 million, thus providing a return of $2.29 for every $1 spent on their planting and maintenance. As the Executive Summary also notes, the plan also identifies several challenges our urban forestry management program is currently facing. Further, the plan provides recommendations for facing these challenges and continuing to improve the program in the future. As always, our ultimate goal will be to maximize the benefits provided by our urban forest while minimizing the costs. Dr. Luley and I will present highlights of the proposed plan to the Village Board at the September 10, 2013 COW meeting. No official Board action will be needed, with one minor exception. I would like to ask for an informal poll of the Village Board that evening to learn if they support the new Urban Forest Management Plan in concept. If so, I would ask that H: \FORESTRY \WORD\2013 \MEMO -Urban Forestry Mgt Plan to COW.doc Page 2 of 2 Urban Forest Management Plan August 22, 2013 the official minutes of the meeting clearly reflect that approval. This action should then enable the Village to obtain accreditation for our municipal forestry program through the Society of Municipal Arborists (SMA). The SMA is a long- established national organization of municipal arborists and a professional affiliate of the International Society of Arboriculture. SMA's Municipal Accreditation program seeks to promote and improve the practice of professional municipal arboriculture by recognizing programs that meet or exceed their minimum standards. The Village currently meets all the SMA's accreditation standards but one, and that is "Local governing body approval of a current Local Forest Master Plan." With Board approval, I would then hope to apply for SMA Accreditation later this fall. Dr. Luley and I look forward to the September 10, 2013 COW meeting and will be happy to answer any questions at that time. - Clark I concur: SEAN P. Dbfzsffy Director of Public Work For the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois August 2013 URL3AN;O FORESTKYLLC y il� _ - e F n ° .E' r Jc r01J _ to i Photograph i -1. American elms were extensively planted when the Village was incorporated in 1917 and for many years after. The era of elm -lined streets is now mostly gone due to Dutch elm disease, but the parkway tree management program has allowed the benefits of shaded, tree -lined streets to continue in the Village. This Urban Forest Management Plan was developed with grant funds from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Urban and Community Forestry Program. Urban Forestry LLC gratefully acknowledges the cooperation and assistance of Sandy Clark, Forestry /Grounds Superintendent; Laura Fowle and David Hull, Forestry /Grounds Staff; and Village Public Works staff for their assistance in development of this plan. Village of Mount Prospect Elected Officials Public Works Management Public Works Director .................. Public Works Deputy Director...... Forestry /Grounds Superintendent Urban Forestry LLC Christopher J. Luley, Ph.D., Vice President, Project Manager Andrew G. Pleninger, Vice President, Consulting Urban Forester urbanforestryllc.com Sean Dorsey ....Jason Leib Sandy Clark Cover design by Judy Balazs; concept used with permission of City of Oakville, Ontario ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................................ ..............................1 Section1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ ..............................7 1A. Environmental Benefits of Urban Trees ........................................................................... ..............................7 Section2. Physical Environment ............................................................................................ .............................11 Introduction........................................................................................................................ .............................11 2A. Vegetative History ......................................................................................................... .............................11 2B. Soils ............................................................................................................................. .............................13 2C. Climate ........................................................................................................................ .............................14 2D. Land Use ..................................................................................................................... .............................17 Section 3. Forestry Management History ............................................................................... .............................19 Introduction........................................................................................................................ .............................19 3A. Ordinance, Standards, Specifications & Procedures ..................................................... .............................23 3B Annual Budgets and Staffing ........................................................................................ .............................26 3C Pruning History ............................................................................................................ .............................31 3D Planting History ............................................................................................................ .............................34 3E. Dutch Elm Disease and Elm Yellows ............................................................................. .............................41 3F Emerald Ash Borer ........................................................................................................ .............................43 3G Tree Removal History ................................................................................................... .............................49 3H Tree Risk Management ................................................................................................ .............................55 31. Public Outreach and Program Accomplishments ............................................................ .............................58 3J Service Requests .......................................................................................................... .............................62 3K Storm Mitigation ........................................................................................................... .............................65 3L Wood Utilization ............................................................................................................ .............................70 3M. Staff Training & Accomplishments ................................................................................ .............................72 3N. Inventory Management and Procedures ........................................................................ .............................76 30 Drought Management ................................................................................................... .............................79 3P Tree Protection .............................................................................................................. .............................81 30 Creek Maintenance ...................................................................................................... .............................86 3R Greenspaces ................................................................................................................ .............................89 3S Sustainability ................................................................................................................ .............................90 3T Pest Management ......................................................................................................... .............................92 Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Introduction .......................... ............................... 4A. Age Distribution .............. ............................... 4B. Tree Species Analysis ..... ............................... 4C. Tree Condition or Health ............................... 4D. Tree Longevity ................ ............................... 4E. Tree Problems ................ ............................... 4F. Appraised Value ............. ............................... 4G. i -Tree Streets Benefits Modeling .................... Section 5. Long -term Projections ...................... ............................... Introduction.................................................... ............................... 5A. Long -Term Population Projection .............. ............................... 5B. Long -Term Cost Projections ..................... ............................... 5C. Long -Term Problems Projections .............. ............................... Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Introduction....................................................................................... ............................... Literature Cited ........97 ........97 ...........................97 ...........................99 .........................105 .........................107 .........................108 .........................110 .........................11 1 ..................115 ..................1 15 ..................1 15 ..................116 ..................1 17 119 119 129 Appendices............................................................................................. ............................... ............................133 On nearly all accounts, the Village of Mount Prospect, Forestry /Grounds Divi- sion has maintained a progressive and effective parkway tree management program over the past 20 years. This urban forest management plan documents these efforts and updates a previous management plan completed in 1993. This plan also provides benchmarks of the current parkway tree conditions as well as a summary of management approaches and accomplishments. However, its primary objective is to provide guidance for planning and the management of Mount Prospect's urban forest resource into the future, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the quality of living in the Village. Major findings and highlights of the plan are presented in six sections as summarized below. Summary of Major Findings On nearly all accounts, the Village of Mount Prospect, Forestry /Grounds Division has maintained a progres- sive and effective parkway tree management program over the past 20 years. Although there are some issues that threaten the stability of parkway trees, the majority of the forest is healthy and has a good representation of young and mature trees. The inspection and maintenance of the forest is exemplary. Efforts to reduce the risks that trees may present to people and property are comprehensive and progressive. Forestry /Grounds staff is well trained and competent. The Village goes to exceptional effort to inform and educate the public regarding forestry activities and to provide current and timely information on tree care and health threats. Policy and legislation are clearly defined and adequate to provide for the protection and management of the resource. Village officials and the public recognize the functional value and beauty of the urban forest, and its importance in making Mount Prospect a healthy and attractive place to live, work and play. It is the role of government to allocate the public resources in the most effective, efficient and professional man- ner. This review of the Village's urban forest management practices exemplifies how closely Village officials hold this charge. Although the Village is providing exceptional urban forest management, this management plan revealed the following areas where improvement is possible: • Continuing to improve its efforts to diversify the species distribution of the urban forest by sus- pending the planting of at risk tree genera and species until the populations of these trees fall below an established tree diversity policy. • Updating the Village's pruning program and specifications to improve structural pruning. • Consolidating the numerous documents that detail procedures and specifications that guide the daily management of the resource and developing an updated Arboricultural Specifications Manual and a Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. • Continuing to streamline procedures and techniques to efficiently use Hansen® management software to digitally manage the urban forestry resource. The recommendations and objectives outlined in this plan are designed to address these findings based on an extensive review of the past 20 years of urban forest management in the Village. Section 1. Introduction and Urban Forest Benefits The Village's parkway trees and urban forest management practices have been subjected Several new pests to a number of significant influences in the past 20 years. Several new pests and increased and increased frequency of major storm events have caused significant parkway tree losses. Many posi- frequency of major tive changes have also occurred including better management practices for pruning and storm events have risk assessment, improved digital tracking of tree needs and locations, and the ability to caused significant parkway tree losses. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 1 www.urbanforestryllc.com Executive Summary quantify parkway tree benefits. Parkway trees have significant environmental and economic value which can now be measured (Section 4), although research is showing the most significant impact of tree - shaded streets may be the social and psychological benefits provided to Village residents. Section 2. Physical Environment The Village's physical environment would seem mostly to be static, but several important changes have occurred in the past 20 years. In 1993, the Village was placed in Plant Hardiness Zone 5A (based on annual temperature extremes); now it is designated as 513, a half hardiness zone warmer. Experts on climate change have predicted increased inten- sity and frequency of rain and wind storms, more intense periods of droughts, and elevated summer temperatures. Recent weather patterns support these predictions, at least in the short term. The climatic changes could greatly impact planning and management of parkway trees in the Village both in the short and long term. Section 3. Past Management History The Village has historically provided a high level of urban forest management. This is demonstrated by the continued support of the Forestry /Grounds Division program budget and the progressive and responsive services the Division provides for the citizens of Mount Prospect. The following important benchmarks support this statement: • Maintenance of a five -year rotational pruning program since the early 1970's through the present by pruning on average over 4,700 trees annually. The Village has historically provided • Maintaining adequate budgets to support the parkway tree program over the a high level of urban past 30 years, including providing budgetary support to slightly increase the forest management. tree population over the past 20 years and maintain the pruning rotation. • In 2012 the Village planted 800 trees including 37 different species of trees. The stocking level was 88% (trees divided by the number of sites that could hold trees). The stocking level in 1993 was 86 %. • Servicing on average over 2,900 requests from citizens annually. • Minimizing losses from several important and destructive pests such as Dutch elm disease (DED), emerald ash borer (EAB), and elm yellows. The Village's elm disease management program significantly extended the life and population of elms, which now number only 319 trees from an original population of 5,200 elms. EAB has resulted in the removal of 919 trees. The remaining 2,779 trees, from an original population of over 4,400 trees (in 2006), will likely die over the next five years. The Village has chosen to protect 800 high - quality ash trees using trunk injection of an insecticide. Responding to and managing severe damage from several wind storm events. For example, a single event in June 2011 damaged over 2,800 trees resulting in the removal of over 300 trees, and generating over 300 service request calls in a single day. • Updating the Village Ordinance and establishing a Standards and Specifications manual to improve the consistency of management and protection of parkway trees. • Providing extensive public outreach via multiple mediums on management issues such as EAB, DIED, drought, tree removal and watering, and tree planting. EAB has resulted in the removal of 919 trees. The remaining 2,779 trees, from an original population of over 4,400 trees (in 2006), will likely die over the next five years. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 2 www.urbanforestryllc.com Executive Summary ! Minimizing risk to citizens to such a level that has virtually eliminated any claims from failure of trees or branches. • Providing training opportunities for Forestry /Grounds staff to maintain current credentials and updates on technical specifications and issues. Receiving numerous accreditation and awards for the effort and impact of the tree program, including a recent award to Forestry /Grounds Superintendent Sandy Clark from the Tree Care Industry Association. Section 4. Current Conditions The urban forest management plan allows benchmarking of current conditions, an important task that allows for mea- surement of future changes and development of goals for the parkway tree program. The following conditions were present at the time the plan was developed: • A parkway tree population of 23,724 trees, of which the vast majority are in very good or excellent condition. A parkway tree population of o Based on the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisal (2000) methodology, 23,724 trees, of parkway trees have an appraised value of nearly $118 million, up from $47 which the vast million in 1993. majority are in very • A size or age distribution that has increased since 1993, but is still adequately good or excellent condition. well distributed to provide for sustainable tree populations into the near future. • The representation of several tree genera and species populations that are higher than generally accepted tree diversification guidelines. o Most common species is silver maple, comprising 14% of the population followed by Norway maple (12.7 %), honeylocust (12.1 %), green ash (6.7 %), crabapple (5.2 %) and littleleaf linden (5.1 %). o The most common genera are maple (35 %), honeylocust (12 %), ash (12 %), linden (9 %), and oak (6 %). o Increasing tree diversity is still one of the biggest challenges ahead for the Forestry /Grounds Division. The most common genera are maple (35 %), honey- locust (12 %), ash (12 %), linden (9 %), and oak (6 %). • Tree longevity is estimated at 36 years with the population showing high variation from this mean, and greater longevity than is reported nationally from other communities. Longevity is 43 years when transplant failures are eliminated from the population, although some trees on parkways may be from the time of incorporation of the Village in 1917. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 3 www.urbanforestryllc.com Executive Summary • A benefit to cost return where the investment of each $1 returns $2.29 based on i -Tree Streets modeling of the environmental and economic benefits of parkway trees. Annually, the parkway tree population returns the following benefits: o Energy Savings = $482,000 or $18.06 per tree • Carbon Sequestered = $132,000 or $5.57 per tree • Air Quality Improvement = $154,000 or $6.49 per tree • Storm Water Runoff Reduction= $1,132,000 or $47.74 per tree • Aesthetic Benefits = $1,111,000 or $ 46.87 per tree • Total Benefits of $2,958,000 or $124.72 per tree Section 5. Long -term Projections A benefit to cost return where the investment of each $1 returns $2.29 based on i -Tree Streets modeling of the environ- mental and economic benefits of parkway trees. Based on the present conditions, the existing parkway tree population's condition and structure is likely to mature into the future without significant changes, if current management approaches and appropriate budgeting are used to off- set several important, short -term issues. Several of these issues will have an influence on the urban forest in the near term, while others may be important in the future, including: • Losses due to EAB will peak in the next few years, resulting in loss of most ash trees in the Village. o Loss of ash will reduce many economic and environmental benefits from parkway trees, as ash contribute over $300,000 in benefits annually. • American elms, which provide a significant contribution to the large tree population in the Village, will fade completely from the population Maintenance over the next 10 years. costs will be elevated in the • Given current attrition rates and losses due to EAB, the parkway tree short term due population could be reduced to half of the existing population in as to EAB removals little as 25 years, if tree planting is halted. and replacement. • Severe storms and new introduced pests pose the greatest threat to parkway tree health and survival over the long term. • Maintenance costs will be elevated in the short term due to EAB removals and replacement. Otherwise, maintenance costs should remain stable unless the el- evated storm frequency continues or prevailing wages are required for maintenance contracts. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 4 www.urbanforestryllc.com Executive Summary Section 6. Summary of Findings and Goals and Objectives This plan is intended to guide the management of the urban forest over the next 10 years with a recommended pro- grammatic review at five years to assess progress and make adjustments as needed. The successful implementation of a plan requires clear objectives that are well organized and prioritized. To that end, the recommendations made by Urban Forestry, LLC and Village staff were compiled, organized and collapsed into management objectives. This pro- cess revealed the five overriding management categories defined below. • Forest Health — Objectives aimed at improving the health and structure (size, age and species distribution) of the urban forest. • Management — Objectives to improve the management of personnel, work practices and information technology. • Funding — Objectives to maintain acceptable funding levels. • Public Outreach and Education — Objectives to improve notification of the public regarding forestry work activities, fostering public involvement and support as well as the education of the public on current arboriculture practices and urban forest management issues. • Public Safety and Health — Objectives to improve public safety and health as it relates to urban forest management. This plan is intended to guide the management of the urban forest over the next 10 years with a recommended program- matic review at five years to assess progress and make adjustments as needed. Each objective was assigned to the appropriate management category and prioritized based on its importance (Table 6 -1). In addition, each objective includes notations to its applicable plan section and Village urban forestry goal (as defined in the Village ordinance), as well as whether the objective will have an impact on the Forestry /Grounds or Village budget. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 5 www.urbanforestryllc.com A recent survey of communities by the Illinois Natural History Survey (Sass et al. 2010) found that over 98% of respon- dents in the State felt trees improve the appearance of a community, help maintain a healthy community environment, and enhance the quality of life. The citizens and Village government of Mount Prospect have historically held this view, beginning with extensive tree planting when the Village was incorporated in 1917, and continuing with nearly 100 years of urban forest management to the present day. In 1993, an Urban Forest Management Plan (ACRT 1993) was developed to guide the Village into what was an evolv- ing era of urban forest planning and management. Twenty years later, the Village is embarking on a renewed planning effort to address today's issues and challenges, and to develop strategies to guide the Village in the future manage- ment of the urban forest resource. Indeed, much has been accomplished and changed in the last 20 years. This cur- rent planning effort will provide Village managers and citizens with a synopsis of past accomplishments, a snapshot of current conditions, and most importantly, a comprehensive plan to maintain the Village's existing urban forestry canopy cover and legacy into the future. Since the Village's last urban forest plan in 1993 there have been many new influences, management tools, and forces acting on the urban tree population. These include: • Computerized modeling of urban forest environmental and economic benefits that quantify and monetize the significant contribution trees make to urban environments • New research, approaches, and standards for urban tree risk management, tree pruning, and pest management • Devastation of ash tree populations by emerald ash borer (EAB) in Illinois and the Midwest • Threat of wide -scale loss of urban trees due to other introduced pests such as Asian longhorned beetle, sudden oak death and gypsy moth, and the continuing threat global trade presents in the introduction of other unknown pests • Improved digital management and geo- referencing of urban tree inventory and management data • Recognition of urban trees as an integral part of the urban infrastructure because of the environmental, economic and other functional benefits trees provide • Realization of climate change impacts, with catastrophic weather events causing large -scale loss of urban tree populations locally and nationally Updating the existing urban forest management plan will allow the Village of Mount Prospect to adapt their management practices to prepare for these real and potential impacts. This is a critical step in avoiding significant loss or degradation of the urban resource, and in providing continued, high quality urban forestry services to the citizens of the Village. 1A. Environmental Benefits of Urban Trees In the Village's 1993 management plan, the environmental and economic benefits of urban trees were generally cited as important reasons for their maintenance and planting. In the ensuing 20 years, evidence for the environmental and economic value of urban trees has been unequivocally established in the scientific literature, primarily through the ef- forts of the USDA Forest Service. Numerous publications have quantified the importance and value of urban trees. In a recent study by Nowak et al. (2013), the following benefits of the urban forest were documented for the Chicago region: Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 7 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 1. Introduction • Improved air quality by reducing health damaging ground -level ozone concentrations and other air pollutants. Urban trees removed 18,080 tons of air pollution annually and this air cleansing has a value to society of $137 million. Reduced greenhouse gases by removing and avoiding the release of 61.9 million tons of the carbon dioxide. The reduction of this greenhouse gas was valued at $349 million. • Reduced heating and cooling energy costs by $44 million dollars. Research has progressed on quantifying urban tree environmental and economic benefits so that this task can now be completed by any community through the use of the USDA Forest Service's i -Tree software programs (i- Tree.org) (Photograph 1A -1). The value of these services is derived from costs associated with engineering or other methods used to improve the environment. Using this approach, investment in urban tree management has been consistently shown to provide dollar value returns in excess of maintenance cost (McPherson et al. 2005). This approach also allowed the benefit to cost ratio of Mount Prospect's parkway trees to be determined for this management plan. In addition to the dollar value of the environmental services trees provide, urban trees also directly affect community economics as illustrated by the following examples: • Residential real estate values are often 3 -7% greater with trees in a yard, and homebuyers are willing to pay a premium for denser, greener vegetation • Trees can increase commercial property rental rates by 7% • Reducing urban heat island effects can directly lower cooling costs and trees also reduce heating costs in winter • Shaded pavement requires replacement less frequently • Consumers are willing to spend 9 -12% more in treed retail areas Therefore, expenditures for maintenance of parkway trees in the Village return both environmental and economic benefits to residents that can be measured in monetary terms. Photograph 1A -1. Trees provide many environmental benefits to the citizens of Mount Prospect which have quantifiable monetary value. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 8 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 1. Introduction Since the 1993 plan, researchers have increasingly documented the critical importance of trees to the psychological, social, and physical health of urban dwellers (Photograph 1 A -2). Research has shown trees impact numerous aspects of human life, or in a sense trees provide "human health services" to residents. Where trees or access to natural set- tings are present, research has shown the following benefits: • Increased desirability of streets for walking and increased time spent outside, • Greater connection with nature through wildlife presence, marking the change of season, and softening of urban hardscapes, • Improved recovery from surgery and illness, • Increased healing, shorter post- operative stays and reduced need for pain medications, • Lower crime rates, • Reduced violence and conflict in domestic relations, • Improved social ties in neighborhoods, • Reduced stress, anxiety and ADHD symptoms. A recent study (Donovan et al. 2013) highlighted the importance of these human services to urban dwellers' psycho- logical and physical health. In that study, respiratory illness and cardiac mortality rates were shown to increase signifi- cantly when trees were abruptly removed due to EAB infestation. One must conclude, based on the preponderance of research evidence, that a significant impact and value of parkway tree management in the Village is the subtle, daily contribution that trees make to the quality of everyday life of residents. This contribution, along with the measurable environmental and economic value provided by parkway trees, are tangible returns the Village receives for its investment in its urban tree resource. Photograph 1A -2. In addition to the many environmental benefits of parkway trees, research has documented the subtle, but real impact that urban trees have on human social, psychological, and physical health. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 9 www.urbanforestryllc.com Introduction The Village of Mount Prospect, IL was incorporated in 1917 and occupies 10.41 square miles with 135.63 miles of streets in Cook County. Census data from 2010 showed the Village's population at 54,167. The Village parkway or street tree resource is divided into 17 manage- ment areas or Forestry Sections (Figure 2 -1). In addition to parkway trees, there are over 40 acres of Village man- aged green space, with the Union Pacific Railroad right - of -way the largest of these. Melas Park, the largest treed open space in the Village, is owned by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and managed by the Arlington Heights and Mt. Prospect Park Districts. Four local park districts also manage several other green spaces within the Village limits (Appendix Section 2 -1). 2A. Vegetative History Driving through the Village today, one would hardly believe that prior to its settlement the Village was devoid of trees and was primarily long -grass prairie with several creeks and scattered marshes or wet areas. The original survey of Wheeling and Elk Grove Townships where Mount Pros- pect resides, and study of pre - settlement vegetation at the Morton Arboretum (Bowles and McBride 2002), clearly document the very low tree cover of the area (Appendix Section 2A -2) (Figure 2A -1). 6 w • ly r Village of Mount Prospect FORESTRY /GROUNDS AREAS & SUB AREAS Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 11 www.urbanforestryllc.com Figure 2 -1. Forestry /Grounds management areas in the Village of Mount Prospect. ■•M'";:} Ili4li d xgvn va my ICU+ I6trrss h.riir• Giv'dtliflS i6� W V T]I i v�onan,f f +��` iW 4a hvl� hH•vR�°1fl6 Yiu. Vi�RNiMh TiPi'i I I {K3�9t a 6119M y benvrn sr. iiwbvr k„. :l tbuph +xam�a rssism St i6YRy i�iliC I , • t •:•k Mllfi •iikii � irieiwai [ii:r f1Vblw -: � ••, �yswamp ihikke� � bnnh umiurrryaa ilAlihf prilrw — a � kii�ilYi9 r �• h Figure 2A -1. Vegetation map (Village limits outlined) of the area in and around Mount Prospect as mapped by the Public Land Survey 1821 -1845. Mount Prospect was essentially all long grass prairies with scattered marshes and very low tree cover. (Source: Vegetation of the Chicago Region as Mapped by the Public Land Survey, Jenny McBride, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL.) Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 11 www.urbanforestryllc.com Figure 2 -1. Forestry /Grounds management areas in the Village of Mount Prospect. Section 2. Physical Environment Low tree cover is also a feature of pre - settlement conditions for most of Cook County. The county was comprised of 73% prairie, wet prairie and marsh, and 20% woody vegetation coverage. Trees existed in fragmented forest stands restricted primarily to the eastern sides of watercourses which offered protection from eastward moving fires. Two general forest types predominated, oak - hickory (oak clearly predominated) on drier sites and elm- ash -soft (silver) maple and basswood on wetter sites. This historic assessment sheds light on the better performance of certain tree species in the Village, such as elm, ash, silver maple, and linden (basswood). These species were a part of the original vegetative composition and would be adapted to the local area's soils and climate. It is likely that many of the larger diameter elms in the Village date back to when the Village was in- corporated (Photograph 2A -1), as a recent diameter -age analysis of Chicago area trees showed these elms could be well over 100 years old based on their size (Dwyer and Schroeder 2013). Removal of the largest known elm in the Village showed the tree was from around the time the Village was formed (Photograph 2A -2). Expansion and development of the Village allowed for additional street tree planting as well as invasion of open areas by woody vegetation. Study of trees in suburban Cook County by the USDA Forest Ser- vice (Nowak 1994) showed street trees constitute one of every 10 trees in residential areas (but 20% of the total leaf surface area), and one of every 37 trees over all land use types (but 9.5% of the total leaf area) (Nowak 1994). Given that residential land use dominates in Mount Prospect, the importance of the parkway tree population be- comes more apparent, particularly since street trees are on average larger than other trees (Nowak 1994). Species composition (fre- quency) in suburban Cook County is dominated by buckthorn, ash, cherry, elm and boxelder. However, silver maple and elm dominate in terms of importance based on size and leaf area, and silver maple and ash dominate as street trees out- side of Chicago (Nowak 1994). Photograph 2A -1. Photograph circa 1910 taken near the CNWRR depot. Elm trees were planted along streets even before the Village was incorporated in 1917. Lowland habitat species such as elm and silver maple were well adapted to the Village's climate and soils (Photograph courtesy of the Mount Prospect Historical Society). Photograph 2A -2. Growing in front of 118 S. Albert, the largest known elm in the Village (52" DBH) was removed in 2001 for structural reasons. It was likely planted before the time the Village was incorporated. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 12 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 2. Physical Environment 2B. Soils Soils in the Village have a parent material (unconsolidated geologic material from which soils develop) primarily of glacial origin and to a lesser degree of wind deposition. Soil development was strongly influenced by the proximity to the Des Plaines River, several creeks, wet and marshy areas, and the effects of the long grass prairie vegetation which dominated prior to settlement. Most of this influence was altered or degraded as the wetlands were drained, farmed and eventually developed (Photograph 213-1). The original soils were primarily silt clay loams and silt loams, with high clay content subsoils (NRCS 2011). The higher clay content in many areas of the Village, along with elevated pH common for Midwest soils and soils in urban areas, limits the palate of species that will thrive on parkway sites (Photograph 213-3). The excellent growth of elm, ash, and silver maple, and generally poorer success of upland species such as sugar maple, white and red oak, indicate that soil type and origin plays an important role in influencing species performance in the Village. Soils of the Chicago area were recently mapped (NRCS 2011). This is an unusual undertaking because soil in most urban areas are not classified to this degree. The interactive maps developed by the USDA's Natural Resource Con- servation Service allow determination of the soil type in most locations in the Village (Figure 213-1) (websoilsurvey.nres. usda.gov /app /WebSoilSurvey.aspx). Photograph 2B -1. Main St. north of Central Ave. Mount Prospect was originally open prairie that was converted to farmland before the Village was developed and trees were planted (Photograph courtesy of the Mount Prospect Historical Society). Figure 2B -1. Example of soil map and data from the Village created using the interactive web -based soil mapping tool from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov /app/ WebSoil Survey. aspx). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 13 www.urbanforestryllc.com Photograph 2B -3. Soils on parkways typically have high clay content as shown below the dark topsoil layer in the planting hole. The clay limits to some degree the palate of tree species that can successfully be used in the Village. Section 2. Physical Environment As noted in the 1993 plan, the original, undisturbed soil characteristics are more often intact in the older areas of the Village. Modern construction techniques in newer areas of the Village have contributed to increased soil disruption re- sulting in soils with greater compaction, less structure and depth, increased pH, and increased conglomerate compo- sition. All these characteristics are detrimental to tree growth and longevity. Flooding has sporadically been a problem in selected areas in the Village and still occurs in some locations after heavy rainfall events today. Therefore, periodically saturated soils are a problem for parkway trees where flooding occurs. 2C. Climate Mount Prospect is located in USDA plant hardiness Zone 5b ( -15 to -10° F minimum annual temperature extreme) , a half climate zone warmer than reported in the 1993 plan (5a, -20 to -15° F minimum) (Figure 2C -1). As noted in 1993, the local climate is moderated to some degree from the mid - continent extremes (cold winters and hot, humid sum- mers) by its proximity to Lake Michigan. Annual precipitation is 36.89 inches (Chicago O'Hare AP Climate Station ID 094846, 1981 -2010) and mean annual temperature is 49.9 °F. Prevailing winds are from the west and south (Appendix Section 2C -1) and most high winds occur during the change of seasons. Elevated wind gusts are also frequently asso- ciated with summer thunderstorms which are common in the Chicago area. Freezing rain occurs on average four times annually (Appendix Section 2C -2), which is less than other parts of the state because of the moderating effect of Lake Michigan (Cortinas 2000). U SDA i � rd I? ukegan Plant Hardiness ycam Lre S Zon e Map eaton Chicago - I m n I I I I�� I� I�and oliet K kee Galesburg Pontiac 1 4L Quincy Jacl l 4 1 Average Annual Extreme Minimum Temperature 1976 -2005 Temp(F) Zone Temp(0) -20 to -15 5a - 28.9to -26.1 .15 to .10 5b -26.1 to .23.3 -10 to -5 Ba. -23.3 to -20.5 -5to0 ed -20.6 to -17.8 Oto5 7 l -17.8 to -15 A ImD.I v Ki I omete rs 0 25 100 FP8E8fCr1 M l.Up41 ] I)' Ix q Cllnok CmID &—i. Oregon Stare 01[gm "YSk Bloo m ingto n Lincoln Urbana Danville SPRIN4+FIEL s ecatur nville• 1 � � Taylorville Charleston �ffingl(am Edv�ardsville g Bell ill e. Mount Murp born � � • � rr 0 15 30 60 oMiles Figure 2C -1. Current USDA plant hardiness zone for Illinois. Mount Prospect is Zone 5b, half a climate zone warmer than when the 1993 management plan was written. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 14 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 2. Physical Environment Observation and study of climatic weather patterns in the Midwest have documented several significant changes since the writing of the 1993 management plan. These changes have occurred over the past several decades and are being attributed primarily to global climate change (USGCRP 2009). The effects of climate change will impact many aspects of life in the Chicago area. Trends measured by climate scientists that impact the urban tree resource include the following: • Average annual temperatures increased over the last several decades. o Heat waves are becoming more frequent and cold periods are becoming rarer. • Snow and ice arrive later in the fall and start to melt earlier in the spring. • The frost free growing season has been extended by more than one week, mainly due to the earlier dates for the last spring frost (the median date is currently between April 11-20), and further change in hardiness zone is expected (Figure 2C -2). • Heavy downpours now occur twice as frequently as they did a century ago. o The last three decades have been the wettest in a century for the Midwest and there have been three record breaking floods in the past 15 years. Observed and Projected Changes in Plant Hardiness Zones Zane = =d = =6 -- 7 e - Increasing Temperatures )► Ion() 'Drina Lower Emissions Scenario by 2090 Higher Emissions Scenario by 2ngn Plant winter hardiness zones in the Midwest have already changed significantly as shown above, and are projected to shift one -half to one full zone every 30 years, affecting crop yields and where plant species can grow. By the end of this century, plants now associated with the Southeast are likely to become established throughout the Midwest. In the graphic, each zone represents a 10 °F range in the lowest temperature of the year, with zone 3 representing —40 to —30 °F and zone 8 representing 10 to 20 °F. Image Source: © 2006 by Arbor Day Foundation; Image Reference: CMIP3 -B Figure 2C -2. Plant hardiness zone in Mount Prospect is expected to change in the future due to winter - warming- associated climate change (USGCRP 2009). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 15 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 2. Physical Environment Scientists project (USGCRP 2009) that the following trends are likely to continue under future climate change: • Average summer temperatures are projected to increase by 3 °F over the next few decades and could increase by over 10 °F by the end of this century. • Heat waves are projected to increase in frequency, duration and severity. • An increase in damage from destructive insect pests is expected as warmer winters increase survival and higher summer temperatures can contribute to larger populations. • Precipitation in the Midwest is likely to fall more frequently in heavy downpours, which will increase the likelihood of flooding, property damage, travel delays, and disruption in services. • Between heavy rainfall events, there will likely be longer periods without precipitation (Photograph 2C -1). • Increased evaporation during warmer summers could increase the likelihood of water short- ages or drought in the Midwest. • Concentrations of ground -level ozone are expected to increase, posing an increased threat to human and plant health. Recent weather patterns seem to substantiate several of the above projections: Mount Prospect and the Chicago area have experienced two significant droughts (2005 and 2012) and three flooding events in the past 10 years (2008, 2011 and 2013). The rainfall event that produced the flooding in 2011 was the most intense ever recorded in a three hour period, amounting to 6.86 inches that fell in the early morning of July 23, 2011. Photograph 2C -1. The drought of 2012 directly killed many trees such as these in the Village. Experts predict that periods of drought are likely to become more frequent in the future as a result of climate change. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 16 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 2. Physical Environment 2D. Land Use Land use in the Village has changed little since the 1993 management plan. Two - thirds (66 %) of the Village is resi- dential land use, 12.4% is occupied by commercial and service uses, 8.5% is open space, and 9.5% is industrial and transportation (CMAP 2006). Specific land use as zoned in the Village is presented in Figure 2D -1. Given the small amount of vacant land (1.4 %), there is realistically little land available for new development. Popula- tion growth is also unlikely to be driving further development, as population in the Village has declined 6% from 2000 to 2010 according to recent census data. However, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and Development projects that the Village's population will increase to 58,049 by 2030. The large amount of residential land use offers relatively wide planting strips or "tree lawns" for parkway trees. Average tree lawn width in the Village is 15.1 feet. Tree lawn width by Forestry Section is presented in Figure 2D -2. Sections 12 and 14 have the smallest average tree lawns (12 and 12.1 feet, respectively), while Section 5.2 has the widest (23.6 feet average). VILLAGE OF MO UNT PRO LAND USE ZONING MAP co S � r F', _eF -IJ euggyr�..�a9u+q i - �ww.a rso IY9R F11®f i/A!6 M'lIW�NYI]i�IVLAY � ILL - fRCletB f�eY.l.IrrbN.hh�f�n. 1�.F1'Ddi��SNV Wil'1!C[4 arc �lIMiE4fi�11ilY4Ia� � Ig:4VRI�MPI I�IIYL.R4 IY14L11fiY LYE(�.8l�IT � IIflVNllr!l6TY�56ArfM!Fd IYY�YIfl�liiEifl 14i+�A1� Mil�IIW Fi@7N.NQ W`P.nw@ � e9ar8ertilarNae®nva P�F'Yg4y 1JPfP[f � � •�.. w�*�esC�ar�. Parkway Width by Forestry Section 25.0 20.0 t a 15.0 d e4 10.0 IL 5.0 0.0 CO Q Forestry Section Figure 2D -2. Width of the parkway (tree planting strip) in the public right -of -way, by Forestry Section. Figure 2D -1. Current zoning in the Village of Mount Prospect. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 17 www.urbanforestryllc.com Introduction Care of Parkway Trees in Mount Prospect Between 1917 and 1976 (Prepared by Sandy Clark, Forestry /Grounds Superintendent) It is unknown exactly when the Village first began any formalized tree care activities. It appears that parkway tree plant- ing was common from the early days of real estate development in Mount Prospect. According to a Mount Prospect Historical Society website, an 1875 Chicago Tribune article reported that E.C. Eggleston was "superintending the planting of over 200 trees" on newly purchased farmland he was hoping to develop into a town called Mount Prospect. Eggleston's project failed financially and he moved on to other ventures. However, members of local farming families continued to build up the community, and they too appeared to recognize the value of trees (Photograph 3 -1 a). A circa 1910 real estate advertisement for lots in Busse and Wille's Resubdivision (the area that is now Forestry Section 8) touted "Eighteen trains daily. Gas and cement walks; trees in front of every lot" (Photograph 3- 1 b). Photos taken around the time of Village incorporation in 1917 consistently show rows of American elm trees lining the newly built streets. Public Works has no records showing how those trees were first maintained, or by whom. However, it appears that the arrival of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) was the impetus for the beginnings of a formalized tree care program in Mount Prospect. Photograph 3 -1a and 3- 1b. Left: Early (1923) aerial photograph of the Village showing that tree planting had started when the Village was in its early stages of development. Right: An old real estate ad from around 1910 announcing "trees in front of every lot". (Photograph and ad courtesy of the Mount Prospect Historical Society). i f [xe414hRGTJfi74`l _ I G... w : +i+�J ri.. imu Vw t.•ry s� �+� r.J Dutch Elm Disease Dutch Elm Disease was first reported in Illinois in 1950, and causing widespread losses in the Chicago area by 1959 (Photograph 3 -2). The Mount Pros- pect Village Board passed its first DED ordinance on September 4, 1956. This ordinance declared infected elms on public and private property to be public nuisances and established requirements for their prompt removal. This ordinance was amended slightly in 1959. Photograph 3 -2. Aerial photograph of the Village from 1956 showing the maturing elm population along streets. Dutch elm disease was just beginning to affect trees in the Chicago area at that time (Photograph courtesy of the Mount Prospect Historical Society). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 19 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History A 1965 Public Works report indicated that the following quantities of trees were removed due to DIED: 71 trees in 1961, 28 in 1962, 52 in 1963 and 53 in 1964. A letter written by the Public Works Director in the fall of 1965 indicated that the Village had removed 389 elms that year due to DIED, and had counted 4961 existing elms. Besides removal and trimming activities, the Village tried several means of chemical control of DIED over the years, including some elm spraying with the insecticide methoxychlor, as well as injection of fungicides and insecticides (1966 - Bidrin, 1974 - Benlate, 1976 -77 Correx and Lignasan). Public Works regularly provided data about their elm losses to Dr. Dan Neely of the Illinois Natural History Survey, who tracked elm losses and the control measures used in 21 Chicago area communities from 1957 to 1982. Tree Ordinance A fairly comprehensive Tree Ordinance was adopted by the Mount Prospect Village Board in September of 1960. At that time, Sections 9.501 through 9.509 of the Village Code included multiple tree - related provisions. These included the following: • Requirement of a permit from the Village President and Trustees before planting trees or shrub- bery on parkways. Trees were to be planted at least fifty feet apart, under the direction of the Superintendent of Streets. • Requirement of a permit from the Superintendent of Buildings before removing a parkway tree. • Limited restrictions on injuring parkway trees or attaching things to them. • Requirements for property owners to keep private trees from endangering users of the public right of way. Ordinance #1186 was approved by the Village Board in December of 1966, and this ordinance amended Section 9.501 of the Code to include a list of 24 tree species /cultivars acceptable for parkway planting. Tree Planting During the 1960's, records show that the Village was ordering mostly 2 -2'/2 inch diameter trees; the species were mostly honeylocust, red maple, Norway maple and green ash. Some `Christine Buisman' elms, mountain ash and birch trees were also ordered. Records are incomplete, but it appears that during some years about 200 trees were planted by a variety of nurseries, and the cost was around $20 per tree (including planting). Developers were also being required to put money in escrow to assure that they would plant parkway trees in their developments, and if the trees were not planted the Village would use the escrow money to have the planting done. Sometime in the 1970s the Village began a contractual growing arrangement with Wandell's Nursery of Urbana, IL. By 1974 the Village was buying 700 -1000 trees per year; at that time they were planted by Public Works crews. The arrangement with Wandell's was terminated around 1978, and thereafter the Village began bidding out and contractu- ally planting trees from a variety of local growers. Originally those growers' fields were relatively close to Mount Pros- pect, but as time progressed the nearby fields were developed, and the nurseries moved further away. A 1974 news article mentioned that Wandell's was using a "new" technique where the tree root balls were enclosed with wire after digging at the nursery. It appears that the Village was trying to replace trees at no cost to the adjacent property owner in the 1960's and early 1970's. A 1975 news article announced that the Village could no longer afford that, and asked property owners to pay for the trees at a cost of $40 to $73 each. In 1978 the Village started a "50 -50 Cost - Share" program in which property owners were asked to contribute 1 /2 the cost of planting each parkway tree. In 1980 the property owner's contribution was changed to a flat rate of $35 per tree, and by 1991, as tree prices rose, this increased to $100 per tree. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 20 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Staffing Although the Public Works Department apparently did not specifically have a Forestry /Grounds Division in the 1960's, it is clear that by the late 1960's certain personnel were regularly assigned to tree - related duties. A daily notebook detailing Forestry activities was kept between November 20,1967 and October 30, 1969. This notebook described work such as tree removals, trimming, cabling and "rodding ", soil application of Vapam (a soil sterilant) for DIED preven- tion, installation of drain tubes, spraying, and climbing. Brush and logs were taken to a burning site. Crew sizes were occasionally listed and ranged from two to six people. The last entry in the notebook, on October 30, 1969, simply reads "EXIT ", implying that that was the author's last work day. The current Forestry/ Grounds Superintendent was told after her arrival in 1977 that there had been one college- trained forester on staff in the past, but he was let go after bold- ly telling Village administrators that they were not doing things correctly; perhaps this person was the notebook's author. By the 1960s the Village had begun supplementing in -house forces with contractual forces (Photographs 3 -3a and 3 -3b). Records show that specifications for a tree maintenance contract were issued in September 1963. These specifications described a 1964 contract for trimming, pruning, removing, repairing, cabling, and treating trees at an hourly rate. Workers were to clock in at Public Works daily. The contract was to be supervised by a state - licensed Tree Expert. All brush generated was to be stacked on parkways and removed /disposed by Public Works personnel. Public Works has no records showing the actual award of this contract. Photographs 3 -3a and 3 -3b. Photographs of tree maintenance activities being conducted in the Village in 1974. Left: Brush loaded with a Hough end - loader. Right: Tree trimming conducted by A. J. Davis. Tree Pruning and Maintenance New specifications were written in 1967 that asked for unit prices for trimming trees in various size classes. With the exception of one year, it appears that this contract, or various versions of it, were awarded to the A.J. Davis Company of Forest Park, IL until 1972. At that time new contract terms were proposed. A memo written in August of 1972 by the Chairman of the Public Works Committee proposed that a new comprehensive contract, to include a wide range of tree work at the Village's discretion, would effectively replace several in -house Public Works personnel whose positions were at that time unfilled. Interestingly, the memo noted that Public Works "has been plagued with the never ending problem of retaining qualified forestry personnel ". The memo went on to say that this problem "truly reflects the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 21 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History rapid turnover in this employment area ". The Chairman's proposal was accepted and A.J. Davis was then awarded a contract in which he was paid $6500 per month to provide 120 hours of labor each week, plus all necessary equip- ment, to perform the tree related tasks assigned by the Village. By the late 70s, A.J. Davis was still under contract, and DED losses were continuing to ramp up. By then the Village had additional Public Works personnel who were most often assigned to forestry duties.This included current Village Trustee Michael Zadel, who was then Mount Prospect's Forestry Foreman, and several maintenance workers with tree work experience but limited formal forestry training. The Village established a goal of a five -year pruning cycle, apparently sometime in the 1970's. A map prepared by the Forestry Foreman in 1976 showed that trees along roughly 75 % of the Village's streets had been trimmed in the four previous years. Most such work was being done contractually but some was also done by in -house personnel. Tree Inventory Public Works possesses records showing that a parkway tree inventory was completed on February 17, 1972. Each tree's species was denoted as a symbol (or in some cases a symbol combining similar species) drawn on a December 31, 1970 version of the Village's Zoning Map book. No additional tree information was recorded, but handwritten mar- gin notes on many pages indicated if the area consisted mostly of young, mature, or mixed -age trees. A separate map, entitled "Prospect Heights Annexation ", was similarly marked and stored with the Zoning Map Book (This map showed the neighborhoods now known as Forestry Sections 1 -3 and bordered by Seminole Lane, River Road, Kensington Road and Wolf Road, plus the part of Forestry Section 4 bordered by Kensington Road, Wolf Road, Kensington Road and Brentwood Lane /Crabtree Lane. Note that this area was annexed to the Village of Mount Prospect on September 28, 1971; the ordinance referred to the "Camelot and New Town Prospect Heights Annexation "). A chart summarizing the survey results is stored at Public Works; this chart shows the number of trees by species as well as by the mapped Sections. The last page of the chart showed a total of 14,003 trees counted in the existing Village neighborhoods, plus 3307 trees in the "Prospect Heights Annexation ", for a total of 17,310 trees (Note that 1395 trees, or 42% of the trees, in the annexation area were Silver Maples). The summary also noted that 1203 planting spaces had been recorded in the Prospect Heights annexation area. The page explaining the species symbols indicated that at least 39 individual species had been recorded. At that time the following species were most heavily represented: American elm (3,911 trees or 22.4% of the total parkway tree population), silver maple (3,660 trees or 21 %), Norway maple (2,774 trees or 15.9 %) honeylocust (1,985 trees or 11.4 %) and ashes (green, black, blue and white were combined, totaling 1,836 trees and comprising 10.5% of the tree population). These species alone made up 81.2% of the Village's total population. The remainder of the population was broken down as follows: 3.7% sugar maples, 3.5% European /Asian /hybrid elms, 2.1 % red maples, 2.1 % conifers (multiple species), 1.7% pin oaks, and 1.1 % crabapples. Nineteen additional species or genera each made up less than 1 % of the population. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 22 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The current Forestry /Grounds Superintendent was hired in 1977, and the existing parkway tree program was devel- oped by her and her staff. The remainder of Section 3 details the history of that program over the past 36 years. 3A. Ordinance, Standards, Specifications & Procedures Introduction The Village code contains the ordinances that define the legal authority of the Village to manage trees located within the Village boundaries. A State's corporate charter typically authorizes the existence of local governments such as the Village of Mount Prospect. Incorporated municipalities are then permitted or required to enact ordinances dealing with the various activities of local government including the management of trees on public and private property (Miller 1988). The citizens of the Village, through their elected officials, then enact the ordinances that reflect their desires regarding the management of the urban forest. The survey conducted by the Illinois Natural History Survey on urban forestry completed in 2010 revealed that 72% of respondents felt tree ordinances were important for the protection and maintenance of the urban forest (Sass et al. 2011). Work standards, specifications and procedures are the other management tools government uses to guide and imple- ment the maintenance of the urban forest. These are important documents for a community to maintain. A citizen, service provider, or Village staff, can refer to these documents to easily find specific policies, standards, specifications and work procedures that are required in the management of trees in the Village. Current Management There are six chapters in the Village code that reference trees or define the requirements, protection and penalties regarding their management within the Village; Chapters 9, 14, 15, 16, 21 and 23. A summary of these chapters and the ordinance language can be found in Appendix 3A -1. Chapters 9 and 16 detail the primary requirements and responsibilities for the protection and management of public trees in the Village. Chapters 14, 15 and 21 cover the requirements and responsibilities for the protection of trees on private property in the Village. • Chapter 9 — Public Utilities, Pavement and Tree Regulations o Article 7 — Trees & Shrubs • Chapter 14 - Zoning • Chapter 15 — Subdivision, Site Development and Site Improvement Procedures • Chapter 16 — Site Construction Standards • Chapter 21 — Building Code • Chapter 23 — Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations Chapter 9, Article 7 of the Village code cites the requirement of the Village to maintain an Arboricultural Standards Manual. This document details policies, standards and specifications for the management and protection of public trees in the Village. It is the responsibility of the Forestry /Grounds Superintendent to revise and maintain the docu- ment. The document is "living ", meaning it can undergo revisions and updates as the Forestry /Grounds Superintendent sees fit to keep it current with developing challenges as well as advances in arboriculture and urban forest management. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 23 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Forestry /Grounds Division also maintains numerous documents that detail standards, specifications and proce- dures that guide work planning and activities on a daily basis. Examples of these documents include but are not limited to the following: • Foreman's Manual, • Service Request Manual, • Tree Inventory Procedures, • Quality Control Procedures, • Storm Mitigation Plan, • Tree Risk Plan, • Numerous memoranda detailing guidelines and procedures. Historical Summary The 1993 management plan summarized the ordinances in the Village code that pertained to the management and protection of trees in the Village. It noted Chapter 9, Article 5 as containing the requirements for the management and protection of trees on public property (ACRT 1993). Chapter 14 included the requirements for landscaping and the protection of trees on private property during development. Chapter 16 also included provisions for landscaping and tree protection on private property as well as the protection of public trees during development projects. The Plan also contained several recommendations regarding the Village ordinance and matters of legal concern. They are summarized as follows. • Village Ordinance • Update and remove technical specifications from the ordinance and put them in a separate specifications manual. • Add language that cites a technical specifications manual to be referred to for the Village's technical tree management standards and specifications. • Add language prohibiting topping of trees in the Village. • Suggested adding a Shade Tree Commission for an advisory role. • Maintenance Agreement o Suggested a formal agreement should be authored detailing cooperative efforts in the management of trees on state and county properties. The majority of the recommendations regarding revisions to the Village code from the 1993 management plan were completed. The period from 1993 to 2012 offered significant legal changes in the management and protection of trees for Mount Prospect. In April of 1997, as recommended, an Arboricultural Standards Manual was adopted; and this has undergone five revisions with the last being completed in 2010. Updates to the ordinance, Chapter 9 Article 7 Tree & Shrubs were made in 2002, 2010 and 2012. For example, provisions aimed at battling and managing EAB were added in 2012. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 24 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Chapters 14, 15, 16, 21 and 23 all saw revisions to language that related to trees. Most notable were changes proposed by the Community Development Department to Chapters 14 and 15 to protect trees on private property. The majority of these changes are designed to preserve and protect trees during redevelopment projects as well as require the planting of trees as part of these projects. However, one code section, 14.2302 adopted in 2009, suggests that a property owner must submit a landscape plan to the Village for authorization to remove more than 3 trees on any property. Finally, although the Village did not establish a formal Shade Tree Commission, Forestry /Grounds sought and received an agreement that the Garden Club of Mount Prospect would serve as the Village's Citizen Advisory Group on tree - related matters. Discussion The Village ordinances are sufficient to fulfill the Village's management and protection goals of both public and private trees. The recent amendments to Chapters 14 and 15 have resulted in some management challenges regarding the interpretation and implementation of these provisions. There are numerous documents that detail urban forestry policy, standards, and specifications as well as technical and administrative procedures Forestry uses to manage their work activities. The numbers of documents and their fragmented organization makes accessing the appropriate information difficult, and can lead to contradictions in and duplication of these guidelines. We highly recommend consolidating all Village forestry standards, specifications and procedures into two separate and distinct manuals as follows; • Arboricultural Standards & Specifications Manual • Work activity policies, standards and specifications • Tree protection policies, standards and specifications • Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual • Work activity administrative procedures • Work activity technical procedures Other documents and procedures covering unique subject matters such as the Foreman's Manual that guide in -house crew safety and operations, or the EAB mitigation plan may warrant topic specific documents. In addition, these docu- ments should include a regular review and updating process with all stakeholders. We also recommend that Forestry/ Grounds should continue its efforts to transition from paper to electronic record keeping. Recommendations • Ordinance o Work with Community Development on the recent Chapter 14 and 15 tree protection ordinances and develop an implementation plan that matches the capabilities and needs of each department and fulfills objectives of these provisions. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 25 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History • Compile and organize all forestry standards, specifications and procedures and develop two new documents. • Arboricultural Standards & Specifications Manual • Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual • Complete regular reviews of all standards, specifications and procedures manuals and update as appropriate. • Increase frequency of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) on Hansen service requests. • Continue transition from paper to electronic record keeping without losing important historical records. 3B. Annual Budgets and Staffing Introduction The resources a community can dedicate to a program determine the level of urban forest management and services that are provided to citizens. These resources include personnel, expertise, as well as funding. There are many com- peting demands for public resources of which an urban forestry program is but one. Every community is unique in the level of available resources, the allocation of those resources, and the management strategies it chooses to employ to meet the demands for public services. The 2010 Illinois Natural History Survey's sur- vey of Illinois urban and community tree programs reported 71 % of the respondents agreed that the benefits of street trees outweigh the cost of maintenance (Sass et al. 2010). The American Public Works Association's (APWA) budgeting and funding Best Management Practices publication suggests many communities use a "level of service" concept when determining annual budgets. It classifies expected levels of service as minimum, adequate or high. A minimum service level is characterized as response or emergency based management and a high service level is a proactive management strategy with expenditures in preventative maintenance. The BMP also provided an average national urban forestry budget allocation summarizing expenditures by work activity type (Figure 313-1). Another common method to compare budget expenditures among different communities is using per capita spending. This allows a community to compare their budget allocations with other communities as a whole, or with communities of similar size or geographic location. Average National Urban Forest Budget Allocation Other 13% Pruning Management 33 9% Planting 15% Removal 30 Figure 3B -1. Average national urban forestry work activity budget allocations (APWA BMP). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 26 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current l Mount Prospect's fiscal year 2012 Forestry portion of the Forestry /Grounds Division operating budget was approximately 1.4 million dollars. Tree and stump removal represented the highest percentage of the budget followed by pruning, and planting and establishment (Figure 313-2). Mount Prospect's per capita spending on forestry activities in 2012 was $26 per capita. The current Forestry /Grounds Division staff includes three managerial /leadership positions, two administrative and technical support posi- tions, as well as nine operational maintenance staff. Forestry /Grounds is a Division of the Department of Public Works and the Director of Public Works provides senior management oversight for the Division. The management of the Division is led by Sandy Clark, the For- estry /Grounds Superintendent. Supervision of daily operations, maintenance staff and con- tractual services is provided by the Forestry/ Grounds Foremen. 2007 -2012 Average Forestry Activity Budget Other 8% Service Requests Planting 5% 15% Admin 10% Storm Pruning Restoration 22% 7% Pest Contol 4% Removal 29% Figure 3B -2. Mount Prospect's average forestry budget by work activity from 2007 through 2012. Technical support for the Division's activities is provided by the Forestry Assistant as well as the Seasonal Forestry Intern. Administrative support is provided by a seasonal position in addition to daily support from Public Works ad- ministrative staff. Forestry and Grounds work activities are largely completed by contractual labor augmented by nine, full -time Maintenance Workers. In 2012, the Village planned to spend approximately $943,200 on contractual tree and landscape services. In recent years, the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) has begun expanding the definitions of the types of services that will require contractors to pay prevailing wage rates (Appendix 313-2). The Forestry /Grounds Superintendent estimates that contract costs would increase between 65% and 100% to maintain the current levels of service if prevailing wages were required for all the division's current contracts (Dorsey, S. 2012; Appendix 313-3). A 65% increase in contractual costs would require an additional annual budget allocation of $789,900. If these changes are enacted, they will have an unfavorable impact on the costs the Village pays for contractual services and the level of services provided by the Village. Fortunately, in May of 2013 IDOL issued the clarification letter seen in Appendix 313-4; this document seems to indi- cate that IDOL intends to require prevailing wages on some, but not all, Forestry /Grounds contracts. Historical Summary In the fiscal year 1977 -78 the Forestry budget was approximately $113,000 and it grew at an average annual rate of approximately 12% to $421,000 in fiscal year 1992 -93 (Figure 313-3). Over these 15 years, the Forestry budget represented an average of 1.33% of the total Village budget (Figure 313-4), with a high of 1.8% in 1981 -82 and a low of 0.8% in 1977 -78. For the same period, the total Village budget grew at an average annual rate of 10.5 %. The per capita spending on forestry activities for this period averaged $6 per capita. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 27 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Forestry budget was approximately $488,000 in fiscal year 1993 -94 and grew at an average annual rate of 8.3% to approximately $1.6 million in 2013 (Figure 313-5). For the same period, the Village budget grew at an average annual rate of 3.96 %. Over these 20 years, the Forestry budget has represented an average of 1.39% of the total Village budget (Figure 313-6). The per capita spending on forestry activities for this period averaged $17 per capita. Forestry Budgets 1977 -1993 $500 $450 $400 c $350 ° o $300 $250 : $200 a $150 ro $100 $50 '10'1000 0�O 00 O b 0 0 5 0 0 1 0000000 '" �O 0 .1'1' .10 .10' 0 0' Oti Oti O "l ODr 00 0 0' 0'1 00 0 0' p �0' 0 Oti Fiscal Year Figure 313-3. Forestry budgets for fiscal years 1977 through 1993. Forestry Budget 1993 -2013 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 Ul $ $1,200 c d $1,000 C m $800 rn $600 m $400 $200 $- 9 0 9 k 9 5p6 9 '1 9 0 9 0 00 0 0 00 OC`00060'10000 ,0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 20 VIP 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 Fiscal Year Figure 313-5. Mount Prospect Forestry Division budget for fiscal years 1993 through 2013 (The Village changed the fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year in 1994). 8% 6 °6 a m 1.2 °,0 0 0 m m 0.49. a 0.2° 0.0 A 0� 0� 0 0 0� P R 0� 0� 2 5P 0 O 9p .10 .10 00 111 02 0 O 00 00 01 0 0 0 0 00 1?1 02 Fiscal Year ` 1977 -78 was not avaialable Figure 313-4. Forestry budget as a percentage of the total Village budget from 1978 -1993. 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% C v 0.8% `m a 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 60 1. 1.5 1 � b 1 .b 1 .b 1 .b N l.b 1 .b 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 'L 2 2 2 2 2 Fiscal Year Figure 313-6. Forestry budget as a percentage of the total Village budget from 1993 - 2013. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 28 www.urbanforestryllc.com Percent of Total Village Budget 1978 -1993 Percent of Total Village Budget 1993 -2013 Section 3. Forestry Management History The Forestry /Grounds Division received approximately $206,500 in grants between 1993 and 2012. These grants, listed below, were used for tree planting as well as planning, management, and public outreach projects. • 1993 - Urban Forestry Management Plan ($3,000) — Worked with consultant to review Forestry Program and recommend future goals. • 1993 - SBA Tree Planting Grant ($15,000) — Planted 210 new trees. • 1994 - Tree Risk Assessment Project ($10,000) — Developed guidelines for a parkway tree risk management program. — Assessed 300 trees in the first year. • 1994 - SBA Tree Planting Grant ($25,000) — Planted 348 new trees; also used project to experimentally plant trees in Gro -Bags for the first time. • 1994 - ISTEA Enhancement Funds ($4,000) — Planted 10,000 daffodils at Village Grounds Areas in one day; joint project between Village staff, Chamber of Commerce, and School Districts. • 1995 - Ordinance, Brochure and Manual ($4,500) — Updated tree ordinance; developed Arbo- ricultural Standards Manual; created "Trees of Mount Prospect" booklet in a joint project with Mount Prospect's citizen advisory group, the Garden Club of Mount Prospect. • 1996 - Tree Manager /GIS Link ($10,000) — Developed application for mapping inventoried trees. • 2000 - Analysis of Tree Risk Program ($5,000) — A review of the Village's Tree Risk program and recommendations for improvements. • 2005 — .Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Grant ($20,000) — Planted 85 parkway oak trees to further diversification efforts. • 2011 — Illinois Urban Forestry Restoration Grant ($30,000) — Planted 206 new parkway trees to replace ashes lost to EAB. • 2012 — Illinois Urban Forestry Restoration Grant ($30,000) — Planted 204 new parkway trees to replace ashes lost to EAB. • 2012 — Community Development Block Grant ($25,000) — Planted 165 trees in low- income neighborhood to replace those lost to EAB and storms. • 2013 — .Urban and Community Forestry Grant ($25,000) — Hired a consultant to review program, help establish future goals, and create updated Urban Forest Management Plan. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 29 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History In 2012, Mount Prospect ranked 21st in spending per capita among Illinois municipalities applying for Tree City USA designation (Appendix 313-1). The top 25 per capita spending Illinois municipalities are presented in Table 313-1. Discussion Over the past 20 years, Forestry has been provided sufficient funding to manage Mount Prospect's public tree population. Budget growth rates clearly have kept pace with annual inflation rates and the growth rate of the total Village budget. Forestry has also received over $206,500 in grant funding over the last 20 years. Per capita spending on Forestry activities has also grown. Applying the "level of service" bud- geting concept offered in the APWA budgeting and funding BMP, we would classify Mount Prospect's level of services as a "high ". Forestry has sufficient resources to manage Mount Prospect's public tree population. We do offer one budget administrative recommendation. In order to compare activity costs year to year we recommend publishing additional forestry budget performance measures, such as the parkway tree population, in the Village's Forestry /Grounds performance mea- sures section of the annual budget. This will provide historical information to facilitate monitoring the popu- lation statistics and accomplishments and compare Mount Prospect funding and expenditures with other communities. The unresolved and evolving potential changes to the prevailing wage rate requirements for contractual ser- vices by the Illinois Department of Labor could cer- tainly result in increases in the costs the Village pays for contractual services. The result on the Forestry/ Table 313-1. Top 25 2012 Illinois Tree City USA applicant's per capita expenditures for urban forestry expenditures. Municipality Population Forestry Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Glencoe 9,100 $810,665 $89.1 Lake Forest 22,400 $1,883,667 $84.1 Highland 10,000 $659,407 $65.9 Lincolnwood 12,500 $564,217 $45.1 Winnetka 12,419 $544,422 $43.8 Hinsdale 16,816 $612,951 $36.5 St Charles 32,000 $1,152,365 $36.0 River Forest 11,635 $412,820 $35.5 Bolingbrook 70,977 $2,517,602 $35.5 Evanston 74,486 $2,396,098 $32.2 Burr Ride 10,599 $332,420 $31.4 Naperville 147,433 $4,618,197 $31.3 Northbrook 33,170 $1,038,672 $31.3 Algonquin 30,145 $896,360 $29.7 Elmhurst 44,000 $1,289,498 $29.3 Riverwoods 3,660 $104,964 $28.7 Addison 37,000 $1,047,165 $28.3 Northfield 5,420 $152,011 $28.1 Downers Grove 47,833 $1,282,319 $26.8 Glen Ellyn 27,000 $710,351 $26.3 Mount Prospect 54,167 $1,409,524 $26.0 Lincolnshire 7,275 $186,875 $25.7 Marquette Heights 2,824 $71,696 $25.4 Mowea ua 1 1,831 1 $46,411 1 $25.4 Oak Park 1 52,000 1 $1,313,079 1 $25.3 Source: Randy Gordon, Program Manager at the Arbor Day Foundation Lincoln NE - June 2013 Grounds budget would be to negatively impact the level of forestry services the Village can provide if current funding levels were maintained. Resolution of the prevailing wage issue is a complex political, legislative and legal issue that is largely determined at the State level. Village officials will need to dedicate the time and resources to help ensure the final ruling is consistent with the people of Mount Prospect's wishes. Recommendations • Revise annual published Forestry /Grounds budget performance measures to include the actual total tree population figure at the beginning of the fiscal year and other historical events such as Ash trees removed or treated for EAB. Continue to fund Forestry at current levels and make short -term adjustments for emerald ash borer removals and replacements as projected in Section 5. • To the extent possible, work for clarification and favorable legislation regarding prevailing wage issues, as prevailing wage changes could significantly increase budget expenditures. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 30 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History 3C. Pruning History Introduction Pruning is essential to reduce conflicts within urban spaces and increase the safety and longevity of urban trees. Defective branches must be pruned to reduce the risks of property damage and personal injury. Adequate clearance must be provided over public streets and from other elements of the urban infrastructure. Regular or rotational pruning of urban street trees has also been shown to reduce priority or high maintenance needs and service requests from the public ( Luley et al. 2002), and increase their appraised value (Miller and Sylvester 1981). To be effective as a management tool, pruning should be initiated shortly after trees are planted and continue as they mature in the landscape (Pleninger and Luley 2012; Gilman and Lilly 2002; Gilman 2011). Public benefit from regular or rotational pruning is significant because of the reduction of pruning costs associated with more frequent pruning, improved tree condition, and decrease in liability from conflicts and harm resulting from unmanaged trees. Current Management A significant benchmark and important accomplishment of the Village's forestry program has been maintenance of a five year rotation pruning program since 1977. The rotational pruning is maintained by pruning management areas (Appendix Section 3C -1 and 3C -2) on a carefully established, pre - planned schedule. The majority of trees in the Village are pruned by contract crews and overseen by a contractor with International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certification, as well as Village forestry staff. Pruning is conducted by a specification developed from current ANSI Standards for pruning (ANSI 2008) and ISA Best Management Practices for Tree Prun- ing (Gilman and Lilly 2002). The trim bid specification identifies five size classes of trees and pruning specifications for those individual classes. Contractors take over pruning on the five year rotation after trees exceed 3 inches in diameter. Newly planted trees are pruned for structure one year after planting and again three years after planting. Small trees (all trees 3 inches or less in diameter) are subsequently pruned by Village forestry staff according to an in -house prun- ing specification during the five year rotational pruning cycle for the management unit where they are located. Village staff also prune for traffic control sign clearance on an annual basis after Village street sweeping crews identify signs that have clearance issues. Forestry staff also prunes trees in response to service requests from citizens and other sources (Photograph 3C -1). This specialty or request prun- ing is coded by pruning type request within the Village's database manage- ment system. Pruning related to service requests are summarized in Section 31. Photograph 3C -1. Village crews prune trees at the request of citizens. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 31 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Historical Summary The current rotational pruning program commenced prior to 1977 and has been consistently maintained through 2013. Up to 1993, the Village was pruning nearly 4,200 trees at a cost of $23.16 per tree (ACRT 1993). Most recommenda- tions made in the 1993 management plan, such as using Village forestry staff for pruning of small trees (less than 3" in diameter), and extending pruning contracts to more than one year when of benefit to the Village, were implemented. Since 1993, the Village has maintained close to a five year rotation by pruning on average 4,143 trees annually via contracts, and on average 572 trees by Village forestry crews, for an annual average of over 4,700 trees. Based on the current tree population of 23,724 trees, 4745 trees require pruning annually to maintain a five year rotation. The trend line for both contract pruned trees (Figure 3C -1) and trees pruned by forestry staff (Figure 3C -2) shows a slow, but consistent increase in the number of trees pruned annually. Cost for the contract tree pruning remained relatively low over the period from 1993 to 2012, averaging $28.71 per tree. Pruning costs began to escalate in 2006; average per tree pruning cost for the last five years was $39.96. How- ever, pruning costs as a percent of the total Forestry annual budget has remained stable since 1995, varying between 10 and 20% (Figure 3C -3). Number and Cost of Trees Pruned Contractually 70 $60 _ Number Trimmed 60 _ Cost per of tree Trees trimmed $50 50 1 $40m H 40 o d fie, ® _ ■.1 S30t a 30 a £ M 20 t S z' 10 S10v 0 $0 A 0 ° 0 0q 0 '1 O ' O D 5 � O ' N N NgNgNqNq NgNgNqNqNqNqNq N Year Figure 3C -1. The number of contractually pruned trees per year and the cost for pruning since 1977. Contractual Pruning Cost as a Percent of Forestry Budget m 80 .6 70 m 60 m 50 F 40 - 6 30 c 20 10 r a 0 NgA AC, 9P g �5� gZ A� g 0� ' gCP g g CbA CP � &1 6 �� ° � N(b Year Figure 3C -3. Contractual pruning costs as a percent of the total Forestry annual budget. Number of Trees Pruned by Forestry Staff 1000 800 600 400 200 0 g0 02 g b g 0 g 0 00 02 O b 0 0 0 0 , ,�°' ,�°' ,�°' ,�°' ,�°' 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 , � 2 0 \" Year Figure 3C -2. Number of trees pruned by year by Mount Prospect forestry staff. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 32 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Discussion The number of trees currently being pruned by contractors and forestry staff is on target to maintain a five year rota- tion at current population levels. Pruning needed by Forestry staff may increase as replacement trees are installed after emerald ash borer removals. Pruning costs are escalating over the last five years. This may be due to recent spikes in fuel costs and other external factors, as pruning specifications and contracts for pruning have remained stable over the same period. Clearly, the maintenance of the five year rotational pruning program is producing trees with minimal pruning needs be- tween pruning intervals, minimizing service requests from citizens, increasing public safety, and is maintaining trees in excellent condition. In fact, our site observations suggest that most mature trees have reduced pruning requirements, as once structure is established, most trees have few if any dead or defective branches, and additional pruning of non - structural branches is not needed. Forestry staff have also recognized the need to reduce non - structural pruning on mature trees by altering the pruning specification specifically to eliminate lions- tailing, or the over pruning of non- structural, healthy branches on mature trees. Given these observations, mature trees (greater than 25 inches in diameter) could be pruned under a different pruning specification where crown cleaning (ANSI 2008) for dead or defective branches, and pruning for clearance are the only pruning specified. Crown thinning could be eliminated or deemphasized in the pruning specification for mature trees, or specified for use only when needed to address specific issues such as crown balance or overall branch distribution. Forestry staff is on -board and have been monitoring contractors to reduce thinning where it is not needed. This approach would be justified given current tree conditions and recent research that has implicated that smaller branches along scaffolds and larger limbs are important in mass dampening and reducing dynamic loading (James et al. 2006). Based on our site observations, additional emphasis and development of the pruning specification for trees 3 to 12.5 inches in diameter (size class 1) should be considered. Forestry has recognized the need for increased structural prun- ing of small trees through increased staff training (Photograph 3C -2). Removal or reduction of codominant stems and competing laterals (Pleninger and Luley 2012) should be emphasized and prioritized in the pruning specification. Prun- ing of these branches when trees are larger becomes problematic, because undesirable or larger defective branches become too large to effectively prune. A separate pruning specification should be considered for size class 1 trees. .. . Photograph 3C -2. Structural pruning of young trees is an important aspect of the Village's rotational pruning program. Training young trees is completed by Village crews and establishes good tree form early in the life of the tree. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 33 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Recommendations • Review and modify the current pruning specification to reduce or eliminate thinning of mature trees. • Review and modify the current pruning specification for size class 1 trees to prioritize pruning se- quence for structural pruning. • Reinforce through staff training the importance of proper structural pruning when trees are young. • Continue funding the five year rotational pruning as the most important element of the tree manage- ment program. 3D. Planting History Introduction In a natural setting, Mother Nature manages renewal of the forest; over time natural selection will maintain the numbers and species of trees that are appropriate for the environmental conditions in the forest. In the urban setting, humans are the stewards and tree planting and in particular species selection is one of the most important tasks in managing the health and longevity of the urban forest. Individual tree species have evolved to grow in specific site conditions such as soils and climate. If they do not have those specific conditions they will grow poorly, will be susceptible to pests and disease, and in some cases die. Matching the tree species to the site conditions they are adapted to will help ensure the tree will live a long and healthy life. In the larger urban forest ecosystem perspective, history has demonstrated that diversifying the numbers of tree species planted is of equal importance to site selection. There are several examples, such as Dutch elm disease and emerald ash borer, where these pests devastated the urban forest at a significant cost in terms of tree cover, financial burden and decreased quality of living (Photograph 3D -1). As we renew our urban forest through tree planting, these lessons stress the importance of selecting tree species that are appropriate for the conditions of an individual site while also diversifying the numbers of tree species in the urban forest. Photograph 3D -1. Elm -lined street in Mount Prospect, 1978. The disproportionally large population of American elms that were planted in many communities created the optimum conditions for Dutch elm disease to flourish and claim millions of elms in the United States beginning in the 1950s. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 34 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management In 2012, the Village planted 800 trees including 37 different species of trees (Appendix 3D -1). The stocking level was 88% and the Village removed more trees than were planted. Many of the trees planted in 2012 were plantings to replace trees removed as a result of EAB infestation in the Village. The climate of this region of Illinois (Section 2C) offers a large selection of trees to plant in the Village. The soils, however, do present some limitations with regard to plant selection. The soils are primarily clay in texture, poorly drained and alkaline (Section 2B) and therefore tree species which will not tolerate these conditions cannot be used (Photograph 3D -2). The Village has planted 91 different tree species over the last 20 years utilizing species of trees that meet the following restrictions. • Hardy to USDA Hardiness Zone 5b • Tolerant of poorer drainage and high pH The physical space and soil volume available are also a limiting factor in tree species selection. The mature size of a tree needs adequate space to grow and sufficient soil volume to remain healthy and reach its full age potential. Mount Prospect is fortunate to have large parkway tree lawns that provide adequate space and soil volumes. This also means the Village can use primarily large tree species that provide the most environmental benefits. Over 90% of the parkway tree lawns are larger than 10 feet in depth (Figure 3D -1). There are several policies that guide the Village's tree planting efforts. These are found in Chapter 9, Article VII of the Village ordinance and the Arboricultural Standards Manual. Tables 3D -1 and 3D -2 summarize these policies. Photograph 3D -2. A drainage sump being installed in a tree planting site in May 1975 in the Village to modify the site and make it more amenable to planting. Figure 3D -1. Mount Prospect parkway tree lawn widths. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 35 www.urbanforestryllc.com Parkway Tree Lawn Width 100% w 80% N 60% 0 40% d 20% 0% <= 3 feet 4 - 5 feet 6 - 10 feet > 10 feet Width in Feet Figure 3D -1. Mount Prospect parkway tree lawn widths. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 35 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Village has nine tree planting programs that guide and help fund the Village's tree planting efforts (Table 3D -3). The objective of these programs is to promote tree planting in the Village as well as secure other tree planting funding sources and provide tree planting options for Village residents. All tree planting is completed as Village funding is available. Table 3D -1. Village tree planting policies extracted from the Village ordinance. Village Ordinance - Tree Planting Chapter Summary of Language Related to Tree Planting 9.703. B Promote urban forest species diversity. 9.703. C Select large tree species vs. small tree species to capitalize on the benefits of large trees species. Match the tree species selection to the site restrictions. 9.703. D "Establish Optimum Canopy Closure" - implies selecting larger tree species to realize the environmental benefits of a high tree canopy cover. 9.709 A Restricts the planting of shrubs and evergreens in the right -of -way. 9.709 B Specifies permit requirements for planting deciduous trees in the right -of -way. Table 3D -2. Village tree planting policies extracted from the Arboricultural Standards Manual. Village Arboricultural Standards Manual - Tree Planting Section - Planting Summary of Language Related to Tree Planting 1 - Plant Materials Details standards and specifications for the selection of plant material. 2 - Transportation & Details the specifications for the transportation and handling of plant Handling material. 3 - Planting Techniques Details the specifications for planting a tree. 4 - Planting Locations Details the spacing requirements between trees, minimum soil volume requirements in different applications and restrictions relative to other elements of the urban infrastructure. 5 - Tree Species Specifies the list of tree species that are authorized for planting on Village property and those that are prohibited. Historical Summary Annual tree plantings surpassed the numbers of tree removals in 11 of the 16 years from 1977 through 1993 (ACRT 1993). In 1993 the Village parkway tree stocking level was 86 %. Dutch elm disease was still a significant killer of trees during this time period and replacement trees were predominantly maple, ash and honeylocust. Other tree species were planted but they generally consisted of less than 5% of the total planted during this time period (ACRT 1993). A Cost Share tree planting program was in place during this time period in which a resident could contribute $100 to the cost of planting a 2 -1/2 inch caliper tree. During the 10 year period prior to 1992, an average of 197 trees was planted annually under this program (ACRT 1993). Trees were also planted under the programs outlined in Table 3D -3 including; Reforestation Program, Beautification Program, New Construction Plantings, Damage Losses and private donations. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 36 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Table 313-3. Village tree planting programs. Program Description Full Cost A resident may pay the Village for the cost to plant a 2 1/2 inch diameter tree in the right -of -way; replaced Cost Share Program in 2010. Cost Share Resident paid $100 towards the cost of planting and received a 2 1/2 inch diameter tree. Suspended in 2010 due to budget issues. Reforestation As funding is available and at no additional charge to resident. Trees are planted in available sites in a specific neighborhood. The trees are 1 1/2 inch diameter and the residents do not have the choice of species selection. Risk Tree As funding is available and at no additional charge to resident. Trees are planted to replace risk tree removals if the site is appropriate for a replacement tree and the resident agrees. The trees are 1 1/2 inch diameter and the residents do not have the choice of species selection. EAB Replacement As funding is available and at no additional charge to resident. Trees are planted to replace EAB removals if the site is appropriate for a replacement tree and the resident agrees. The trees are 1 1/2 inch diameter and the residents do not have the choice of species selection. Grants The Village actively searches for grant monies to plant trees as part of the reforestation efforts. The trees are 1 1/2 inch diameter and the residents do not have the choice of species selection. Beautification As funding is available and at no additional charge to resident. Plant larger diameter trees ( 2 to 4 ") in high visibility areas /sites throughout the Village. Damages Funds are charged or recovered when trees that are lost as a result of malicious activities or accidents, or a permitted work activity. These funds are used to plant replacement trees. New Construction Funds are collected as part of permitted construction projects and used Plantings to plant parkway trees after completion of the project. During the 20 year period from 1993 to 2012, an average of 400 trees were planted annually, with a low of 119 trees in 2004 and a high of 800 trees in 2012. A total of more than 9,000 trees were planted in this period (Figure 3D -2) and the number of tree removals exceeded the number of trees planted. A significant increase in the number of tree removals occurred from 2007 through 2012 due to the arrival of EAB (Section 3F) and two severe storm events in 2007 and 2011 (Section 3K). Tree Planting vs. Removal 1,400 Plant Remove 1,200 0) 1,000 ~ 800 0 N 600 n = 400 z 200 0 o° Oj o° 0 ^ 0 o° o° o° o` oti o 0 Ri o° z z o° o° O os 0 0 0 -F, Fiscal Year Figure 3D -2. Parkway tree planting versus removal 1993 — 2012. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 37 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History — Significant progress was made on the Reforestation Program from 1993 through 2012 with each Forestry Section receiving multiple plantings over these years (Table 3D -4). Table 3D -4. Reforestation program planting by Forestry Section for 1993 -2012. Reforestation Program Plantings 1994 - 2012 Section Plantings F - Fall S - Spring 1 S 1994 S1995 F & S2006 2 S 1994 S2006 3 S1994 S1999 (partial) S 2006 F 2006 4.1 S1995 S2007 4.2 S1995 S2006 F 2006 5.1 S1999 5.2 S1996 S2002 5.3 F 1995 1999(started) S 2000 F2009 5.4 F 1995 S1997 S 1999 (partial) S 2000 (partial) F2009 6 S 1999 F2008 7.1 S1995 S2007 7.2(KCB) ( F119 7 S1998 F 1998 F 1999 S 2000 F2001 2002 7.3 S1995 S2008 8 S 1995 S2005 9 S 1995 200 F2008 10 F 1995 F2008 11 F 1995 S1996 F2009 12 S1995 S1996 F2008 13 S1996 S2002 (partial) 14 S1995 S2005 F2012'' 15.1 S1995 S2007 15.2 S 1995 F2007 16.1 S1994 S2000 S2001 F2011 16.2 S1994 S2000 S2001 F2011 16.3 1 S19941 S2000 1 S 2001 F2011 17 1 S19951 S2008 * Finished section 5.4 except MacArthur subdivision *� Used EAB Restoration Grant and CDBG funds to plant all available sites In section Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 38 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History There were over 3,600 plantings and 56 different species of trees installed as part of the Reforestation and EAB replace- ment programs that were in place from 1993 through 2012 (Appendix 3D -2). Oaks represented the highest percentage of genera planted as a part of these programs, followed by linden and hackberry (Figure 3D -3a). American linden repre- sented the highest percentage of species planted followed by common hackberry and red oak (Figure 3D -3b). Genus Distribution of Reforestation & EAB Plantings 1993 -2012 30'b N 25'° o N a a O v Genus Figures 3D -3a. Genera of trees planted as part of the Reforestation and EAB programs from 1993 through 2012. Tree Species Planted 1993 -2012 N 4,000 3,500 3,000 m 2.500 a 2.000 1.500 1.000 E 500 z Z 0 ay o Q�e e Q�¢ �A° py et o�� ayo d d pe . V!r ¢t5 O Tree Species Figure 313-4. Species of trees planted from 1993 -2012 that exceeded 2.5% of the total plantings. Species Distribution of Reforestation & EAB Plantings 1993 -2012 N rn 45% 40 °0 35' 30' EL 25 `O 20 15 c 10° r-1 r-1 r-1 1$ 1F 6 0 R1 11 11 V11 - 11P 0 a am P� Species Figures 3D -3b. Tree species in the Reforestation and EAB programs from 1993 through 2012. Genera of Trees Planted 1993 -2012 N 3,500 3,000 c 2,500 m a 2,000 `p 1,500 iu 1.000 n 500 Z 0 yr Q`¢ t� ¢�t � o ` ' '� Q `e V- •` �c et `' PG���Q P¢t`cAQ 8 ¢a �� �a ° Cr t¢¢� Genus Figure 3D -5. Genera of all trees planted 1993 -2012 that exceeded 2.5% of the plantings. Among all tree plantings from 1993 through 2012, 91 different species of trees were planted. Crabapples were the most populous followed by American linden, Japanese tree lilac, littleleaf linden, hackberry and honeylocust (Figure 3D -4). Among the genera of trees planted, crabapple numbered most followed by oak, maple, ash and then tree lilac (Figure 3D -5). Several new policies and programs were introduced since 1993 related to tree planting. Chapter 9, Article VII of the Village ordinance was updated in 2002 and 2010 (Appendix 3A). The Village Arboricultural Standards Manual was introduced and formally adopted in April of 1997. As noted in Table 3D -2, this Manual details the standards and speci fications related to tree planting. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 39 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History In March of 2009, the Village adopted an EAB Management Plan to respond to the threat and impact of the emerald ash borer. The plan included reforestation goals and objectives (Photograph 3D -3). In 2009 the Village Board began appropriating funds to plant EAB replacement trees and in 2013 appropriated approximately $83,000. The program will continue as funding allows, however, the objective is to achieve a 1 to 1 tree planting to removal ratio. Species diversification was also outlined as a Plan objective and specific language was included promoting private property owners to do the same. Discussion The Village has done a good job of balancing the needs of maintaining its existing trees and tree planting. It is sound urban forest management practice to dedicate what resources a community has to maintaining its existing trees before planting new trees. In spite of the loss of significant numbers of trees to severe storm events, DIED, elm yellows and EAB, the Village's stocking rose from 86% to 88% from 1993 to 2012. The Village could improve on its selection of tree species for planting to improve the urban forest diversity. As is detailed later in Section 413, several genera and individual tree species have exceeded generally accepted diversi- fication guidelines for many years. The Village should suspend planting these genera and tree species which include Norway maple, honeylocust and little - leaf linden, until their percentages drop below acceptable diversity guidelines. On the positive side, there are tree species that would perform well in Mount Prospect's environment and site conditions. London planetree and oaks are examples of trees that will perform well in the Village and have very low rep- resentation in the population. The Village has an exceptionally high number of large planting areas allowing for the use of these large tree species. Given the ample planting space available, limiting the use of small tree species to sites with space restrictions and selecting the largest tree species possible for planting will return more long -term benefits as well as longer lived trees (Photograph 3D -4). Photograph 313-3. New tree planting after the removal of ash as a result of emerald ash borer. The Village is using the planting to increase the diversity of species present as a means to decrease the potential for future losses due to other pests or problems. Photograph 3D -4. Japanese tree lilac is a small ornamental tree Mount Prospect uses in sites under power distribution lines, narrow parkway lawns and limited spaces. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 40 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Recom roe ndations • Suspend the planting of tree genera and species that do not meet general population diversification guidelines. • Take greater advantage of the opportunity to use tree species that are appropriate for planting in Mount Prospect and low representation in the population. • Plant larger (at maturity) tree species where site conditions permit. • Reintroduce the cost /share tree planting program. 3E. Dutch Elm Disease and Elm Yellows Introduction Since the introduction of Dutch elm disease (DED) (caused by the fungi Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo -ulmi, and spread by elm bark beetles that breed in dead or dying elms) into the United States in the 1930's, the disease has virtually eliminated the American elm as a reliable street and urban forest tree. Prior to the disease introduction, American elms were a dominant component of many street tree populations because of their tolerance of urban conditions and desirable ability to cover streets with over arching branches and abundant shade. Study of the epidemiology of DED showed that successful management of elm populations requires prompt sanitation or removal of diseased trees. Some success has also been reached by treating individual, high value elms with fungicide injections, although this approach is generally too expensive for most municipalities. Early treatment attempts used spraying of insecticides to kill feeding elm bark beetles, although this ap- proach is seldom used today (Photograph 3E -1). A second fatal elm disease, elm yellows (Photograph 3E -2), has been killing elms in the Midwest and other regions where elms had been preserved by sanitation or fungicide injections. Elm yellows is said to "complement" the destruction caused by DED, by killing any elms remaining after DED epidemics subside. Elm yellows is spread by a different insect, leafhoppers, and there are no effective treatments other than sanitation to protect healthy trees, and to use resistant elm species. Photograph 3E -2. An American elm infected with elm yellows, a disease caused by a phytoplasma and spread by leafhoppers (diseased tree on left, healthy on right; photo courtesy Wayne Sinclair, Cornell University). The disease has escalated the loss of elms in the Village in recent years. DED often masks elm yellows on doubly infected trees. Photograph 3E -1. Spraying of insecticides was used in the Village in early attempts to kill elm bark beetles that spread the Dutch elm disease fungus. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 41 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management The Village of Mount Prospect currently has 319 American elms remaining of its original population estimate of 5200 elms. These elms are mostly mature specimens that are being protected by the following measures: • Monthly survey for newly infected trees on both public and private property during the growing season for DED and elm yellows symptoms. • Prompt sanitation (removal within 10 days of identification from May through August or 30 days if an infected tree is identified September through April). • Restriction of pruning American elms during the growing season to limit attraction of elm bark beetles to pruned trees. • Five -year rotational pruning that keeps elms relatively free of dying branches and deadwood. • Support of the sanitation program by a Village ordinance requiring the same sanitation require- ments on private trees as in the street tree program, and prohibiting the storage of elm wood with bark intact. • Provision of a loan program for income eligible citizens to aid prompt removal on private property • Distribution of informational materials on DED and elm yellows to citizens The current population of elms is mature with an average diameter of 30.5 inches (See Section 4B for American elm diameter distribution). Losses due to structural defects are also contributing to reduction of the existing elm population. A small number of American elms and hybrids with Asian or European heritage (some with American elm parentage) with resistance to DED are now being planted in the Village. Pure American elm cultivars do not appear to be resistant to elm yellows, although hybrids with Asian or European heritage seem to be resistant to the disease. Research is still needed to determine the full resistance of these hybrids to elm yellows. Historical Summary Parkway DED losses in Mount Prospect since 1977 are pre- sented in Figure 3E -1. Annual DED losses since 1993 have averaged 0.9% of the remaining population and 1.2% in the last five years. The greatest losses due to DED occurred before implementation of the sanitation program by the Village; losses were greatly reduced from 1978 through 1999 (Figure 3E -2). Development of elm yellows in the elm population has increased the loss of elms since 1999 (Figure 3E -1) (Photograph 3E -2). American Elm Removals from DED and Elm Yellows 400 H -o 300 0 0 200 100 E Z ° N 1 N N N 1 N N N N N N 1 1 1 + 1. ti t Days to Remove Diseased Elms and Annual Loss Rate 90 7.0 80 Days to Remove 6.0 0 v c 70 Loss Rate 60 5.0 A E 50 4.0 w Y 40 y 3.0 0 r p 20 2.0 3 � 10 0 0.0 1.0 4 0 ....................... A °etie° 0 °#�° e ti 0 1 \ \ \ \` \C tipCPCPCPtiptipti� Year Year Figure 3E -1. Number of American elms removed as a result of infection of Dutch elm disease or elm yellows disease. Elm yellows infections started in 1999. Figure 3E -2. The number of days before removal of elms diseased with DED or elm yellows and the resulting annual loss rate from the diseases. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 42 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The prompt sanitation program has been extremely effective in stemming loss of the Village's entire elm population. ACRT (1993) projected that 85 percent of the original population (799 trees remaining) would be lost by 2003; the sanitation program slowed losses more than this projection as 1003 trees were remaining in 2003, thus reducing the projected loss rate by three years. Discussion The prompt sanitation program has effectively preserved the American elm population in the Village for an extended period. However, the recent development of elm yellows in the Village's elm population means further attrition and increased losses in the American elm population can be expected. Sanitation will also slow spread of elm yellows, but the presence of both diseases in the elm population has already resulted in increased losses and an elevated loss rate in recent years. In most epidemics, the loss rate decreases after the majority of the population has been killed. Recommendations Continue investment in prompt sanitation and management of the elm population with existing practices. • Add Dutch elm disease management practices to the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures manual (See Section 3A). 3F. Emerald Ash Borer Introduction Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), a lethal insect attacking all ash (Fraxinus) species, was first identified in Michigan in 2002, in Illinois in 2006, and in Mount Prospect in 2010. This destructive insect has killed tens of millions of ash in the United States and Canada, and has wiped out entire street and private ash tree populations where it has been left unchecked (Photograph 3F -1 a and 1 b). Being an able flier, the pest spreads quickly once established in local ash populations, and continues to spread regionally and nationally primarily by being moved in infested firewood and nursery stock. EAB symptoms are initially slow to develop in infested trees, but individual trees die quickly (one to two years) once symptoms become evident as thinning crowns and dying branches. Adults are small and attractive metallic green beetles (Photograph 3F -2) that only cause minimal damage as they feed on foliage. Damage to ash trees is inflicted by small, cream colored larvae that feed in the nutrient and water conducting tissues of the tree just beneath the bark (Photograph 3F -1 b). The insect usually takes a year to compete its life cycle. Pl— ' - -- Photograph 3F- 1 a and 3F -1 b. Left: Ash trees infested with EAB. Right: The insect larvae tunnel beneath the bark and slowly girdle the tree resulting in progressive thinning, dieback, and eventual death of ash. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 43 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Several insecticides have proven effective in EAB management. Howev- er, long -term management of EAB requires effective planning, particularly for communities with large ash tree populations. Strategic planning usu- ally considers a variety of management options including removal of poor condition trees and less desirable ash species, insecticide treatment of trees in good condition and growing in desirable locations, and prompt sanitation of infested trees. EAB management requires integration of these practices on public and private properties. Current Management The Village currently has a population of 2779 ash trees, or 11.8% of the total street tree population. A comparably sized population of ash is believed to be growing on private property in the Village. Photograph 3F -2. An adult EAB. The adult is an able flier that emerges from infested trees in late spring. It does minimal harm to ash as it feeds on foliage to gain energy to lay eggs. Figure 3F -1. Number of ash trees by Forestry Section as of January 2013. Ash tree populations are widely distributed in the Village, but higher populations are present in some Forestry Sections and on individual streets (Figure 3F -1) (Photograph 3F -3). The number of ash in each Forestry Section as of January 2013 is presented in Figure 3F -1. Several sections have notably high ash populations (e.g. 5.4, 6, 8 and 12) and some Sections have very low populations (5.2, 5.3, 10, 11 and 13) (Figure 3F -3). The parkway ash species distribution is com- prised of blue, European, green, Manchurian, pumpkin and white ash tree species (Section 413). Average ash diameter is 15.3 inches and diameter distribution by Forestry Section is presented in Figure 3F -2. Figure 3F -2. Average diameter of ash by Forestry Section as of January 2013. Photograph 3F -3. Parkway in the Village where ash have been removed as a result of emerald ash borer infestation. Note that the few trees remaining on the street are also ash species. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 44 www.urbanforestryllc.com Number of Ash by Forestry Section Average Diameter Distribution of Ash by Forestry Section as of January 2013 300 250 20.0 t 200 t (� 15.0 N a 150 o � 10.0 y 100 £ E 5.0 50 Z o 0 0.0 rN chr Nr N CO 't Tr NCO COTOr Nch rN rN chh rN cO N rNn 't T 7Nm mmT D rN char N� NOJI-- LO LO LO LO ��� r r r r r (O r T T T T T r � LO LO LO LO ��� r r r r LO (D (D (0 r r r r r r Forestry Section Forestry Section Figure 3F -1. Number of ash trees by Forestry Section as of January 2013. Ash tree populations are widely distributed in the Village, but higher populations are present in some Forestry Sections and on individual streets (Figure 3F -1) (Photograph 3F -3). The number of ash in each Forestry Section as of January 2013 is presented in Figure 3F -1. Several sections have notably high ash populations (e.g. 5.4, 6, 8 and 12) and some Sections have very low populations (5.2, 5.3, 10, 11 and 13) (Figure 3F -3). The parkway ash species distribution is com- prised of blue, European, green, Manchurian, pumpkin and white ash tree species (Section 413). Average ash diameter is 15.3 inches and diameter distribution by Forestry Section is presented in Figure 3F -2. Figure 3F -2. Average diameter of ash by Forestry Section as of January 2013. Photograph 3F -3. Parkway in the Village where ash have been removed as a result of emerald ash borer infestation. Note that the few trees remaining on the street are also ash species. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 44 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT . +. # f # .1 f!r ♦ It ! L1 # ff ! I x r 7 • . Ir T �f i � # f i ♦f }t its T I ¢ * LOCATIO # OF f PARKWAY ASH TREES ` ! 13 DECEMBER 2012 Figure 3F -3. Number of ash trees by Forestry Section as of December 2012. The Village has chosen to protect a select portion (800 trees) of the ash population with insecticide treatments. In 2013, only trunk injection with emamectin benzoate will be used at a cost of $4.87 per diameter inch. In 2012, soil injection with imidacloprid was used on trees less than 15 inches in diameter. Cost for emamectin benzoate trunk injection in 2012 was $3.90 per diameter inch and for the imidacloprid soil injection cost was $1.29 per diameter inch. The Village of Mount Prospect implemented proactive, aggressive EAB management activities that began in 2007 prior to the insect's discovery in the Village. A full written EAB management plan was published in 2009. The EAB plan currently being implemented is based on the following comprehensive management approach: • Preemptive removal of poor condition and less desirable ash species; 359 ash were removed from 2008 to 2010 because of the pending EAB infestation. • Insecticide treatment of selected white and other ash species starting in 2007 (green ash are not treated as they are inherently a less desirable species), greater than 6.5 inches in diameter, in good condition and growing locations Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 45 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History • Survey of public and private trees for symptoms of EAB (including bark scraping of suspect trees) on public property using a bucket truck where needed (Photograph 3F -4a and 4b). Surveys are conducted in conjunction with the five year pruning rotation inspection of parkway trees. • Prompt removal of ash on public and private property within 10 days of identification from May to September, and 30 days at other times. • Replacement of ash removals with other non -host tree species through several programs and funding sources • Support of the requirement to remove EAB infested ash on private property with appropriate changes to the Village ordinance • Processing of wood and debris from ash removals to comply with State regulations, and participation in wood utilization programs • Significant public outreach via multiple media including providing management updates on the Village website, educational fliers and mailings to residents, public presentations on impact and treatment of EAB, and television and radio programs to support the management effort • Annual reporting to the Village Board and Manager on the status and impact of the management effort • Spearheading and participating in Statewide survey, and educational outreach efforts • Participation in cooperative insecticide research trials with the Morton Arboretum Photograph 3F -4a and 3F -4b. Left: Village crews survey parkway trees for evidence of larval damage from EAB as part of their management program for the pest. Right: A serpentine gallery caused by EAB revealed by bark scraping during a survey for infested ash trees by the Village. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 46 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Historical Summary In 2006, ash species comprised 17% of the street tree population or nearly 4414 trees. A summary of ash species and size distribution, and condition ratings were presented in the Village's EAB management plan published in 2009. Locations of parkway ash as of 2010 are presented in Figure 3F -4. Removal of EAB infested trees commenced in 2010. Twenty -three infested trees were removed in 2010, 171 in 2011, and 717 trees in 2012, for a total of 911 trees. EAB tree removals by Forestry Section are presented in Figure 3F -5. The cost of EAB removals since 2010 has totaled $337,534.61 ($229,582.40 for trees and $107,952.212 for stumps) for an average of $370.51 per tree. Insecticide treatments for EAB began in 2007 when 200 ash were soil drench treated with imidacloprid. The same number of ash were treated in 2008 using soil injection with imidacloprid. In 2009, 800 trees were soil injection treated with imidacloprid and the injection treatment continued through 2011. In 2012, trunk injection treatments using ema- mectin benzoate began. VILLAGE O MOU NT PROSPECT • * Alt g t + t t t ry iii 777 # if #' t t t # t T t #0 t � �. ,a 4 00 t LOCATIONS - PARKWA t IP t ASH TREES t 13 # SEPTEMBER 2010 Figure 3F -4. Location and density of ash tree species on parkways by Forestry Section as of September 2010. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 47 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Discussion The Village has a sound EAB management program. Thought- ful planning and execution were demonstrated by the use of the less expensive but effective soil treatment method when the infestation was first starting in the State, and limiting the use of insecticidal treatments to trees worthy of preservation. The program also included the preemptive removal of undesirable ash before the pest arrived. It presently focuses on the sanita- tion of infested trees on both public and private property to support the treatment program, and extensive public outreach and education (Photograph 3F -5a and 5b). Given that ash is a valuable and well adapted species to local conditions, this ap- proach is fully warranted. In addition, the program has helped manage removals so budgeting for removals can be managed reasonably over a longer time period. Number of EAB Infested Ash Removed by Forestry Section 250 200 ~ 150 0 0 `y w 100 a E 2 50 z o 1 N WA APP PP M JJ W[01 11 1 1 11 11 11 i NiN WA 1 NW 0 W 41 P 0)W 0)J 1 iN 1Nw Forestry Section Figure 3F -5. Number of EAB infested ash removed by Forestry Section since 2010 (current as of January 1, 2013). The Forestry /Grounds Superintendent notes that the summer of 2013 is proving to be a challenge in terms of keeping up with planned removal rates for infested ash trees. The number of ashes showing extensive dieback has escalated rapidly. As of July, staff had not even completed their first round of scouting of parkway ashes for advanced EAB symp- toms. Scouting for private infested ashes has been suspended until the parkway trees have all been evaluated. Even with the current program, the Village will remove at least 1979 more ash trees over the coming years. It is likely that a large number of these removals will occur over the next five years as the infestation continues gaining momen- tum. These losses, and replacement of these trees, will require planning and budgeting in the short -term for the Village. The loss of ash will shift the diameter distribution of parkway trees to an increased proportion of smaller trees as larger diameter ash are replaced with much smaller replacement trees. The need for insecticide treatments and the associ- ated costs will be extended into the future. However, there is speculation that once populations of EAB decrease with time, reduced dependence on insecticides may be possible. 1111 Ag FOR N VIM h . _ Photograph 3F -5a and 5b. The Village has done extensive outreach and education on EAB to inform Village residents of the impact and management of the pest. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 48 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Recommends>`;:_:u:;;ys Continue the EAB sanitation and treatment program as developed, including removals in creeks and drainages. • Continue to coordinate infested ash removal program with park districts. Add EAB management program to the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. 3G. Tree Removal History Introduction Trees are an important part of the urban infrastructure, providing many environmental and social benefits to a commu- nity. Tree removal is a necessary management task to reduce tree - related risks to public safety, the impact and spread of tree diseases and insect pests, as well as to initiate the renewal of the resource (Photograph 3G -1). Trees may also present an obstacle to the maintenance and improvement of other elements of urban infrastructure such as hard - scapes and utilities. The decision to remove a tree should be well defined and balanced among the competing benefits and needs of a community. Current Management In the year 2012, the Village removed a total of 1,154 trees; 715 trees were infested with emerald ash borer and 342 trees were removed due to poor health or structural problems with the trees (Table 3G -1). The percentage of the tree population removed (removal rate) in 2012 was 4.8 %. For purposes of identifying current tree removal trends, data was summarized for the last five years. From 2008 through 2012, an average of 719 trees was removed each year, and the removal rate averaged 2.9 %. There were two significant events during this period that inflated this removal rate; the implementation of the EAB Management Plan and a significant wind storm in 2011. Photograph 3G -1. Removal of an ash tree due to emerald ash borer on See Gwun Avenue. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 49 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Green ash trees represented the highest percentage of tree removals from 2008 through 2012 (Figure 3G -1). Norway maple represented second highest percentage of the removals followed by American elm, silver maple and crabapple for the five year period. The diameter distribution of the tree removals reveals that 46% of the removals are in the 13 to 24 inch diameter range followed by trees in the 1 -6 inch diameter class (Figure 3G -2). Fifty -six percent of the removals in the 13 -24 inch diameter range were ash species. Among the removals in the 1 -6 inch diameter class, linden represented the highest percentage of this group followed closely by crabapple and Japanese tree lilac (Figure 3G -3). Species Distribution of Removals 2008 -2012 W 40 35 E 30 y 25 20 15% y 10% 5% a 0% O QdP Tree Species Figure 3G -1. Species distribution of trees removed from 2008 through 2012. Diameter Distribution of Removals 2008- 2012 25 w 20 m 0 8 15 °6 10% c v v 5 °6 a 0% 1 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 >36 Diameter Class Figure 3G -2. Diameter distribution of tree removals 2008 through 2012. Table 3G -1. Tree removals in 2012 and the reason they were removed. Reason # of Trees % of Removals EAB 715 62.0% Health & Structure 342 29.6% DED 34 2.9% Other 29 2.5% Storms 15 1.3% Utility Repairs 10 0.9% Damage Loss 8 0.7% Stand Improvement 1 0.1% Total 1154 100.0% Genus Distribution of Removals the 1 -6 Inch Diameter Class 2008 - 2012 16% 14% w 12% m U 10% `0 8 °6 v 6% a 4% 2% 0 °6 � ��o � Gam A5 Q�j y ��� `Z`� �� Ga 4 e � �a Figure 3G -3. Genus distribution of tree removals in the 1 -6 inch diameter class for the period from 2008 through 2012. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 50 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Village's present public tree removal policies are defined in the Village Arboricultural Standards Manual and Chapter 9 of the Village code. The Arboricultural Standards Manual states that it is the Village's policy to "maintain public trees as long as they remain assets to the community, and to remove public trees when they become a liability" (Table 3G -2). It further details very specific conditions that must be present to remove a tree and also conditions under which a tree will not be removed. The Village code (9.711) outlines the permitting process to request the removal of a tree that would not be removed as a result of the Village's normal tree removal policies and operations (Table 3G -3). Table 3G -2. Summary of Arboricultural Standards Manual language related to public tree removal. Village Arboricultural Standards Manual - Tree Removal Section Summary of Language Related to Tree Removal Removal Policy Details policy and specific conditions in which a tree may or may not be removed. Removal Policy —A Conditions which automatically warrant tree removal. Removal Policy — B Conditions which, by themselves, do not warrant removal. Removal Policy — C Conditions where a tree may or may not warrant removal. Table 3G -3. Summary of the Village code language related to public tree removal. Village Ordinance - Tree Removal Chapter Summary of Language Related to Tree Removal 9.703. G Defines a goal to "Facilitate the Resolution of Tree Related Conflicts" which includes tree removal. 9.707 The Village is responsible for management of trees on public property. This section details the Village's policy to assume responsibility for boundary trees and by extension the removal of these trees if it is necessary. 9.711 Details it is unlawful to remove any public tree without a permit and the requirements for obtaining a permit. 9.712 Details provisions for the Village to require and remove hazardous trees on private property. 9.713 Details provisions for the Village to require the removal of DED or EAB infested trees on private property. 9.716 Details the requirement for obtaining a permit to work in proximity to a public tree and if work activities result in the removal of a Village tree. The Village implemented its first tree risk manage- ment plan in 1995. The reduction of tree related risk may require the removal of a tree, and in fact this is generally the primary reason for removing a living public tree in the urban environment. Specific details regarding the tree risk management plan are found in Section 3H. The risk plan details the inspection process used to evaluate a tree and details conditions that may be present that lead to a tree removal deci- sion (Photograph 3G -2). Photograph 3G -2. Defective Norway maple that was identified as part of the tree risk management program. The maple was scheduled for removal due to trunk decay and other defects. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 51 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Tree removal policies specific to the management of Dutch elm disease and emerald ash borer are detailed in the Village code. Tree removal polices regarding these management programs will not be presented here; details about these programs are presented in Sections 3E and 3F. Historical Summary The 1970s were dominated by the removal of Dutch elm diseased American elms. The tree removal rate for period between 1972 and 1993 was between 1 and 2 percent annually (ACRT 1993). The policies gov- erning the removal of trees were detailed in the Village ordinance.The 1993 manage- ment plan recommended the adoption of more specific removal policies to address the many competing requests from the public to remove public trees. From 1993 to 2012, the Village removed an average of 421 trees per year, excluding DIED and EAB removals, with a high of 663 in 2007 and a low of 280 in 2005 (Figure 3G -4). The Village groups the reasons trees are re- moved into 12 categories describing the pri- mary factor in the removal decision. A table summarizing numbers of trees removed and reasons for the period from 1993 to 2012 can be found in Appendix 3G -1. For the purposes of presentation and analysis, the removal reasons were further collapsed into seven categories (Figure 3G -5). Health and tree structure problems (Figure 3G -5) were the primarily reason for tree removal from 1993 to 2012, followed by Dutch elm disease and emerald ash borer. The arrival of emerald ash borer and the implementation of the Village's EAB Man- agement Plan in 2008 marked the beginning of the removal of ash trees in the Village. Storm damage was the second most frequent reason. There were significant storm events in 1998, 2000, 2007 and 2011 (Photograph 3G -3). A high wind event in 2007 and a tornado in 2011 claimed over 300 trees in each of these events. Tree Removals by Catagory 1993 -2012 Other 8% Stand Improv. 1% Constr. & Util. 11% Damage Loss 4% DIED & EAB 2096 Health & Struc. Storms 44% 1296 Figure 3G -4. Tree removals 1993 to 2012. Figure 3G -5. The primary reasons trees were removed from 1993 through 2012. Photograph 3G -3. Damage caused by a wind storm in August of 2007. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 52 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Conflicts with construction activities and repairs to utilities repre- sented the third most frequent reason for removing a tree (Photo- graph 3G -4). Trees damaged by automobile accidents and vandals, and trees removed to improve spacing between trees represented 4% and 1 % of the reasons trees were removed. Green ash, American elm and Norway maple represented the highest percentage of tree removals from 1993 through 2012 (Figure 3G -6). Trees in the 13 -24 inch diameter range represented 46% of the tree removals over the last 20 years (Figure 3G -7), and this figure is approximately 7% over the population distribution of trees in this diameter range (Section 4A). The percentage of the tree removals 31 inches or larger in diameter is approximately 4% above the rep- resentation of these trees in the population.These figures indicate that trees in these diameter ranges are being removed at a higher rate than their respective representation in the population. Species Distribution of Removals 1993 -2012 35% 30°0 N > 25 O 0) 20% cc 6 15% c 10% d a 500 of aflaj any JQ�pQQQ. aP� ° ��a °� a <,$ Q � aN . P V GQ GQ O ae� P Q4P 6 0 JGPQ O Tree Species Figure 3G -6. Tree species distribution of tree removals from 1998 through 2012. Photograph 3G -4. Tree root damage as a result of construction activities on Pine St. Diameter Distribution of Removals 1993 -2012 35°0 30 N m 25 °'° O E 20% 0 15% c 10% O. 0 °b 1 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 >36 Diameter Class Figure 3G -7. Diameter distribution of tree removals from 1993 through 2012. There were significant updates in the years 1993 through 2012 in the policies that guide tree removal decisions. In 1995, the Tree Risk Assessment Report prepared by Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants offered numerous recommendations regarding tree risk assessment and removal that were implemented as part of the Village's prac- tices and policies regarding tree removal decision making. In 1997, the Village adopted the Arboricultural Standards Manual, and in 2002 and 2010 the Village tree code was revised and both these included tree removal policy updates based on the recommendations in the 1993 Management Plan. In 2002, a second study was completed to review the Village's tree risk management program and make recommendations for the improvement of the program (Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants 2002). The study produced numerous findings including the recommendation of 12 tree risk management goals and action steps, the details of which can be found in Section 3H. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 53 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Discussion The annual tree removal rate prior to 1993 was 1 to 2% (ACRT 1993). The removal rates of 4.9% in 2012 and 2.9% for the 5 year period of 2008 through 2012 are higher than the 1 to 2% previously recorded in the Village. A closer examination of the tree removals completed in 2012 does provide some insight into trends in tree removal. Losses due to DED, EAB and significant storm events have clearly inflated the removal rates, a trend that is likely to continue in the short term until the impacts of EAB and DIED subside as host tree populations are removed. Storm damage impacts will continue to occur sporadically and result in periodic losses to Village trees. These losses are for the most part unavoidable, except that regular maintenance can reduce the impact of storms. The diameter distribution of the tree removals reveals a high loss of young trees. Recent droughts most certainly have contributed to these losses, suggesting a more aggressive post planting and young tree watering program should be explored to reduce mortality of recently planted trees. The removal of a public tree, although a necessary management practice, does mark the loss of a valuable community asset. Therefore, the policies and procedures that guide the tree removal decision process should be clearly defined, easily referenced in public and Forestry procedures publications and monitored closely by Village Forestry staff. This has generally been accomplished by Forestry /Grounds staff. The removal of trees due to construction activities or utility improvements is claiming significant numbers of trees each year (1 1 % in 2012). Work should continue to reduce the removal of mature and healthy trees through balancing the needs of the infrastructure improvements and the benefits these trees provide to the community. Of equal importance is continuing to work to reduce damages to trees caused by these activities. Increasing the longevity of the parkway tree population has many benefits (Section 4D and 4H). The Village collects a wealth of management information through periodic inspections, the tree inventory program, as well as categorizing the reasons trees are removed. A closer examination of these data may provide more useful information to identify and act on trends or issues that are driving the tree removal rates. For example, the tree removal category "Other" represents 8% of the trees removed from 1993 through 2012 and does not provide any information regarding the removal deci- sion; we recommend it be eliminated. "Health and Structure" represents 44% of the removal reasons, however, 89% of the parkway trees are identified in the inventory as in Very Good or Excellent condition and only 29 trees are identi- fied as in Fair condition (Section 4C), suggesting closer scrutiny of tree condition ratings is needed. Increasing tree longevity is one of the most challenging aspects of urban forest management, but without further analy- sis of specific factors contributing to removals, reducing removal rates and increasing tree longevity in the Village will be difficult. Recommendations • Tree removal specifications should be added to the Arboricultural Standards Manual. • Tree removal evaluation methodologies should be detailed in a Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. • Tree removal operational and administrative procedures should be detailed in a Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. • Explore a more aggressive post planting and young tree watering and maintenance program. • Eliminate the use of "Other" removal category and examine all the management data the Village collects regarding tree removal decisions, tree condition, problems, and evaluate the relation- ship among these data to develop management strategies to reduce the removal rate. • Continue efforts to eliminate damage /removal of healthy trees due to construction activities. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 54 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History 3H. Tree Risk Management Introduction Trees, despite the numerous benefits they provide to our communities, pose a certain degree of risk to people and property. Branches falling from a tree or the failure of an entire tree can cause property damage, injure or even kill people. Fortunately, such incidents are rare, particularly when trees are well maintained through regular inspection and pruning. In fact, the risk of death from a tree - related failure is less than 1 in 30 million (Schmidlin 2009). Tree risk management is the application of policies, procedures, and practices to identify, evaluate, mitigate, monitor, and communicate tree risk (Smiley et al. 2011). Tree risk is the result of the combination of the likelihood of an event (usually failure of a tree or tree part striking or impacting a target such as people or property) and the severity of con- sequences. The management of risk for trees in urban areas has been the topic of considerable interest and research recently, culminating in the publication of two guiding documents, a new standard for Tree Risk Assessment (ANSI 2011), and Best Management Practices for Tree Risk Assessment by the International Society of Arboriculture (Smiley et al. 2011). Tree risk management has its foundation based in legal duties of municipalities to provide reasonable protection to citizens from foreseeable harm from trees. In addition to the regular maintenance and inspection of their urban forest resource, many communities in Illinois, including Mount Prospect, have programs specifically dedicated to tree risk management (Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants, Inc. 2002). These programs provide an important function in addition to risk management because they carefully weigh the risk of the urban resource against the numerous benefits provided to citizens by the same trees. All trees pose some risk, as many tree failures cannot be predicted and tree failures under storm conditions are un- avoidable. Despite this, it is generally accepted that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks, and the level of risk that is acceptable is determined by the local officials and the people of a community. Current Management The Village maintains a dedicated, detailed tree risk management program. The program is guided by a tree risk man- agement task list and calendar supported by annual inspection, training, mitigation of known risk trees, a risk manage- ment plan, and necessary administrative policies and ordinances. The program uses the methods, and a form to docu- ment contractor field observations and recommendations as provided in "The Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas" (Matheny and Clark 1994). Key elements of the risk management program are: • Annual inspection of trees meeting defined criteria on a 5 -year rotation in conjunction with the pruning rotation for Village (Photograph 3H -1 a and 1 b). • Initial inventory inspection of trees by a trained intern with follow -up detailed inspection by contractual consultants and Forestry staff • Additional inspection using an aerial lift and decay detecting drill as deemed necessary by the contractor conducting risk assessments • Annual in -house tree risk training of forestry staff and interns through documented meetings and a dedicated, documented tree task list (Photograph 3H -1 a and 1 b). • Clear identification and tracking of public and private tree boundary trees as defined in policy documents • Evaluation and mitigation of identified risks through annual pruning and removal contracts • Annual inspection and maintenance of trees with support cables installed in them. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 55 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History .9 A' w as r lux Ir Photograph 3H -1 a and 1 b. Left: The Village has done extensive training on tree risk evaluation for Forestry staff and crews. Right: Close evaluation and testing of potential risk trees is conducted annually by the Village.The tree is being tested for decay using a Resistograph'm Trees included in the annual risk inspections are selected based on tree species known to frequently pose in- creased risk of failure, size, presence of multiple trunks, and condition (condition rating of 5 or less). Tree risk as- sessments are also conducted when service requests from citizens or visual assessments by Forestry staff indicate their need. The Village does not prioritize maintenance (removals, pruning, or cabling) identified in the annual risk assess- ments; all risk trees identified in the program are considered a priority. Risk mitigation work is completed 1 -3 months after trees are identified in the program. Citizens are notified of the need for removal of trees identified in the risk assessment program by a letter from the Village. Cables are installed in some parkway trees as a means to increase support for weak branch unions or other defects. Currently there are 199 trees with an average diameter of 29.5 inches that have cables. These trees are inspected annually and cables are upgraded as needed. Historical Summary Annual tree risk assessments have been conducted by the Village since 1994 when a grant from the State was received to develop a risk assessment program. A tree risk management plan was completed in 1995 by Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants, Inc. The plan included training of Forestry staff and assessment of 286 large parkway trees. As a result of that assessment, 20 trees were recommended for pruning, 76 trees for cabling or ca- bling inspection, and 20 trees for removal. An additional 108 trees were identified for annual inspection. From 1994 through 2000, annual risk assessments were conducted on approximately 300 "high risk" trees over 24 inches in diameter. This portion of the tree risk management program was deemed Phase 1 and 2124 trees were inspected in the 6 year period it was operative. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 56 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History In 2002, the Village commissioned a second, detailed "Tree Risk Assessment and Management Plan" from Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants, Inc. The plan initiated "Phase II" of the risk management program and defined a list of 12 goals that were subsequently acted on and implemented by January 2003. The goals included: • Develop and approve a Tree Risk Management Policy statement • Establish an in -house tree risk working group • Establish a tree risk manual • Scale back current assessment and integrate into current inventory software program • Maintain current policy of private property trees • Refine current policy on boundary trees • Annual staff training • Define a diameter measurement policy on multi- stemmed trees • Expand cable inspection policy • Refine condition assessment • Expand parkway tree protection efforts As part of those goals, the Village has completed a docu- mented "Risk Management Task Calendar" from 2003 to the present (Appendix Section 3H -1). From 2002 -2006, 726 trees were inspected in the program. From 2006 to present, the tree risk inspection has followed the five year pruning rotation program where trees are inspected prior to commencement of pruning. Annually, approximately 80 trees are included in the updated Phase II program. The Village has installed cables in some trees to provide structural support to weak stem attachments or other Number of Trees with Cables Installed or Upgraded 120 100 defects. Figure 3H -1 presents the number of trees where support cables were Installed or upgraded. Figure 31-1-1. Number of trees with cables installed or upgraded by year since 1991. Discussion The risk management plan is exemplary, particularly when compared to other communities in the area. However, the publication of new risk management standards indicates the Village should consider adopting the new standards and practices to their current program. Because the current program is well developed and documented, most of the up- date will be for terminology rather than approach. Use of the new "Tree Risk Form" (Dunster et al. 2013) and require- ment of consultants to be trained or versed in its use may be required. The risk management program is conducted based on five -year inspections during the annual inventory update pro- cess, requests from the public, and observation of trees by Forestry staff. The Village may consider annual driving or windshield inspection of the remaining trees in the Village to identify any obvious changes in tree condition or structure. This would insure that trees impacted by storms, or drought that are not in the current risk inspection rotation were evaluated in the interim. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 57 www.urbanforestryllc.com mlm�w ail .I defects. Figure 3H -1 presents the number of trees where support cables were Installed or upgraded. Figure 31-1-1. Number of trees with cables installed or upgraded by year since 1991. Discussion The risk management plan is exemplary, particularly when compared to other communities in the area. However, the publication of new risk management standards indicates the Village should consider adopting the new standards and practices to their current program. Because the current program is well developed and documented, most of the up- date will be for terminology rather than approach. Use of the new "Tree Risk Form" (Dunster et al. 2013) and require- ment of consultants to be trained or versed in its use may be required. The risk management program is conducted based on five -year inspections during the annual inventory update pro- cess, requests from the public, and observation of trees by Forestry staff. The Village may consider annual driving or windshield inspection of the remaining trees in the Village to identify any obvious changes in tree condition or structure. This would insure that trees impacted by storms, or drought that are not in the current risk inspection rotation were evaluated in the interim. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 57 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Recommendations • Integrate the new ANSI Tree Risk standard and ISA Best Management practices into the cur- rent risk program. • Once the TRAQ program (managed by ISA) is fully running and widely available, require consultants conducting risk assessments to be Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ), or demonstrate proficiency in use of the new tree risk form from previous projects. • Add an annual or biannual windshield inspection of all trees in the Village for obvious health or structural conditions that would prompt inspection under the current risk program. • Add the risk management program to the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual • Resume annual tree risk meetings. 31. Public Outreach and Program Accomplishments Introduction This document is a study of trees, the urban forest, and its management in Mount Prospect. However, managing the urban forest has an equally or perhaps more important human element. The primary goal of an urban forestry program is to make a community a more attractive and healthy place for people to visit, live, and work. It is common to take for granted the ser- vices our municipalities perform and the benefits they provide in our daily lives. It is a requisite responsibility of government to inform its constituents on the quality and level of services they receive for their tax dollars. In addition, through public outreach and involving the residents of a community in the delivery of these services, the public is more likely to support the municipality's efforts on a long term basis. Robert W. Miller (1988), author of Urban Forestry, Photograph 31 -1. Arbor Day 2013 ceremony at Lions Park School. An Arbor Day ceremony is one public outreach program the Village hosts to educate the public about the benefits of trees and Mount Prospect's urban forestry program. wrote; "Communities where forestry continued to do well were those communities where good management was supported by a long -term program of maintaining public support through information and education programs ". Parkway trees are literally in the front yard of Village residents. As a result, any forestry work activities performed on parkway trees may disrupt the daily activities of pedestrians, motorists, and other residents of the street. These activi- ties can lead to a source of complaints even if the activity is performed properly. A proactive public notification program will help keep these complaints to a minimum. Public outreach is accomplished through a number of venues including public education and notification as well as the use of volunteer programs (Photograph 31 -1). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 58 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management The Village's public outreach program can be divided into two objectives: public notification and public education. These objectives are accomplished us- ing various media including documents and publications, press and electronic media, and public events. A summary of the public outreach efforts completed by the Forestry /Grounds Division and the media used is provided in Table 31 -1. Public notification includes notification of the public of ongoing forestry work activities as well as informing them of the quality and level of service they can expect. The Village details the level and quality of services they can expect through policy documents such as the Village code and the Arboricultural Stan- dards Manual (Section 3A). Forestry notifies residents and the public in general of scheduled and unsched- uled forestry activities through a variety of media (Table 31- 1).These include press releases, various publications, Table 31 -1. Village Forestry public outreach efforts and type of media used. Media Description Annual Arbor Day Annual public tree planting ceremony celebrating Ceremony the benefits and value trees add to the Publications & community. Annual Public Works Meet & Greet forestry staff and learn about Open House Forestry /Grounds services and activities. Brochures Trees of Mount Prospect, Dutch Elm Disease, Manual Emerald Ash Borer Cable TV MPTV 17 Informational and educational shows on current Media urban forest management events. Direct Mailings Post Planting Tree Care, Tree Watering Request Informational Booths, Postcard, EAB /Woodpecker Damage Door EAB Ash Inspection, Post Planting Tree Care, Hangers /Information Service Request Inspection, Tree Trimming Cards Request Inspection, Neighborhood Tree Trimmina Announcement Information Booths Informational and educational displays at public events on current urban forest management events. Presentations Forestry staff will provide presentations on current events at the request of community g roups. Press Releases Periodic press releases on current urban forest management events and forestry work activities. Seminars Educational seminars for the public on timely arboricultural practices. Village Newsletter Periodic articles on current urban forest management events and forestry work activities. Village Website Forestry /Grounds service information as well as announcements of planned Forestry activities. informational flyers, direct mailings as well as informational and educational displays at public events. For example, forestry has numerous informational cards that are left at a resident's home after a visit informing them that they were there (Figure 31 -1). Many of them provide educational information as well. Public education is the primary component of the Village's public outreach program. The Village offers numerous publications, presentations, public information displays, and seminars regarding timely arboricultural and urban forest management issues, as well as tree care in general (Photograph 31 -2). For example, in April of 2013 Forestry hosted a seminar to educate property owners about treatment options for emerald ash borer and tree planting which was posted on the Village website (Figure 31 -2). The Village has received numerous awards and recognitions for its urban forest management program and public out- reach including the Tree City USA designation each year since 1985 as well as 11 Growth Awards from the National Table 31 -1. Public notification of forestry activities. Public NoHfication Work Activity Service Delivery Policy Notification Publications & Informational cards, Direct Brochures, Village Code & the Documents mailings including letters and Arboricultural Standards p ostcards Manual Press & Electronic Press Releases, Village Village Website & Newsletter, Media Newsletter & Website MP TV 17 Public Events Informational Booths, Informational Booths, Presentations, Seminars Presentations, Seminars Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 59 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History rum W. The Village of Mpurd Proep: 7 k- p9mfed a new ties in the pud4 hphl't in front of your home, More are xma way. y- can hey cars for drcs raw: WATERING the Tre wa e+ e every 7 - 10 days during it4. first 7wq years, bst !tiequently d—V cry period, Apply labour i' or we axh dma Buse a sparkler end re On a rune can). Or. Flit a hose nn akwAy r ' tlhe Uark for stout 4n hoar. heave Me ew7',aucef around the base a lha tree to Sawe as a v uer breervecr MULCHING Propar 4ulchnig hedpa prevent weed gmwtth Intl 51"s molslum krss. Wood and here clK. nmka goad Iches, but not pNabc shading- Apply a 2-3 Inch thrck -.. layer aI uldr in a 33 rent diameter circle around see trunk. Keep the mulch 2-3 inc i f the trunk, rod n died .1 Do not noke Truich yokanoean PREVENTING INJURY Kemp chenl'Kd weed away Ire, trees; they ran i:am*c 9erWne damage Lawnmowers ate also anemias Of lb — M_a ro too ' le a tree - - - -- - often csasae exterar. conk damage' - youtan avoid mee damage by r»gtelmining a grtes- lice area or .,&h .mind the bee'. tarik. FERTILIi:ING Newly planted Ire,, should net be MKIkeed dare } the tirdt year attar planting- After ibs, young treme may benefit from ferfiber applied when the tree 14 d—M (life Fall or early ki rvtgi. TREES ARE IMPORTANT TO MOUNT PROSPECT BECAUSE THEY.... Are axceilant windbae&s: they ran save on winter ruel bills up to dg.$i Inc.l properly 'awes by adding to the beauty al our ne 216b.mpad, Save er cw, their shade cen =1 bulyinge ug b1 degrees in r curt trafw nose, Ad as as desanere, filw"M dust end pollution Provide tmmaa for wildlife ' - PLEASE HELP CARE FOR THIS NEW TREE If 0, lock, sick, bun, or n need o1 pruning, please tae your Public Works Oepenmenl d 847- e70.$64e. NOTICE Address r Sorry we did not find you at home in response to your tree (nmming request: ❑ We will schedule the following trimming as soon as time permits: Date Time ❑ All parkway trees in your neighborhood are due for routine trimming this year by our conlractor, on our five - year pruning cycle. A representative of our Forest-ry /Grotmds Department was here in response to your call. We would like to discuss your concerns in person with you of possible. Please call our office at 1370 -51540 to set up an appointment Monday- Friday between B:OOam and 3:30pnt. If you would prefer that we phone you with our response please call our office with a phone number where you may be reached during the above days/hours. Thank You Mount Prospect Public Works 1700 West Coati Road Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 -2736 4•r" ?. )670 Thank you for contacting us.. If you hays additional queslions, please call again.. MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS FORESTRY GROUNDS DIVISION 1700 W. Central Rd. PH- 667.970.56$0 Figure 31 -1. Examples of public notification materials. Left: Young tree care instruction card. Center: Representative has here today. Right: Trimming request card t e.Arar.�one.r. .r e2ni_tb i i , ' .. A �rar44.�1.. s aeee� Fee ea �.et.�� w...� ,era ri pie *A 61 ahtft� If- �ieiaLer4MlTelw+r +'4'e ceh ®mss r.�.s^ — eds +L��raaraerr�Yr. +win � +. ®�ru s� Y� FaY� .N. Fetl- ar,tiir. W Yt.e� r.1'f,w.li M:newa� ds�@ Odell ttYe tae/ a1w.a.. 11Lw11e Fr.� M�+�lr4 ra+.� T+� rlk��e. w Lcn�a!Ffrrrt.. k�bw w.eN Yrr rr Fei riew.w YeY,eeeer® eYtia L °1 "w raw raAeae � Id r� r _a.rslf�'+ee -w�a rru ry re�e�aw.+.w wa Figure 31 -2. Forestry education seminar posted on the Village website. ❑ You have requested clearing of your private property tree. It is possible that the trimming which wlll be done by our contractor will alleviate the problem- If not, please contact us again after the conlractor s crew has finished trimming and we will come out again to look at the tree. ❑ We will schedule the requested tnmming, but please be aware that except for imminent hazards . we only prune American Elm bees wben they are dormant. This helps reduce the spread of Dutch Elm Disease- 0 The tree is lenlatikely scheduled for its next routine pruning in on our five year cycle (dependent upon budget constraints). Its condition at this time does not warrant additional pruning. Additional Comments; Photograph 31 -2. Rachel Toeppen of the Garden Club of Mount Prospect and Forestry /Grounds Staff Laura Fowle distribute planting recommendations at community event. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 60 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Arbor Day Foundation (Visit: http: / /www.arborday.org/ programs /treeCityUSA /index- become.cfm). In addition, the Village urban forestry program has received the following awards and recognitions: • 1989 — Lady Bird Johnson Award from National Arbor Day Foundation for railroad right -of -way beautification efforts. • 1992- Award of Merit from Illinois Chapter of ASLA for railroad right of way beautification • 1993 - Award for "Top Local Government in Northern Illinois" from Governor Jim Edgar's Conference on Urban Forestry. • 1995 -2009 - Society of Municipal Arborists Accreditation - The urban forestry professional arm of the International Society of Arboriculture certified that the Village of Mount Prospect met the minimum requirements of a good urban forestry program. • 1998 — "Exceptional Performance in Journalism" Award from the Chicago Metropolitan Chapter of the American Public Works Association for the "Trees of Mount Prospect" booklet. • 2000 - Urban Forestry Public Education Award from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for educational displays at the Tree City USA awards ceremony. • 2003 — "Beautify Mount Prospect" Shining Star Award from Mount Prospect Special Events Commission jointly presented to Village staff and Garden Club of Mount Prospect for Moehling Park development. • 2007 -2009 - Staff participated extensively in the effort to educate the public, influence state/ federal funding and regulations, inspect declining ash trees and develop regional Best Practices regarding the Emerald Ash Borer. Discussion As was presented, there are two objectives of an outreach program; public notification and education. The Village has all of the elements required to fulfill these objectives and has proven its competence in achieving these objectives as evidenced by the numerous awards and recognitions the urban forestry program has received. There are steps that can be taken to improve these efforts. A visitor to the Village website will find it difficult to find the Forestry /Grounds activity page and information on the services the Division provides. There is a wealth of infor- mative publications, both informational and educational, on the website. In addition, there are specific well defined education programs such as the Arbor Day ceremony, educational seminars and the annual Public Works open house (Photograph 31 -3 and 31 -4). However, it appears these efforts are developed as needed in reaction to a current event or challenge and we believe the Village could f� m@ II :. Photograph 31 -3. Forestry /Grounds staff David Hull providing information on the 2012 drought as part of an open house display. enhance their efforts by developing a comprehensive public outreach plan. This plan simply would require compiling all various media the Village uses as well as those that are underutilized, defining objectives, and confirming efforts are being coordinated to reach their full potential. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 61 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History • Develop a comprehensive public outreach plan that organizes the work notification and educational needs of the program and publish the plan as an operational document. • Explore existing electronic media as well as social media for use as a tool to enhance public notification and public education. • Review various public notification publications the Villages uses, consolidate and publish new pieces to fulfill the needs identified in the public outreach plan. • Revise the Village website to make it easier for a visi- tor to find the Forestry /Grounds page and present all of the Forestry services and policies. Photograph 31 -4. Public Works Department 2012 open house. Forestry /Grounds created several displays for the event. • Update and distribute widely the revised "Trees of Mount Prospect" working with the Garden Club of Mount Prospect, the Village's citizen advisory group. • Determine ways to make recognition of the Village's tree heritage an important part of the village's 100th anniversary in 2017. • Plan additional public presentations about Forestry /Grounds programs. 3J. Service Requests Introduction Village government provides many services for the residents and visitors of Mount Prospect. Snow plowing, street maintenance, refuse collection and the delivery of potable water are relied upon for the daily and smooth functioning of life in the Village. The management of parkway trees is another activity that can affect the daily lives of residents because these trees are located adjacent to a resident's property within the Village right -of -way. Periodically, a resident may have a concern or problem with a Village parkway tree that requires an inspection by the Village forestry staff. This service request may result in nothing more than an inspection and discussion with the caller or it may require tree pruning, removal or planting a tree to resolve the request. Responding to and resolving service requests is one of the more costly services the Village provides. It requires Village staff to travel to the site for an inspection and to provide resolution of the request. It may also require a forestry crew and equipment to travel to the site to perform work to resolve the request. Preventative scheduled tree maintenance and inspections help to keep requests for service to a minimum. However, requests for service are a required and predictable forestry activity. A study of the impact of a rotational preventative pruning program on the number of ser- vice requests received per year revealed that a preventative pruning program resulted in 7.8 fewer requests per 1,000 trees per year (Luley et al. 2002). Periodic storm events, such as summer thunder storms and winter ice storms, can cause significant tree damage and a high demand for services over a very short period of time. Service requests during storm events require different methods and approaches to record and resolve under emergency situations (Section 3J). Resolution of service re- quests from the public, no matter what their source, is often used by citizens as a primary judgment of their satisfaction with local government. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 62 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management In 2012, Forestry responded to 2,081 service requests, and projects an estimated 2,500 for 2013 (FY 2013 Budget). Forestry /Grounds Division requests for service are assigned by office staff into one of 24 different request codes based on the nature of the caller's request (Table 3J -1). The most common request types recorded in 2012 were "Tree Planting" (355 requests) followed by "Tree Branch Pickup" (275 requests). Table 3J -1. Forestry service requests by year and request code from 2003 through 2012. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 63 www.urbanforestryllc.com 10 Year Request Type 2003 2004 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010 2011 2012 Total F300 (Hanger) 787 859 627 727 726 254 118 191 500 157 4,946 F301 (Parkway Damage) 142 178 173 270 215 225 10 111 128 216 1,668 F302 (Tree Trimming Request) 437 319 310 365 403 282 169 220 166 212 2,883 F303 (Tree Planting) 137 96 183 268 263 499 210 63 277 355 2,351 F304 (Tree Removal ) 328 331 284 350 664 423 397 141 94 56 3,068 F305 (Sight/ PhysicalObst.) 64 45 63 81 33 38 60 75 27 34 520 F306 (Root/ Stump Removal ) 67 43 37 37 48 56 36 29 31 44 428 F307 (Sick/ Damaged Tree) 407 386 310 374 340 310 286 264 288 267 3,232 F308 (Mowing/ Weed Control Public Property) 8 18 7 2 2 10 19 13 8 6 93 F309 (Tree Leaning) 55 35 16 13 27 32 36 5 12 17 248 F310 (Debris Pickup) 51 16 9 9 8 6 3 5 4 7 118 F311 (Tree Branch Pickup) 385 196 147 326 687 350 209 466 378 275 3,419 F312 (Shopping Carts) 7 2 2 4 3 5 4 2 1 1 31 F313 (Tree Trimming Complaint) 21 26 28 5 7 11 21 20 9 291 177 F314 (Tree Root Inspection) 78 128 210 127 137 120 94 118 78 69 1,159 F315 (Info Public Program) 83 12 8 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 113 F316 (Info Private Tree /Lawn Care) 78 61 44 60 59 92 49 41 22 301 536 F317 Other 393 307 280 357 293 191 228 157 148 133 2,487 F318 (Private DED Tree) 57 47 701 82 84 89 85 1 49 18 38 619 F319 (Creek Vegetation) 18 12 11 10 16 13 9 4 8 4 105 F320 (Emerald Ash Borer Not Private Property Infestation) 0 0 0 132 58 139 105 43 83 102 662 F321 (Gypsy Moth ) 0 0 0 0 0 1 99 116 17 9 242 F322 (Emerald Ash Borer Private Property Infestation) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 Totals: 3,603 3,117 2,819 3,607 4,074 3,147 2,247 2,133 2,297 2,081 29,125 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 63 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Village's Service Request policy and procedures are found in the Forestry Service Request Procedures Manual. The manual details the procedures on how staff should respond to the request and requester, as well as the adminis- trative processes to record the request and the Village's response. Historical Summary From 1979 through 1993, Forestry responded to over 2,000 tree - related service requests per year (ACRT 1993). Re- quests from the public were typically responded to within a week either through direct contact with Forestry staff, a letter, or via phone call. During this period, service requests related to storms could number as many as 300 in several days. In 2009, Public Works changed from using Tree Manager® to Hansen® to manage their tree inventory as well as log requests for service. With that change, the policy regarding how service requests were recorded was also changed. Prior to 2009, the service request records included work that may have been identified by Village staff in addition to those received from the public. Starting in 2010, work identified by Village staff was recorded in the Village's work order system and not logged as a service request. In light of this accounting and policy change, publishing service request data for the period from 1993 to 2012 and comparing it to the period from 1979 thru 1993 was not possible. However, the period from 2010 thru 2012 can be evaluated to provide a benchmark for future analysis, and to provide a summary of data from the last 10 years. Service requests related to storm events have resulted in a significant demand for services over the last 3 years (Fig- ure 3J -1). Forestry has responded to an average of 656 storm related calls per year with a high of 878 in 2011. For the 10 year period from 2003 through 2012, For- estry /Grounds averaged 2,915 service requests per year (Table 3J -1). The most common service request code is F300 (Hanger) numbering nearly 5,000 and exceeding all other categories by over 1,500 requests. The next highest group of requests (3,000 to 4,000 range for the 10 year period) includes F311 (Branch Pickup), F307 (Sick /Damaged Tree) and F304 (Tree Removal). Three request codes fall in the 2,000 to 3,000 range includ- Figure U -1. Routine versus storm related service requests ing; F302 (Tree Trimming), F317 (Other) and F303 (Tree 2010 -2012. Planting) from high to low. Requests numbering 1,000 to 2,000 include F301 (Parkway Damage) and F314 (Tree Root Inspection). The next grouping of request codes numbering between 500 and 1,000 includes F320 (Emerald Ash Borer not Private Property Infestation), F318 (Private DED), F316 (Info Private Tree and Lawn Care) and F305 (Sight/ Physical Obstruction). The 10 remaining request codes numbered less than 500 beginning with F306 (Stump /Root Removal) numbering 428 and ending with the least frequent request code F322 (Emerald Ash Borer Private Property). Discussion The Forestry /Grounds Division is handling a large number of service requests per year from the public, although the number of requests decreased when the new service request policy was implemented in 2009. Mount Prospect's service request demand is high (10 year average; 125 requests per 1000 trees) when compared to a published study of street tree service requests in Rochester, NY (Luley et al. 2002) where the service requests averaged 32 requests per 1000 trees. The use of 24 service request codes is very numerous as compared with other communities. The Village is using these codes to learn information about what callers are requesting or what work needs to be performed. The use of service request code called "other" does not provide any useful information and should be eliminated. It was the 6th most frequent code used and accounted for 8.5% of the documented service requests. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 64 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Service Request Manual is very detailed itemizing all of the possible outcomes of a service request. It also details administrative and policy information that is maintained in other documents. Citing this information in this document will require updating if these policies change. The manual could be stream -lined by addressing procedures specifically related to resolving a request for service. In addition, there are no guidelines for response timelines to provide service or complete service request work to the public. Prioritizing requests that will require work is a method to help with scheduling and therefore develop response times. Recommendations • Eliminate or greatly reduce the use of the Service Code "Other ". • Develop response time policies for inspecting and completing work relative to a service request including prioritizing service requests if it is necessary. Revise the Service Request Manual to focus on policies and procedures specifically related to responding and resolving a service request. 3K. Storm Mitigation Introduction Planning and implementing storm damage mitigation is an essential part of urban forest management, as storm damage to trees is a major cause of disruption to electrical, communication, travel, and emergency services. Even well maintained and healthy urban trees will be damaged when forces imposed by winds, flowing water, ice or snow loads exceed the strength of branches, trunks or roots and soil. Therefore, urban forest management programs must be prepared to respond to catastrophic weather events that inflict damage to the urban tree resource. Storm events may be localized, such as microbursts from high winds, or regional or larger scale. In any storm event, pre -storm preparation, in -storm and post storm response, and post storm cleanup requires coordination of multiple village departments and agencies. It may also require as- sistance from other local communities, or state and federal Photograph 3K -1. Storm damage to parkway trees in the Village. Storm damage has become more frequent in the Village and surrounding area in the last decade. agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Reimbursement of storm related damages may be provided if the event is declared a Federal Emergency. Reimbursement, however, requires accurate and docu- mented accounting of storm damage costs. FEMA reimbursements typically do not support replacement planting or pruning to industry standards, and these costs are usually borne by the managing municipality. Considerable progress has been made in helping urban forestry programs (Burban and Andressen 1994: i -Tree Storm (i- tree.com)), and municipalities (FEMA 2007a; FEMA 2007b) plan and implement storm damage response programs. The need for comprehensive storm damage planning has been highlighted recently by several large -scale devastating wind storm events recently in the Midwest and Northeast (Photograph 3K -1). The massive impact of these events, both financially and to urban trees and infrastructure, and the apparent increased potential for more frequent storms of similar magnitude as a result of climate change, place storm management at the forefront of urban forest management needs. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 65 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management In the past, Forestry staff has responded to several major storms, with one as recently as July 2013, using a series of writ- ten procedures to handle storm damage assessment and cleanup. The procedures are identified in a number of critical storm mitigation documents that can roughly be divided by pre -storm planning and post storm planning implementation. Currently, the Forestry /Grounds Division Superintendent is working to compile this information into a single storm damage planning and management document for the Village. An outline for this document, which is critical to planning for storm events and efficient response after major storms, is provided below (developed by Sandy Clark, Forestry/ Grounds Superintendent): I. Introduction A. Four Elements of Emergency Management B. Relationship to Village of Mount Prospect Emergency Response Plan C. Annual Plan Review B. Mitigation A. Tree Planting Considerations B. Tree Risk Management C. Tree Removal Program D. Tree Trimming Program E. Protection of Trees from Construction Injury III. Pre -Storm Planning A. Training 1. Forestry /Grounds Staff 2. All Public Works 3. Office Staff /Engineers (Call- Takers Checklist) B. Mutual Aid Agreements 1. NWMC (Northwest Municipal Conference) 2. IPWMAN (Illinois Public Works Mutual Aid Network) C. Weather Warning Systems 1. Everbridge (alerts via superintendents cell phones /PC's) 2. DTN (Meteorological Consulting Firm) 3. Murray and Trettel (Meteorological Consulting Firm) 4. NOAA Website D. Equipment Readiness 1. Vehicles 2. Chainsaws 3. Personal Protective Equipment 4. Office Supplies 5. Equipment Rental Companies E. Contractual Resources 1. Current Trimming Contractor 2. Current Removal Contractor 3. Tree Care Contractors (Local with Previous Village Contracts) 4. Tree Care Contractors (National with Storm Crews) 5. Tub Grinder Owners Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 66 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History F. Debris Staging- Potential Sites G. Communication- Internal 1. Employee Contact Info 2. Two -Way Radioes 3. Cell Phones H. Communication- Public 1. General News Releases 2. Website Links 3. Press Contacts I. Commonwealth Edison Information 1. Contacts 2. Policies J. FEMA /IEMA Considerations 1. Overview 2. Debris Removal 3. Tree Removal Guidelines 4. Documentation K. Other Equipment /Labor Resources 1. Mount Prospect Park District 2. River Trails Park District L. Readiness Checklist (Use as storm approaches) IV. Emergency Response A. Establish Forestry Command Center B. Assemble Personnel (if not already assigned) 1. Assign Crews 2. Call in personnel if necessary 3. Safety Reminders (especially downed wires) C. Assemble Call- Takers 1. Use Call -Taker Checklist 2. Use Non - Forestry /Grounds Staff if possible 3. All calls must be made into Hansen Service Requests immediately D. Prioritize Road Clearing Work 1. Clear State /Country Roads 2. Clear Collector Streets 3. Clear Residential Streets E. Prioritize Forestry Aerial Truck Assignments 1. Tree /Branches Down- People injured or trapped 2. Tree /Branches Down- Blocked state /county highway 3. Split /Uprooted Trees or Large Hangers- Likely to fall and cause injury /property damage 4. Tree /Branches Down- Blocked Collector streets 5. Tree /Branches Down- Blocked residential streets 6. Tree/ Branches Down- Blocked exits from homes 7. Tree/ Branches Down- Blocked driveways 8. Tree/ Branches Down- Fallen and at rest on buildings 9. Tree/ Branches Down- Fallen and at rest on cars 10.Tree/ Branches Down- Blocked routes to schools 11.Tree/ Branches Down- Blocked sidewalks Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 67 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History F. Begin Damage Assessments 1. Scouting by Foremen 2. Scouting by Forestry /Grounds Scouts G. Seek /Communicate Private Brush Pickup Decision (by Village Manager) H. Activate Emergency Storm Contracts I. Activate Mutual Aid Agreements J. Secure Equipment Rentals K. Secure Debris Staging Site L. Secure Tub Grinder M. Communication- with Public 1. Through Public Information Officer N. Communication- Internal 1. With Supervisors 2. With Crews 3. With Director 4. With EOC 5. With Call- Takers O. Documentation V. Post -Storm Recovery A. Post -Storm Windshield Survey B. Wound /Stub Repair Contract C. Follow Up Reporting D. Post -Storm Critique E. Thank -You's F. Budget Requests G. Replanting Campaign H. Publicity about Storm Damage Prevention VI. Appendices Historical Summary Since 1992, 21 recorded storms, or an average of one storm per year, have been caused extensive damage to the tree resource in the Village. Of these storms, 18 were from high winds, 1 from snow, 1 from ice, and a single event was recorded as a tornado in June of 2011 (Table 3K -1). Several of the storms stand out as a result of their extensive damage to parkway trees, including: • A wind storm on May 18, 2000 with winds of 46 mph, • A wind storm on August 23, 2007 with winds of 58 mph, • A tornado on June 21, 2011 with winds of 70 mph and localized winds reported in excess of 90 mph, and • A wind storm on July 11, 2011 with winds of 63 mph, • A wind storm on July 19, 2013 with winds of 55 mph. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 68 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Table 3K -1. Major storm events in the Village of Mount Prospect since 1992. Date Type of Storm Tree Damage pruned Removals Village -wide Brush Pickup? Max Wind Speeds at O'Hare 6/17/1992 Wind 554 95 Yes 58 7/2/1992 Wind 512 14 Yes 39 8/30/1993 Wind 112 11 Yes 37 1/27/1994 Ice 116 6 Yes 22 12/6/1994 Snow 135 7 Yes 16 10/29/1996 Wind 99 24 Yes 48 9/29/1997 Wind 62 8 Yes 50 5/28/1998 Wind 531 39 Yes 54 8/24/1998 Wind 57 7 NA 48 11/10/1998 Wind 259 46 Yes 65 4/10/2000 Wind 201 6 Sect 8 only 25 5/18/2000 Wind 1238 163 Yes 46 8/6/2000 Wind 243 23 No 59 6/12/2001 Wind 220 20 No 38 5/11/2003 Wind 204 17 No 53 7/21/2003 Wind 102 1 No 28 8/1/2003 Wind 97 2 No 44 8/23/2007 Wind 2051 300 Yes 58 6/21/2011 Tornado 2836 304 Yes 70 7/11/2011 Wind 656 53 Yes 63 7/19/2013 Wind 557 35 Yes 55 A major impact of storms is the large amounts of debris that is generated from removal and chipping of trees and branches (Photograph 3K -2). Two recent storms demonstrate the magnitude of the debris produced and the costs associated with major storm events. The storms also demonstrate the importance of establishing working relationships with local tree care companies and neighboring municipalities that can assist in storm damage cleanup efforts. Photograph 3K -2. A major impact of storms is the large amount of debris and wood chips that are generated from damaged trees. Planning for storage and disposal of brush and chips is a significant part of storm management. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 69 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Wind event of August 23, 2007 The storm resulted in 300 tree and stump removals, 2,051 trees damaged (trees requiring pruning to remove hangers or repair wounds), and 8,384 cubic yards of chips and a total cost of cleanup of $528,360. The storm resulted in the Village being included in a Federal Disaster declaration, and relief for eligible cleanup costs were therefore partially covered (75% reimbursed rate by FEMA). Post recovery pruning of damaged trees to industry standards and replace- ment of trees is not included in these costs. Wind Event of June 24, 2011 and July 11, 2011 Two closely- spaced summer storms in 2011 caused considerable damage to parkway trees. A Federally declared disaster was not issued for these events because of their localized nature. The two storms resulted in 357 tree removals and 3,492 trees damaged (that required pruning or hanger removal), and more than 7,020 cubic yards of chips. Total cost of the cleanup exceeded $380,926, not including tree replanting. Discussion The Village has performed well in preparing for, responding to, and cleaning up from major storms. Most elements of storm planning and response are in place and a formal plan for storm response for Forestry Division is being devel- oped. Given the apparent increased frequency of severe storms, completing the storm plan should be a priority for the near future. Recommendations • Finalize the Storm Mitigation plan currently in development • Review and update the Storm Mitigation plan annually each winter as needed. • Add storm mitigation procedures to the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual 3L. Wood Utilization Introduction Use of urban trees as a forest commodity after their removal was generally considered of minor importance in the past because of their overall lower quality and inconsistent availability. However, widespread and large -scale losses from emerald ash borer have raised interest in production of traditional forest products from urban trees. The USDA Forest Products Laboratory published recently a guide on the use of wood from urban trees infested with invasive pest species (Brashaw et al. 2012). Locally, the State Emerald Ash Borer committee formed a Wood Utilization Team to investigate developing markets for high end forestry products from EAB removals. Despite the known constraints of utilization of urban trees, efforts to produce quality forest products appear warranted given the large quantity of ash species that will continue to enter the waste stream as EAB losses gains momentum in Illinois. Further, the threat of similar losses and potential availability of other tree species from invasive pests such as Asian longhorned beetle suggests this could become a long term issue with relevance to municipal forestry programs. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 70 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management The Mount Prospect Forestry staff has been actively involved in the Illinois Emerald Ash Borer Team and the State's Wood Utilization team. The Village participated in the installation of several high quality exhibits using wood from ash trees killed in the Village, including a decorative wall in the Emergency Operations Center that is adjacent to the Public Works building, and several community oriented projects using ash lumber to demonstrate the flexibility of ash wood in woodworking (Photographs 3L -1). ft N y Photographs 3L -1. The Village has actively investigated the use of ash from parkway trees for use in the production of wood products. All photographs are of ash products used in the Village's Public Works building. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 71 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History The Village has also been committed to ensuring that ash removals are being recycled for traditional wood waste prod- ucts such as mulch (made available to citizens). In addition, the public has been made aware of the potential to recycle ash trees as forestry products through information made available by Forestry staff. Historical Summary The discovery of EAB in IL in 2006 and in Mount Prospect in 2010 initiated the wood utilization effort in the Village. Up until recently, the Village recycled wood waste through traditional urban forestry practices. Discussion Larger -scale use of wood from urban sources has increased, and in some locations local, sustainable markets have developed (Bratkovich 2001). The technology and resources exist to increasingly produce forest products from urban trees. However, launching of business for this purpose requires investment from private sources. The Village should be ready to cooperate if opportunities arise to process trees from urban sources. Recommendations Maintain participation in State Wood Utilization Team. • Avoid allowing ash removals to be disposed of in landfills or other non - sustainable methods. Be prepared to cooperate with private sources willing to process wood from removal of Village trees. 3M. Staff Training & Accomplishments Introduction An organization's staff is the face of the organization (Photograph 3M -1). Their interaction with customers is a direct reflection of the quality of service and expertise the organization will provide. Working in an environment that is labor in- tensive and utilizes heavy equipment exposes employees to a higher risk of injury. The level of expertise of the staff will also dictate the level of management the organization can achieve. Regular staff training on safety, customer service and in their areas of expertise will enhance competency and productivity. Photograph 3M -1. The face of the Forestry /Grounds Division management team, from left to right: Laura Fowle (Seasonal Assistant); Sandy Clark (Superintendent of Forestry/ Grounds); Bill Kroll (Forestry Foreman); Dave Hull (Forestry Assistant); and Victor Pierce (Grounds Foreman). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 72 www.urbanforestryllc.com ,. e i Section 3. Forestry Management History The taxpayer is the customer of the services the Village government provides and it is the staff's responsibility to deliver those services in a courteous and objective manner. This is not always an easy task; however it is a skill that can be learned with proper training and fostered in an organizational environment that stresses the importance of customer service. Lost productivity due to on the job injuries as well as the costs for the treatment of injuries is a drain on resources and morale. Unfortunately the opportunity for on the job injuries is high in the fields of public works and arboriculture. Regular safety awareness training and a work environment that stresses work safety can help keep these incidents to a minimum. An employee comes to the Village with a particular skill set. The job description details the minimum qualifications and skill set they bring to the job. However, knowledge and expertise are also learned and there are numerous and frequent opportunities offered by professional organizations to help employees learn and grow. Staff training in their areas of expertise will provide a ladder for position advancement within the organization. Current Management Each year the Public Works Department designates funding for staff training and education. Budget line items for train- ing and education include Travel & Meeting, Training and Training Supplies in the Public Works Administration, and divisional budgets. These funds are allocated upon request from the Division heads at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. All staff also attends mandatory safety and work place training that is provided to all Village employees as well as programs specific to the Public Works Department. Historical Summary The 1993 management plan characterized training and educational opportunities as adequate for employees to improve their job skills and personal development. Forestry staff regularly participated in Illinois Arborist Association and International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) programs and workshops. In addition, Forestry was a contributor in research completed by Morton Arboretum on tree related problems and solutions. Over the last 20 years, Forestry /Grounds staff has received regular training on work safety and professional develop- ment at periodic staff meetings as well as training workshops offered by professional organizations (Photograph 3M -2). Forestry /Grounds hold regular staff meetings that typically include presentations and discus- sion on subjects such as arboriculture, Village policy, and procedures and safety. Since 1997 Forestry /Grounds has conducted 73 meetings and included specific training and discussion on these subjects (Figure 3M -1). Figure 3M -1. Periodic Forestry /Grounds meetings 1997 — 2012 and topics presented. Since 1993 Forestry /Grounds staff have at- tended 114 seminars and workshops offered by professional organizations including the Illinois Arborist Association, International Society of Arboriculture and the Public Works Academy, to name a few. Fifty -seven percent of the events were on arboriculture or urban forestry subjects (Figure 3M -2). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 73 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Workshops & Seminars Attended 1993 to 2012 Work Place Safety 15% Arboriculture Professional & Urban Development 28 � Forestry 57% Figure 3M -2. Workshops and seminars attended by Photograph 3M -2. Chainsaw safety training March 2013. staff 1993 -2012. The professional organizations in the fields of arboriculture, landscape management and urban forestry offer many edu- cational opportunities as well as professional certifications. Each of these programs provides numerous educational opportunities on work safety and professional development. The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) (www.isa- arbor.com) offers certification programs for certified tree worker, certified arborist and most recently a tree risk assessment qualification (TRAQ). Each of these certifications has additional accreditations in more specialized sub- disciplines.The Professional Landscape Network (www.land- carenetwork.org) offers seven different certification programs in landscape management disciplines. The Society of Municipal Arborists (www.urban- forestry.com /) offers a Municipal Forestry Institute program as well as an accredita- tion program for municipalities. The majority of these programs require the individual to maintain a minimum number of re- certification credits to maintain their certification and offer numerous training and educational opportunities through publications, webinars, online training programs, workshops, seminars and conferences to earn these credits. The Forestry /Grounds staff holds numerous accreditations and has been honored with awards for their service and expertise in their respective fields. Almost all Forestry /Grounds staff presently holds a valid professional certification including 13 ISA Certified Arborists and 2 Certified Landscape Technicians. Sandy Clark, and Dave Hull (Forestry Assistant), both presently hold certifications as ISA Certified Arborist and Municipal Specialist, and have received the following recognitions and accomplishments. Sandy Clark • 1986 Gold Leaf Award from International Society of Arboriculture • 1989 Honorary Life Membership from Illinois Arborist Association • 1994 "Shining Light" Shining Star Award from Mount Prospect Special Events Commission • 2009 ISA "True Professionals of Arboriculture" award • 2009 Illinois Arborist Association Award of Merit • 2010 to Present Unofficial Program Chair of Northeast Municipal Foresters Meeting Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 74 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History • 2013 Tree Care Industry Association Advancing Arboriculture Award • Spoke at numerous local and regional meetings about Mount Prospect's forestry program and the need to plant and care for trees • Helped establish the first Illinois chapter of the ISA; served as past Board Member, past Vice President and on numerous committees • ISA Certified Arborist since 1990, Municipal Specialist since 2008 Dave Hull • Illinois Wood Utilization Team • 2013 IAA Municipal Director • ISA Certified Arborist since 1997, Municipal Specialist since 2007 The Village received Society of Municipal Arborist accreditation for its forestry program in 1995. This accreditation was maintained until 2009, when the decision was made to let it expire. The Forestry /Grounds Superintendent objected at that time to new SMA guidelines regarding the use of contractors, which she felt would not benefit the Village. These guidelines have since been modified and she intends to reapply for SMA accreditation in 2013. Mount Prospect also has a record of cooperating with various researchers over the years in order to help advance the art and science of arboriculture. The Superintendent indicated she feels this is an important part of the Forestry/ Grounds Division's mission, and notes that the end result is improved knowledge that eventually benefits all urban foresters. A summary of these cooperative projects can be seen in the Appendix 3M -1. Discussion The Village provides exemplary training and education opportunities for its staff and fosters an environment of profes- sional development. The number of staff with professional accreditations, accomplishments and honors received by staff members are clear examples of the professionalism and competency of the Forestry /Grounds staff. There have been less frequent staff meetings in recent years and these meetings have not appeared to be on a regular set schedule. Annual certification training in electrical hazard awareness and aerial rescue would be a good addition to the training. Formalizing the training and meeting schedules to occur on specific days each quarter and each month is a simple way to improve scheduling issues and also reinforces the importance of these issues with staff. The Village should also consider allocating funding to secure training for an appropriate Forestry staff member in the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) program. The Forestry /Grounds Superintendent also identified several staffing and program recognition objectives for the Division including the following; • Re -apply for Society of Municipal Arborist accreditation, • Track staff training and advise front office annually, • Plan for a seamless transition when Forestry /Grounds Superintendent retires by documenting procedures and past history, as well as educating current staff and helping them expand their capabilities, • Formalize two -tier certification program for staff, if Director approves, Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 75 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History • Update job descriptions to reflect current responsibilities, • Investigate possibility of pursuing ILCA awards for maintenance of selected grounds areas, • Assist Public Works in obtaining APWA accreditation. Recommendations • Formalize an annual training and meeting schedule. • Provide funding for an appropriate forestry staff member to enroll in the ISA Tree Risk Assess- ment Qualification training program. • Continue to provide opportunities for staff to attend safety and professional development work- shops, training, seminars and conferences. 3N. Inventory Management and Procedures Introduction A tree inventory is an invaluable tool for the effective and efficient management of the urban forest resource. Whether managing facilities or trees, knowing the numbers, their condition and needs helps develop work plans and budgets to respond to problems and effect positive change. An inventory though, is only useful if the information is current and accurate.Therefore the maintenance of an inventory should be completed and updated by qualified professionals and include the following: • Clearly defined tree inventorying specifications and procedures, • Regularly scheduled updates of the inventory, • An easily accessible system for maintaining, protecting and reporting on the inventory data. The management value of a tree inventory is directly proportional to the age of the information. Inventories provide valuable information for planning purposes and benchmarking urban forest conditions, but they require updating peri- odically as the inventory information quickly becomes dated. The Village uses its tree inventory to manage daily work activities and therefore the inventory data must be as current as possible to ensure the efficient use of resources. The value of an inventory is also directly proportional to the accuracy of the data. Clear inventory specifications for completing and maintaining, and quality control of the inventory help ensure consistency and accuracy of the data. The level of expertise and experience of the persons completing the tree inventory work is also a key factor in the accuracy of the tree inventory information. The International Society of Arboriculture has a published best management practices (BMPs) guide for the completion of tree inventories as well as the evaluation and collection of management information for individual trees (Bond 2006). The evolution of information technology over the last 30 years, like many disciplines, has provided tools that have im- proved urban forest management. This evolution in urban forest management resulted in the development of software applications that will summarize useful tree inventory management information for planning purposes as well as provide tools to assist in the management of daily work activities. A tree inventory management application should provide all of the tools necessary to efficiently manage and maintain the inventory. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 76 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management The Village presently maintains an inventory of parkway trees and utilizes this inventory for planning purposes and the management of daily work activities.The inventory is updated on a regular 5 -year schedule and is maintained in the Vil- lage's computerized asset inventory management application. The tree inventory is updated in two ways. First, on a daily basis, work activities are logged and the status of a tree in the inventory is updated (Photograph 3N -1). Trees that are removed and planted are updated in the active list of trees in the inventory. Second, one -fifth of the Village parkway trees are re- inventoried each year as part of the inventory update and tree pruning schedule. The schedule is defined by Forestry Management Section (Table 3N -1). Table 3N -1. Tree inventory schedule by Forestry section. Year Forestry Sections 2013 4.2, 5.4, 12, 16.1 2014 1.8, 2, 7.1, 15.1 2015 3, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.3, 15.2, 16.2 2016 5.1, 6, 7.2, 7.3, 9 2017 10. 11, 13, 14, 16.3, 17 Photograph 3N -1. Arborist Steve Brown inventorying a new parkway tree at planting time. The re- inventory work is completed in the summer months by a Forestry /Grounds intern. The intern is required to have 1 -2 years college level of training in arboriculture or a related field, excellent tree identification skills and some computer course work. There are several standards and procedures that guide the tree inventory update process. These can be found in the Arboricultural Standards Manual and other individual documents and are summarized in Table 3N -2. The Village utilizes Hansen® asset management application to maintain and manage the Village's parkway tree inven- tory (Appendix 3N -1). The application is designed to maintain the asset inventories, manage daily work activities and generate reports on all of the Village's assets including trees. Hansen® is not specifically for urban forest manage- ment, and Village staff has worked to recreate some of the functions that a tree inventory management application would provide. Forestry /Grounds is also working to add to Hansen® all the other assets the Forestry Division is responsible for managing, and also to enter daily work records and costs. Historical Summary In 1972, Village staff conducted and completed an inventory of all parkway trees in the Village. The inventory was not computerized and revealed 17,310 parkway trees. In 1989, the Village initiated a tree inventory program to inventory all parkway trees over a five year schedule utilizing Tree Manager TM tree inventory management software.This applica- tion was designed specifically to manage municipal tree inventories including daily work activities, log work histories and generate reports for reporting and planning purposes. The tree inventory work was completed by forestry student interns in the summer months and Village staff in the winter. The inventory revealed approximately 23,677 trees, 3855 planting sites, and more than 1400 sites with brush. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 77 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Table 3N -2. Summary of Village tree inventory standards and procedures. Document Standard or Procedure Arboricultural Standards Planting - 4. Planting Locations - details the tree spacing Manual requirements Arboricultural Standards Removal Policy - details the conditions that will and will not warrant a Manual tree removal Intern Procedures Tree inventory update procedures using ArcPad 10 and Hansen Document, 02/11/2013 Procedures - Inventory Tree inventory update procedures using ArcPad 10 without Hansen - Update, 02/11/2013 when wireless connection to Hansen fails. Procedures for Removal Hansen"' Procedures for Field Checking Removals and GPSing Field Checks, 02/11/2013 Planting Sites Process for QAQC and Process for Eliminating Removed Trees from GIS Layer Removing Trees from GIS layer, 02/2013 Hansen' Tree Inventory The purpose of the document is to provide tree inventory data Data Collection collection guidelines including; Forestry Section Schedule, Tree Cell Procedures, Revised March definition, DBH measurement, tree condition, parkway widths, 2013 problems, recording progress and updating Hansen and tree species codes definitions. The 1993 management plan lists as an appendix; "Tree Manager TM Public Tree Inventory Data Collection Procedures" as the procedures that were used to guide the tree inventory work. The document was issued in April of 1989 and un- derwent numerous revisions ending in February of 1993. The document Table of Contents is all that is provided in the Plan, however, it lists all the standard data collection procedures a professional urban forester would need and expect to find in such a document. Upon completion of the tree inventory program in 1993, the Village continued a regular tree inventory update schedule. The Village continued to utilize the "Tree Manager TM Public Tree Inventory Data Collection Procedures" document to guide tree inventorying efforts. In 2009, the Village transitioned from the use of Tree Manager TM to the Hansen® asset management application. The procedures detailed in Table 3N -2 resulted from that transition. Discussion Tree inventories are only useful if they are accurate and up to date. Forestry has consistently maintained its 5 -year ro- tational re- inventorying schedule and established the proper quality control procedures. This is an exceptional accom- plishment. Accuracy of the data also relies on collection of useful information and clear definitions for the collection of the information. The expertise of the personnel collecting the data can also limit the quality of the data collected. Finally, the information must be stored in a database that protects the data, is easily accessible, and provides the necessary reports for planning and management of daily work activities. In our view, the Village is collecting too many data variables and in some cases too many data codes for some of the data variables. This complicates the data collection, maintenance and increases the opportunity for data error. In spite of that, we do recommend the Village add a data variable for "work need" for each tree. This would simplify querying to specific trees for scheduling and completing work as well as planning. In addition, the Village's inventory data collection procedures are presently found in numerous documents and need to be compiled into a single reference document. The Forestry /Grounds Superintendent reported some difficulty in utilizing Hansen to track and report upon Forestry activities. She acknowledged that efforts have been made to streamline the processes Forestry uses to access information and generate reports. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 78 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Recommendations • Consider /evaluate reducing the number of tree inventory data variables and data variable codes. • Add a "work need" data variable to the tree inventory data variables. • Compile the tree inventory data collection and data entry procedures into one document (proposed Technical & Administrative Procedures Manual). • Work with Public Works Administrative Superintendent to make modifications to the Hansen® application that simplify work processes and provide the necessary information for the efficient and effective management of the Village's tree inventory. • Utilize Hansen for additional record keeping /planning including costing and scheduling all work done in Forestry /Grounds Maintenance. 30. Drought Management Introduction Prior to settlement by man, Mount Prospect was primarily long -grass prairie; trees in the local area were drought toler- ant oak species or were low land species concentrated near defined water sources (Bowles and McBride 2002). A significant factor limiting the invasion of trees prior to settlement was drought and to a lesser degree fire (Bowles and McBride 2002). Historically, drought would therefore be expected as a reoccurring component of the local environment Climate change may be a significant influence on drought and water availability in the future. Most climate change modeling indicates that increased frequency, severity and duration of drought can be expected in the future for the Midwest USGCRP (2009). To compound this, increased heat loading from elevated temperatures will increase the intensity of drought effects; future climate change models predict that average summer temperatures will increase by 3 °F over the next few decades, and could increase by over 10 °F by the end of this century. Finally, incoming rainfall is projected to come increasingly as heavy downpours, where much of the available precipitation is lost as runoff, leaving little to remain and recharge surface and groundwater reserves. These predictions carry a certain level of uncertainty. However, recent weather events have trended towards drought and short periods of intense rainfall, and seemingly support these predictions. These trends suggest drought manage- ment could become an increasingly important factor in Mount Prospect's urban forest management (Photograph 30 -1). Photograph 30 -1. Drought impacts on young parkway trees. Droughts have become more frequent and intense in recent years. The Village waters recently planted trees on a prioritized basis. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 79 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management Current management practices for reducing drought impacts were determined from narratives outlining Forestry response to the recent 2012 drought, and the drought of 2005. Forestry identified the following areas of focus for their drought management program including: • Watering Resources and Priorities • Productivity • Public Education • Planning However, a formal drought management plan has not been developed or adopted. Watering Resources and Priorities Because Grounds Maintenance is also managed by Forestry, watering for vegetation other than trees is included in the management approach. Trees are prioritized for watering based on the following: • Spring installed shrub planting • New parkway plantings at sites not adjacent to homes /business, plus any trees where watering is required by grant commitments • Annual flower beds in the downtown • Recently planted sod areas at public buildings where additional irrigation is needed • Trees growing in downtown streetscapes • Trees growing in restricted spaces along highways Watering is provided using a variety of equipment including two dump trucks with 900 - gallon water tanks, and a tree sprayer for watering; when possible, Forestry also borrows flusher trucks from the Street and Water Divisions. Gator bags have been used in the Village on ash replacement trees to help improve watering efficiency. In 2005, a 2000 gal Ion tanker truck was rented to supplement Village equipment. Watering is labor intensive, because it requires significant hands -on time and extensive use of normal working and overtime for Forestry Division workers and staff. Watering also reduces time usually allotted for other on -going work tasks and priorities. In 2005, labor for watering amounted to over $18,000 in regular and overtime costs. Productivity To offset the time involved in watering individual trees, Forestry modified equipment to improve efficiency such as installation of water wands and hoses on some trucks, and implementing water truck fill ups from fire hydrants. Public Education All recipients of new parkway plantings receive information cards requesting routine proper watering. For grant trees planted in 2011 and 2012, the Village provided watering for the first summer, then sent watering request cards the follow- ing year asking recipients to take over the watering of those trees. Watering informational materials were made available to the public advising residents on how to effectively water parkway trees. News releases were also utilized to advise residents of the need to water their parkway trees. For the spring of 2013, Forestry Division created a new display for the 2013 Public Works Open House, advising property owners about how and why proper watering is critical for trees. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 80 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Historical Summary Two recent droughts have impacted parkway trees: one in 2005 and one in 2012 2005 Drought Drought in the summer of 2005 was severe enough for the Chicago metro area to be declared a severe drought area on June 28, 2005. The month of June was the third driest on record since 1871. Total rainfall earlier in the year totaled only 3.75 inches as recorded locally at the Public Works office. Drought management procedures were developed and implemented as a result of this severe drought. 2012 Drought The National Weather Service declared severe to extreme drought in Illinois as of July 17, 2012. Precipitation at Chica go- O'Hare for the summer of 2012 was 6.63 "; average is 12.05" (per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis tration). Though the effects of this drought may linger for several years, rainfall returned to normal in spring 2013. Discussion Predictions of increased drought as a result of climate change influences seem to be substantiated to some degree in near term weather patterns. Historically, drought was clearly a significant factor mediating tree survival. Drought influ- ences the resistance of established trees to most pests; however, in the short -term drought is most significant to re- cently planted trees. Providing supplemental water to recent transplants as allowed by budgetary and labor constraints seems reasonable given the cost of planting material. Public outreach to influence watering of trees on parkways is also an important part of the drought management plan. Recommendations • Add drought management and watering procedures to the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. 3P. Tree Protection Introduction The infrastructure of the urban environment works to provide specific functions to facilitate living, doing business, and recreating in our communities. The streets, sewers, water and power distribution systems to name a few, as well as the trees in the urban forest are elements of this infrastructure. The majority of public funds are expended to install and maintain these facilities. The daily activities of the urban environment expose this infrastructure to possible loss and damages, either incidental or malicious, and therefore must be protected through legislation, administrative processes as well as technical specifications. Trees are slowly becoming considered as essential elements of the urban infra- structure, and as such require protection afforded other community assets. The urban forest includes both trees on public property and private property. Each of these groups of trees provides functional benefits for the community and each community must decide what level of protection is sufficient for public and private trees to fulfill their wishes and objectives. Successful tree protection requires legislation, standards and specifications, and administrative processes to facilitate and implement the protection of this asset (Photograph 3P -1 a and 1 b). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 81 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Photographs 3P -1a and 3P -1 b. Left: Tree protection fencing installed to protect trees during construction activities on a Village street. Right: A parkway tree with roots severed during construction activities on Wilshire Drive in 2007. Construction activities are a common cause of damage to trees in the urban environment. Cutting the roots of a tree can increase the likelihood of windfall and therefore present a risk to people and property (Photograph 3P -1 b). Dam- age to tree roots is the most significant threat to tree health and stability, and usually causes irreversible decline in health. The importance of protecting urban trees from construction damage has been recognized by the arboricultural industry with the publication of standards (ANSI 2008) and best management practices for guidance on this topic (Fite and Smiley 2008). Current Management The Village code provides specific legislation for the protection of public as well as private trees. Chapters 9 and 16 specify measures for the protection of public trees during excavation and construction activities, other types of injury to trees, and damages that can be assessed for the restitution (Appendix 3A -1). In summary, any activity in proximity to a public tree may require a permit and may specify tree protection measures to be taken at the judgment and discretion of the Director of Public Works. Chapter 23 (Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations) provides fines for malicious damages to public trees. Chapters 14 and 15 are enforced by the Community Development Director and provide legislation for the protection of trees on private property. The majority of the language in these ordinances is designed to provide protection of private trees as part of development projects. However, Chapter 14.2302 also suggests that the removal of three or more trees on private property is restricted irrelevant of any development activity. Technical specifications for the protection of trees are found in both the Village code and the Village's Arboricultural Standards Manual. Chapter 9.817 specifies tree protection measures to be followed during utility work on public rights -of -way. The Arboricultural Standards Manual has a chapter called Tree Protection that provides definitions and detailed specifications for the protection of trees during construction, for example tunneling and trenching require- ments in proximity to trees (Table 3P -1). The manual includes sections and specifications as summarized in Table 3P -2. In addition to the tree protection measures provided in the Village ordinance and the Arboricultural Standards Manual there are administrative procedures that facilitate fulfilling the Village's tree protection goals. Forestry staff reviews all construction projects that take place on the Village parkways. The plans are reviewed to identify the potential impact of proposed activities on trees, and recommendations, requirements and specifications are offered to minimize and potential impacts. Forestry staff also reviews and provides guidance on building permits, and permits for utility and infrastructure maintenance and repair (Table 3P -3). Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 82 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Table 3P -1. Trenching and tunneling standards taken from the Arboricultural Standards Manual. Tree Diameter (DBH) Distance of Tunnel from Center of Tree Trunk Less than 3" 1 foot 3" to 4" 2 feet 5" to 9" 5 feet 10" to 14" 10 feet 15" t2 19" 12 feet reater than 19" 15 feet Table 3P -2. Parkway tree protection specifications taken from the Arboricultural Standards Manual. Section Description Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Restricts activities within the CRZ defined as within the 2011 dripline of a tree. Root Pruning Specifications for pruning tree roots if approved by the 7 Director of Public Works Tree Protection in Construction Areas Specifications for tree protection fencing as directed by the 1 Director of Public Works Curb Installation Specifications for the installation or replacement of curbs 3 located within the CRZ of a tree. Sidewalk, Carriage Walk and Driveway Specifications for the installation or replacement of walks Installation and Replacement and driveways located within the CRZ of a tree. Changes to Existing Grades Restricts grade changes within a tree CRZ Installation or Repair of Underground Restrictions and specifications for the protection of tree Pipes and Cables roots during an underground utility excavation within the GARAGE CRZ. Table 3P -3. Construction projects and permit applications reviewed by Forestry 2008 — 2012. PROJECTS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTALS DEMOLITIONS 7 4 0 4 1 16 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME 8 3 1 3 1 16 REMODEL/ ADDITION 28 10 14 14 4 70 GARAGE 7 0 0 1 2 10 BASEMENT 0 0 1 0 0 1 NEW DRIVE/ WIDENING 39 16 9 33 33 130 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. DEVELOP./ REDEVELOP 5 3 1 7 3 19 IRRIGATION IN ROW 8 5 4 8 3 28 BACKYARD DRAINAGE 2 1 1 5 1 10 VILLAGE STREETS/ ENG.PROJECTS 0 0 0 2 2 4 WATER SERVICE/ SEWER 14 6 11 1 8 18 57 CARRIAGE/ SIDEWALK 5 4 2 1 3 15 UTILITY 31 28 29 33 36 157 TOTAL # OF PROJECTS 154 80 73 119 107 533 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 83 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History There are standardized documents the Village uses to specify requirements and provide guidance on these activities including the Public Tree Protection Plan (Appendix 3P -1) and boilerplate language to be included in construction documents (Appendix 3P -2). The Public Tree Protection Plan document is the primary methodology for Forestry to document the review of a project and convey tree protection requirements and specifications for work completed in proximity to public trees. Historical Summary The 1993 management plan summarizes the tree protection measures that were in place prior to 1993. The Village ordinance provided some provisions for the protection of trees during construction and the collection of monetary damages for damage to public trees. The Plan considered the tree protection measures provided by the Village as inadequate and recommended updating the Village ordinance, review of construction activities by Forestry, and the development of specifications to improve tree protection measures in the Village (ACRT 1993). The Village made significant improvements in tree protection from 1993 through 2012. All of the recommendations made in the 1993 management plan were completed and implemented. Specifically, the Arboricultural Standards Manual, including tree protection standards and specifications was completed and adopted in 1997, and the Village code was updated to include stronger tree protection measures in 2002 (Photograph 3P -2). In addition, Forestry staff now meets with Building Department and Public Works engineering staff on a regular basis to discuss ongoing projects and current policies. In the years 2008 through 2012, Forestry reviewed and commented on 390 projects and permit applications (Table 3P -3). Photograph 3P -2. The Village Arboricultural Standards Manual and the Village ordinance provide specifications for the protection of trees such as the installation of tree protection fencing during construction activities. In 2009, significant changes were made to the Village code Chapters 14 and 15 regarding tree protection on private property. Most of the requirements in these Chapters are administered by the Community Development Department. These changes included requirements to protect trees during development projects as well as restrict the removal of trees on private property. These recent amendments have resulted in some management challenges regarding the interpretation and implementation of these provisions. Discussion Tree protection measures as specified in the Village code and the Arboricultural Standards Manual are adequate to protect the Village's urban forest resource. It would be helpful to compile the various specifications and administrative procedures, and consolidate the appropriate tree protection measures between the Arboricultural Standards Manual and a new Technical and Administrative Procedures manual (See Section 3A) with the goal of providing clear and readily accessible references for staff and outside organizations to consult. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 84 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Trees located on public property are a fraction of all of the trees located within the Village. The benefits trees growing on private property provide to Mount Prospect as a whole certainly surpass those of the public trees. It is an indi- vidual community's decision to determine the level of protection they will provide for trees on private property, and the measures communities employ to protect privately owned trees are as varied as there are numbers of communities. The recent changes to Chapters 14 and 15 of the Village code as it relates to tree protection on private property are progressive measures designed to achieve greater protection of the urban forest. A balanced implementation plan coordinating activities between Community Development and Forestry /Grounds is needed that addresses these issues and fulfills the desires and objectives of the Village to protect trees on private property. Although the Village has appropriate parkway tree protection requirements in place, the Forestry /Grounds Superinten- dent has indicated that assuring those requirements are always followed is a time consuming and never - ending chal- lenge. As a result, each year, many parkway trees are damaged or destroyed when construction, installation, or repair of buildings, streets, sidewalks, driveway and utilities involve excavation, grade changes and /or equipment operation around parkway trees. Of course, some of this damage is unavoidable due to the need to update /upgrade the Village's aging infrastructure. However, the Forestry /Grounds Superintendent believes that too often the effect of such activities on trees are misunderstood, or are one of the last things considered by contractors, consulting engineers, and state /county agencies. To be sure, progress has been made in these areas in the last twenty years. Some examples include the following: • Public Works night men /pump men are trained to conduct root inspections when utility companies excavate near a parkway tree "after hours ". • Forestry has a routine schedule for meeting with Building /Engineering staff to discuss problems. • Forestry has conducted tree preservation training sessions with utility company staff as well as Building Inspectors and Engineering staff. • The GIS tree layer is fairly accurate and can be shared with engineering consultants for plan development. • "Alternate" construction methods have been used to protect trees, including Insituform pipe for sewer lining, curved sidewalks, use of structural soil in streetscape plantings, boring in- stead of trenching pipes, and placement of pipes in streets rather than parkways. Nevertheless, Forestry /Grounds Superintendent believes that additional attention needs to be paid to this issue whenever such projects are being planned and conducted, so that the losses to the Village's urban forest are limited to those that are truly necessary. Recommendations Compile and review all of the Village's tree protection specifications and administrative proce- dures and publish them as appropriate in the Arboricultural Standards Manual and the pro- posed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Work with Community Development on the recent Chapter 14 and 15 tree protection ordi- nances and develop an implementation plan that matches the capabilities and needs of each department and fulfills objectives of these provisions. • Continue to enhance efforts to protect public trees from construction injury. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 85 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History ! The following is a list of specific measures that the Forestry /Grounds Superintendent recommends for the improved protection of the Village's urban forest. • Forestry /Grounds should continue to train new staff to consider the potential for future hard - scape conflicts when planting new trees (avoiding conflicts with signs, and selecting properly sized species for each site to minimize conflicts with planting). • For all utility and construction projects conducted by the Village, all plan sets should accurately show existing parkway trees, labeled with serial numbers, DBH and species code. • Forestry /Grounds should be involved in plan review early in the process not given extensive plan sets just before projects are going out to bid. • Project Specifications and Budgets should specify and pay for any tree removals needed, and appropriate replanting (ideally, inch for inch replacements but at least tree - for -tree, even if replacements are done outside the project limits). • Streetscape projects should plan for parkways with tree lawns and trees whenever possible, or at least raised curb planters containing the minimum soil volumes specified in the Village's Arboricultural Standards Manual. Trees in pits /grates should be used as a last resort and only when structural soil is properly installed beneath surrounding brick pavement to meet soil volume requirements. • The effect on existing parkway trees, especially large specimens of desirable species, should be carefully considered before the installation of new paving where trees exist (such as bike paths and sidewalk extensions.) • Projects that require re- grading of parkways should, whenever possible, result in adequate spaces for parkway tree planting after the project is complete. • Forestry /Grounds staff should be routinely invited to preconstruction and progress meetings for all construction projects that may impact trees, and given a place on the agenda. 3Q. Creek Maintenance Introduction There are several creeks and a significant drainage ditch that flow through Mount Prospect, including Weller, McDonald, Higgins Creeks and Feehanville Ditch. These waterways eventually drain to the Des Plaines River. Tree maintenance along these drainages is important to protecting the public and private property that the creeks run through. Failure of branches and trees can restrict water flow and contribute to flooding, particularly during intense precipitation events that the Village is periodically subjected to. Creek maintenance is also vital to reducing bank erosion that can impact land quality and value, and water quality. Maintenance of trees along these waterways is also valuable to pest management efforts in the Village, since they can harbor insects or pathogens that can spread to private or public trees. In their natural habitats, both American elm and green ash prefer drainages, and pests on these species can have specific impacts on the health of Village maintained trees. Current Management Village has committed to maintaining these creeks to prevent flooding, using various easement agreements to allow access for maintenance. Each year, sections of the different creeks or drainages are selected for budgeting and main- tenance, which is administered by the Forestry /Grounds Division. All debris in the creek and on banks, all dead trees, and large deadwood are removed as part of the maintenance contracts. Tree stumps are left intact in order to provide Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 86 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History a degree of bank stabilization. Part of the creek maintenance budget has been used to remove fallen or pest affected trees when these are discovered within the drainages. In 2012, approximately 360 feet of Feehanville Ditch were managed along with a section of Higgins Creek at a cost of $15,575. Historical Summary As part of the 1993 management plan, improved maintenance of Weller Creek was identified as a goal for the Forestry Division (Photograph 30-1). To this end, each year since 1997 the Village has budgeted $25,000- 50,000 annually for a Creek Tree Trimming /Removal /Debris Cleanup Contract (Table 30-1). In addition to these contracts, the Village has completed extensive bank stabilization projects using bioengineering techniques along Weller Creek. Photograph 3Q -1. A well maintained section of Weller creek where bank stabilization has been installed. Creek and drainage maintenance is important to keep trees and branches from blocking drainage, stabilizing creek banks and protecting property flooding and erosion, and to eliminate breeding locations for pests. Discussion Creeks and drainage ditches are one portion of stormwater management in the Village. The impact of trees in creek maintenance was not mentioned in a recent stormwater study in the Village, but erosion management on Weller Creek was (Burns and McDonnell 2012). Budget amounts for tree and bank management in the Village seem warranted, given the potential for flooding in some areas near creeks, and the effort to protect the parkway tree resource in the Village from emerald ash borer, Dutch elm disease and elm yellows. Recommendations • Continue funding and tree management along creeks and drainages in the Village. • Consider higher level analysis documenting the importance of parkway and private trees and canopy cover on stormwater management using i -Tree Hydro modeling. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 87 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Table 30-1. Past maintenance location and amount spent on tree maintenance along creek drainages in the Village of Mount Prospect. Year Segment Amount Spent Cost per 50- foot Segment 1997 Weller Creek, School Street westward to 208 W. $50,000 Hourly Hiawatha Tr. 1998 Weller Creek, 208 W. Hiawatha Tr. to Rte. 83 $50,000 Hourly and Central Rd. south to 113 Weller Ln. 1999 Weller Creek, 113 Weller Ln. to Lincoln St. $50,000 $1475 2000 McDonald Creek, from Wisconsin Central ROW $50,000 $787 to Kensington Rd. 2001 McDonald Creek, from the Prospect Heights $50,000 $556 border to Wolf Rd. ($19K) and Feehanville Ditch from Feehanville Drive to 1221 Business Center Drive ($31 K) 2002 Feehanville Ditch from 1331 Business Center $43,000 $399 Drive to Wolf Rd. and Higgins Creek (not including stretch bordering Crystal Towers property). 2003 Higgins Creek (bordering Crystal Towers & $9,800 $426 Forest Cove property). 2003 Weller Creek (From See Gwun to Lincoln) $42,000 $736 2004 Weller Creek (From See Gwun to Rte. 83 ($600 $37,000 $600 per seg) and from 310 Hiawatha to DP corp. limit ($130.43 per seg) 2004 Weller Creek (From Central Rd. to Westbrook $9,100 $650 bridge) 2005 Weller Creek (From Westbrook bridge to Lincoln $33,000 $837 St. bridge) 2006" McDonald Creek, from the Prospect Heights $27,940 $799 border to Wolf Rd. 2007 McDonald Creek, from 1801 Hopi to Burning $27,548 $1090 Bush Lane (no work needed on Wis. Cent. ROW) 2008 McDonald Creek, Edison Property east of RR $50,250 $875.00 Edison / tracks, plus Burning Bush Lane East to 2001 $1250.00 rest Hopi 2009 McDonald Crk., from 2003 Hopi to Kensington $19,663 $422 (McD) and (finish) and Feehanville Ditch from 852 $835 Feehanville to 580 Slawin (Feehanville) 2010 Phase I - Feehanville Ditch - 580 Slawin to west $6,446 $293 property line of 1331 Business Center Dr. 2010 Phase II - Feehanville Ditch continuing from $13,520 $520 1331 Business Center to first bridge at 1600 Feehanville (about 1/2 through property) 2011 Feehanville Ditch from 1 st bridge at 1600 $18,000 $880 Feehanville to beginning of property at 350 Wolf Rd. (Stopped 350 feet west of Wolf Road). 2012 Feehanville Ditch - 350 Wolf Rd. to Wolf Rd. $7,175 $1025 Approx. 350 feet (7 segments) 2012 Higgins Creek (bordering Crystal Towers & $8,400 $365 Forest Cove property). *Budget allocation reduced in 2006 to $25,000 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 88 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 3. Forestry Management History 3R. Greenspaces Introduction In addition to the Village's parkways, there are other public spaces with trees and landscapes that the Forestry/ Grounds Division is responsible for managing. These include all Village facilities, several parks and numerous greens - paces in the Village including the Village's gateways and other beautification efforts such as annual flower beds and downtown hanging flower baskets (Photograph 3R -1). There are other public spaces located within the Village that the Village does not manage. These include approximately 465 acres of park land that are owned and maintained by four regional Park Districts; Mt. Prospect Park District, River Trails Park District, Arlington Heights Park District and Des Plaines Park District. These Districts are separate and distinct governmental authorities that are not under the authority of the Village of Mount Prospect. Current Management r c ,� _ i a Ai, The Forestry /Grounds Division is respon- sible for the management of approximately 40 acres of greenspace on 71 Village properties (Appendix 3R -1). These include Centennial Park, Moehling Park, Tama- rack Park, Village facility grounds, Village entrance markers and other Village owned greenspaces located throughout Mount Prospect. Forestry and Grounds responsi- bilities include the maintenance of the turf, landscaping and hardscape features and annual flower beds as well as any trees located on these properties (Photograph 3R- 2).The Division also cares for the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way although it is property that is not owned by the Village. Photograph 3R -1. Forestry/ Grounds staff manages the care of Village gateways and other greenspaces in the Village. The trees located on these greenspaces are Photograph 3R -2. Forestry /Grounds staff is responsible for the care of annual not included in the Village's computerized flower beds on public greenspaces in the Village as well as the hanging flower tree inventory; however, their management baskets in downtown Mount Prospect. is integrated with the parkway tree manage- ment schedules. As with the parkway trees, trees located on these properties receive regularly scheduled management. Whenever a Forestry Section is scheduled for five -year rotational pruning, the properties that are located within that Section are included. The Grounds Foreman and his crews also routinely inspect these properties and any tree work that may be required is promptly scheduled and completed. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 89 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Historical Summary The Village has received numerous awards for the management of its public greenspaces as well as several grants to assist in these efforts including; • 1989 - Lady Bird Johnson Award from National Arbor Day Foundation for railroad right -of -way beautification efforts • 1992 - Award of Merit from Illinois Chapter of ASLA for railroad right of way beautification • 1994 - ISTEA Enhancement Funds ($4,000). 10,000 daffodils planted at Village Grounds Areas in one day; joint project between Village staff, Chamber of Commerce, and School Districts • 2003 - "Beautify Mount Prospect" Shining Star Award from Mount Prospect Special Events Commission jointly presented to Village staff and Garden Club of Mount Prospect for Moehling Park development Discussion The trees located on these greenspaces clearly receive adequate management and in fact, as characterized by the Superintendent, actually receive more intensive management than the parkway trees. However, the numbers of trees, location, species composition and condition should be inventoried and included in the Village's computerized inventory for planning and management purposes. There are significant numbers of trees located on the Park District properties located within the Village. These trees are not the management responsibility of the Village; however, their health can have an impact on the health of the urban forest. Given these trees are a part of Mount Prospect's urban forest and there is a wealth of expertise at the Forestry Division, building on cooperative efforts to date to enhance the management of Park District trees should continue. Recommendations Inventory the trees located on Village owned and managed greenspaces and add them to the Village's computerized tree inventory. 3S. Sustainability Introduction The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines sustainability as; "Everything we need for our survival and well- being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony that permit fulfilling social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations," (www.epa.gov /sustainability /). The EPA goes on to describe its efforts; "in the areas of sustainability approaches and practices as including labeling green products and promoting green chemistry and engineering, managing materials rather than creating waste, using green infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff, and supporting sustainable design of communities." In addition to this broader definition of sustainability, Clark et al. (1997) argued that the central tenet of urban forest sustainability requires a healthy urban forest resource, community wide support, and comprehensive management. They also proposed that sustainable urban forests maximize the net environmental, ecological, social and economic benefits over time. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 90 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Sustainability is also a process, where a community can measure its success by key indicators of how well it is mov- ing towards sustainability in both the broader context as defined by the EPA, and specific urban forest management. Clearly, sustainability of the urban forest resource applies to both public and private trees. Clark et al. (1997) provided a series of key indicators of urban forestry sustainability that could be useful to measure the Village's progress. Current Management The benefits analysis of Mount Prospect's parkway trees completed as part of this plan quantified (Section 4H) the value of the social, economic and environmental benefits the urban forest provides for the Village of Mount Prospect. The urban forest provided an energy usage saving of $428,343 and intercepted over 41 million gallons of storm water runoff a year. The forest captured nearly 60,000 pounds of air pollutants and over 17 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Finally, Mount Prospect realizes a return of $2.29 per tree for every dollar spent. Historical Summary In 2009, the Village started several green infrastructure and sustainability initiatives and programs. The Department of Energy notified the Village that it was eligible for a nearly $600,000 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant designed to meet the nation's long -term energy independence and reduction of fossil fuel emissions goals. The grant required the Village to have an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan and with the assistance of a consultant the Village completed and adopted an Energy Strategy Plan in April of 2010. In 2011, the Village and the Mount Prospect Public Library entered an agreement to create the Mount Prospect Sus - tainability Education Program (Figure 3S -1). The program is designed to educate residents and businesses about energy efficiency, recycling and water conservation. One of the products of this effort is the formation of the program Mount Prospect Figure 3S -1. Mount Prospect's Sustainability Program logo. website; www.greenmountprospect.org. Additional efforts identified as part of the program include the following projects and programs: • The Village's Solid Waste and Recycling program http: / /www.mountprospect.org /index. aspx ?page =87 • The Village's Forestry /Grounds Program http:// www .mountprospect.org /index.aspx ?page =248 • Bicycle Plan — Village of Mount Prospect's comprehensive bike plan • Fire Station #14 Signage — Static signage located at the station that describes and illustrates the facility's Leadership in energy and Environmental Design (LEED) features • LED Street Lights — With various grant funding sources, the Village installed 24 pedestrian and 24 street LED lighting fixtures on Prospect Avenue in 2011 • Lighting Retrofits — In 2011, the Village's Public Safety Building were upgraded with new energy saving lighting fixtures • More information about the projects and programs can be found at http: / /greenmountprospect. org /programs Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 91 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History In 2011, the Village conducted a Storm Water Management Study that revealed the need for improvements in storm water management in several neighborhoods in the Village. However, trees and tree canopy cover management were not even mentioned in the plan, although urban trees have been well documented to help reduce and slow storm water (EPA 2013). Urban trees are considered by the EPA as part of green (versus gray or engineered options) storm water systems (EPA 2013). Clearly, increased use of trees in storm water planning and management represent an opportu- nity for further integrating urban forestry as a green option in the Village. Discussion In addition to the benefits trees provide in making Mount Prospect a more sustainable community there are other mea- sures that can be taken to improve Mount Prospect's sustainability. • Maintaining and increasing public and private tree canopy cover will improve air quality, reduce energy needs and reduce storm water runoff volumes. • Any efforts taken to improve operational efficiency will reduce emissions generated from burning fossil fuels. • Increasing motor vehicle efficiency and decreasing the use of fossil fuels will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. • Using as many large tree species as possible as part of tree planting efforts and prolonging the life span of Mount Prospect's trees through adequate care and maintenance will return the highest possible benefits. Recommendations • Consider quantifying the structure and function of both public and private tree resource using an i -Tree Eco sampling and analysis. • Protect and increase Mount Prospect's overall canopy cover and tree longevity through adequate legislation and providing sufficient human and financial resources. • Continue to reduce response driven work activities that require more travel time from work site to work site. • Use the largest sized tree species at maturity as possible as part of tree planting efforts. • Encourage tree planting on private property. 3T. Pest Management Introduction In addition to Dutch elm disease and emerald ash borer, parkway and public trees are potentially subject to numerous pests that threaten their health and longevity. Of most concern are introduced or exotic pests that have the potential to cause large scale damage or losses because of the lack of resistance in native tree species. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 92 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Photograph 3T -1 a and 3T -1 b. Left: Gypsy moth defoliation of a young red oak. Right: Larvae of gypsy moth. Two introduced pests stand out, gypsy moth and Asian longhorned beetle. Gypsy moth, which is present within the Village, feeds primarily on oak species. Repeated defoliation by gypsy moth can stress or kill mature trees, especially if the spring defoliation is followed by drought (Photograph 3T -1 a and 1 b). Gypsy moth was imported into the United States in the late 1800's and has spread slowly across the country from the east coast. Gypsy Moth has been a concern of tree managers in Mount Prospect since it was first discovered in Northeast Illinois in 2000. Lake County Illinois (directly north of Cook County) was the first county to be quarantined for Gypsy Moth in 2000 by the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDA). Following the initial quarantine, Cook County (including Mount Prospect), McHenry County, and Dupage County were added to the Illinois quarantine area in 2007. The IDA adopted the national program of "Slow the Spread" developed by the United States Department of Agricul- ture. Under this program most of the IDA's resources for battling Gypsy Moth are concentrated outside of the quaran- tine area, leaving municipalities within the quarantined area to take control measures themselves. Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) was first identified in 1998 in the Chicago area, and through efforts of the United States Department of Agriculture was declared eradicated in 2008. However, ALB continues to spread in other Mid- west (Ohio) and Northeast states. The borer attacks a wide range of tree species, including ash, birch, maples, elm, hackberry, horsechestnut, katsura, London planetree, mountainash, mimosa, and willow. Many of these species are common parkway trees. ALB has the potential to kill mature trees, and therefore is a significant concern to urban and rural forests in all areas of the country. One disease that is endemic to the Midwest and that is present in the Chicago area, oak wilt, (cause by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum) is also of concern because it can kill mature oaks. Oak wilt is unlikely to cause widespread damage in the Village because most spread occurs via root grafts that are formed in more sandy type soils and in natu ral stands, conditions that are not present along parkways in the Village. Climate change which appears to be impacting the Chicago area is also likely to have an impact on pests attacking parkway trees. As noted, the area has already warmed to the point where it is a climate zone warmer than in 1993. Warmer winter temperatures will increase survival of over - wintering pests, and may contribute to increases in popula- tion development. As winter temperature extremes moderate and annual temperatures warm, pests that were more southerly distributed will expand northward. Several examples have already been noted by Forestry /Grounds staff, such as bagworms, and leafhopper species that spread elm yellows. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 93 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Current Management Gypsy Moth Oaks comprise 6% of the parkway tree population and the Village has a treatment program to protect this popula- tion from damage. The current treatment protocol includes setting out pheromone traps prior to the flight season, and scouting for egg masses during the winter months (Photograph 3T- 2a & 2b). Infestations that are found during the growing season are treated with an insecticide. Pheromone trapping conducted in 2012 resulted in the fewest num- ber of male moths caught since trapping was initiated in 2008. Egg mass scouting in winter 2012 -2013 resulted in a continued reduction in egg masses found. F %. Photograph 3T -2a and 3T -2b. Left: A contractor removing gypsy moth egg masses as a means to manage and reduce damage from pest and to minimize pesticide spraying. Right: Gypsy moth female moth and egg mass. Asian Longhorned Beetle No active management or scouting is being conducted for Asian longhorned beetle because the pest has not been identified in the Village, and was recently eradicated from the Chicago area. However, analysis of the current tree population shows that 54% of the tree population is potentially susceptible to this borer (Table 3T -1). Oak Wilt Oak wilt management consists primarily of avoiding pruning or wounding oaks during the early part of the growing sea- son. Insects that spread the oak wilt fungus are attracted to these fresh wounds. Prompt sanitation of infected trees is needed when oak wilt infected trees are identified. Table 3T -1. Number and percent of the Mount Prospect parkway tree population that are potential hosts for Asian long- horned beetle. Tree Genus or Species Number of Trees Percent of Total Population Maple 8220 34.6 Ash 2779 11.7 Horsechestnut 18 0.1 Birch 43 0.2 Elm 787 3.3 Hackberry 704 3.0 Planetree 192 0.8 Poplar 76 0.3 Willow 2 0.0 Mtn. Ash 1 0.0 Katsura 18 0.1 Total 12840 54.1 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 94 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 3. Forestry Management History Historical Summary Gypsy Moth was first discovered in Mount Prospect in summer 2008 when Gypsy Moth larvae and pupae were dis- covered at ten sites. The known infestations were promptly destroyed, but the pest has persisted at low levels in the Village. Since the initial discovery and current control measures were put into place, gypsy moth population dropped dramatically after peaking in 2010. Discussion Pest management concerns in the Village have been well managed by Forestry /Grounds Division by maintaining con- tact and involvement with State agencies that monitor invasive pests and through participation in regional arboricultural education programs. The current gypsy moth management program is a good example of how cooperation, education and then implementation have reduced impacts of this potentially important pest to inconsequential levels. Pest management may be one of the greatest concerns for the Village in the future. For example, the potential of Asian longhorned beetle to infest over 50% of the species in the Village is of significant concern. Further, other pests could be introduced or native pests could become problematic in the future even if they are not fatal. For example, outbreaks of cottony maple scale in the Northeast have resulted in significant nuisance to residents from honeydew production by the pest, even though the scale is not particularly damaging to silver maple, one of its main hosts. Tar spot of Norway maple is another example of a pest that in most years is barely noticeable, but in select years causes widespread and nearly complete defoliation of Norway maple as early as July. The impact of climate change on pest importance also cannot be overlooked, as changing climate conditions could alter host susceptibility or facilitate spread or damage caused by previously unimportant pests. Given the unpredictable nature of pests to cause significant impacts to the tree resource in the Village, remaining vigilant about pest manage- ment should be a key concern of the Forestry Division. Recommendations • Maintain active participation in regional and State offered pest management programs Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 95 www.urbanforestryllc.com Introduction This section documents the current age distribution, health, species distribution, appraised value, and the quantifi- cation of the environmental benefits of the parkway tree population. It is a snapshot of the condition and benefits of Mount Prospect's tree population at the time this plan was developed. These statistics will provide benchmarks with which to compare future analysis as well as identify trends and allow projections to be made based on known param- eters of the existing tree population. 4A. Age Distribution Introduction Age distribution is an important metric of parkway trees as it reflects past management practices and decisions, and external influences such as pest impacts or catastrophic storms. Tree diameter distribution is typically used as a proxy for age distribution and is used to help predict immediate and future maintenance needs of the urban resource. For example, a large population of young trees suggests a strong planting and replacement program exists, but also a population of trees that will require more frequent pruning to develop strong branch structure as they mature. Sum- mary of the current age distribution is valuable in predicting future trends in tree population survival and maintenance in the Village. Existing Conditions The age distribution of Mount Prospect's parkway tree resource (Figure 4A -1) shows a strong population of young trees (1 -6 inches in diameter; 26% of the total population), a solid core population of semi - mature trees (7 -18 inches in diameter; 39% of the population) and mature trees (19 -30 inches; 31 % of the population), and a relatively low popula- tion of large diameter mature to over mature trees (31+ inches in diameter; 4% of the population). Over 85% of the trees are less than 19 inches in diameter, and 45% are less than 12 inches. The age distribution curve suggests a drop off in trees that survive the transition from 18 -24 inches in diameter to large diameter classes (Figure 4A -1). However, there are a greater percentage of trees in the 25+ inch diameter classes than was present in 1993. Diameter distribution varies significantly by Forestry Section (Appendix Section 4A -1). Several sections have young tree populations that are less than a third of the total population (e.g. Sections 1, 5.3, 10, and 15. 1), suggesting they may be targets for increased planting. Current Diameter Distribution 30.0 _ 25.0 H c 20.0 e 15.0 c C w 0 10.0 IL 5.0 0.0 1 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Figure 4A -1. Diameter distribution of parkway trees by six -inch size classes. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 97 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Discussion The diameter distribution reflects a strong replacement program for trees that have been removed. Maintenance of this replacement program and increasing planting in the short run will be required to offset losses from EAB. The Forestry/ Grounds Superintendent would like to reinstate the cost -share planting program to help meet the costs associated with this increased planting. The cost -share program would also allow planting of larger diameter trees (2.5 inch ver- sus 1.5 inch trees). The population of relatively young trees (1 -19 inches in diameter) is large enough to sustain the elevated removal and losses in the larger diameter classes ahead of it. The obvious drop off of trees into the larger diameter classes (25+ inches) likely reflects losses due to Dutch elm disease, inherent site conditions in the Village that do not support large - size class trees, and losses to storms, drought and emerald ash borer (EAB) that have impacted the tree population over the past 20 years. Large diameter, mature trees are often the most susceptible to storms, pests, and other envi- ronmental influences. Except for the absence of trees moving into the largest diameter classes, the Village's population distribution is near ideal. The population distribution includes a good distribution in most age classes, adequate -sized trees to provide good canopy cover, and a high number of small trees replacing trees removed due to attrition. In comparison to the 1993 tree population, the diameter distribution of larger trees has shifted towards the 19 -24 and 25 -30 inch size classes as would be expected. Interestingly, the two largest size class populations, 31 -36 and 37+ inches in diameter, remain essentially the same size as in 1993 (2.8 and 1.1 %, respectively). The population of trees less than 12 inches in diameter is slightly smaller than in 1993 (by 5 %), but the population less than 19 inches in diam- eter is slightly larger (by 10 %). This shows that parkway trees are moving into the larger diameter classes as expected but are not making the transition to the largest size classes. Projections • Losses from EAB and replacement programs for EAB lost trees (if funded), will increase the number of trees in the smallest -size class and moderate the shift of larger diameter trees into larger -size classes that has occurred in the past. • DED, elm yellows, and environmental stresses will keep mortality rates of large- diameter trees (31+ inches) at current or higher rates in the future, keeping the largest -size classes the same size as in the past. • Any significant drought, wind or ice storms, or new pests, will result in further shift of the park- way tree population towards higher number of smaller trees and less growth in the number of trees in mature -size classes. • These projections indicate the likely need for increased funding for Forestry /Grounds Division to manage tree removals and replacement costs from pest losses that are likely to occur in the immediate future. Recommendations • Increase funding in the short term as needed to cover removals and replanting from increased impacts of EAB and DIED. • Resume cost -share tree planting program to help maintain age diversity. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 98 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource 413. Tree Species Analysis Introduction History has proven again and again the importance of the diversification of the urban forest. Tree diseases and insect pests as well as other natural events such as catastrophic ice storms or high winds can expose a community to significant tree losses. Losses and costs to mitigate these impacts can be large and disproportionate to a particular genus or species if they are over represented and particularly vulnerable or susceptible to the damage. Dutch elm disease (DED), gypsy moth, and more recently Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer are insects and disease problems that have caused significant tree losses, expense to mitigate, and management challenges. These threats are expected to continue because global trade will likely continue to bring these pests to North America. The severity of tree damage caused by storm events such as ice storms has also been shown to vary depending on the species of tree. Evaluation of damage to urban trees from a 1990 ice storm in Urbana, IL demonstrated a high correlation between tree species and susceptibility to ice damage. A similar study of damage from a 1991 ice storm in Rochester, NY revealed tree species such as Japanese pagoda tree and ash suffered disproportionate damage compared to other tree species in the population (Sisinni et al. 1995). There have been numerous guidelines for species diversity offered by urban forestry professionals over the years. Raup (2006) summarized these guidelines from several sources while Baker (1995) recommended that no par- ticular kind of tree should exceed 5% of a community's tree population. Moll (1989) recommended that a genus should not exceed 10% of the population total and a single species should not exceed 5 %. Miller and Miller (1991) recommended a single species should not exceed 10% and Grey and Deneke (1986) took a more liberal view and suggested that no tree species should make up more than 10% to 15% of the total population. Santamour (1990) adopted a more comprehensive strategy and suggested that urban forests could be protected from pest outbreaks if no more than 10% of a single species, 20% of a single genus, or 30% of a single family of plants were used. Existing Conditions In 2012, Mount Prospect's parkway tree population consists of 55 genera and 223 different species and cultivars (Appendix 413-1). At approximately 35 %, maples represent the largest percentage of the population (Figure 413-1). Honeylocust and ash are the only other two genera exceeding 10% of the population, each at 12 %. Linden, at 9 %, is the only genus approaching 10% of the population. The most populous parkway tree species that exceed 5% of the population are silver maple, comprising 14% of the population followed by Norway maple (12.67 %), honey - locust (12.14 %), green ash (6.7 %), crabapple (5.15 %), and littleleaf linden (5.13 %). In 1993, maples represented 41.8% of the population and silver and Norway maple each exceeded 15% of the population (ACRT 1993). Honeylo- cust and ash were reported to have exceeded 12% of the parkway tree population. Distribution of Genera Others 22% Maple 35% Crabapple 4% Oak 6% Honeylocust Linden Ash 12% 9% 12% Figure 413-1. Distribution of genera among the 2013 parkway tree population. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 99 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Maples Maples represent 35% of the parkway tree population. Fifty -five percent of the maples are mature (Figure 413-2). There are 14 different species of maples in the population. Silver and Norway maple are the only two species that exceed 5% of the population, followed by red and sugar maple (Table 413-1). Diameter Distribution of Maple 3000 2500 z000 `0 1500 v 5 1000 Z 500 0 � El 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Figure 413-2. 2013 diameter distribution of maple. Diameter Distribution of Silver Maple 1400 1200 l000 r `o aoo 600 £ 400 200 z 0 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Table 413-1. Frequency of maple species. Species Number of Trees Percent of Total Tree Population Silver 3342 14.1% Norway 3005 12.6% Red 724 3.0% Sugar /Black 513 2.2% Other Species 636 2.7% Table 413-2. Frequency of Norway maple cultivars. Emerald Luster 61 2.03% Emerald Queen 43 1.43% Royal Red 23 0.77% Columnar 14 0.47% Cleveland 1 6 1 0.20% Superform 1 0.03% Figure 4B -3. Diameter distribution of silver maple. Silver maples comprise 43% of the maples and 14% of the total population. Approximately 85% of the silver maples are classified as mature based on the trunk diameter distribution (Figure 413-3). Norway maple represents 40% of the maples as well as 12.7 % of the total parkway tree population. There are seven cultivars of Norway maple (Table 413-2). Ap- proximately 74% of the Norway maples are classified as semi - mature to mature (Figure 413-4). Diameter Distribution of Norway Maple 1200 1000 soo 600 v E 400 Z 200 0 Lj 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Figure 413-4. Diameter distribution of Norway maple. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 100 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Honeylocust Honeylocust is the second most populous genera and the third most populous species in the parkway population (Figure 413-1). There are four different cultivars of honeylocust with the thornless variety representing 84% (Table 413-3). Approximately 60% are classified as mature (Figure 413-5). Diameter Distribution of Honeylocust 1200 1000 N N 800 `0 600 v � aoo 5 Z 200 0 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Figure 4B -5. Diameter distribution of honeylocust. Ash Table 4B -3. Frequency of honeylocust cultivars. Cultivar Number of Trees Percent of Honeylocust Thornless 2425 84.2% Skyline 348 12.1% Shademaster 77 2.7% Native (thorned) 29 1.0% Ash species represent 12% of the parkway population (Figure 4B -1). There are six different species of ash in the population with green ash representing the highest percentage at approximately 58% (Table 4B -4). The majority of ash trees are mature (Figure 413-6). Green ash represents 6.7% of the total parkway population and is the fourth most populous species in the population. There are six cultivars represented with the straight species representing 77% of all the green ash (Table 413-5). Table 4B -4. Ash species. Diameter Distribution of Ash 1000 N �+ 800 ~ 600 O y 400 Q E 200 z 0 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Figure 4B -6. Diameter distribution of ash. Species Number of Trees Percent of Ash Green 1605 58% White 777 28% Blue 255 9% European 135 5% Manchurian 6 0% Pumpkin 1 0% Table 4B - 5. Cultivars of green ash Cultivar Number of Trees Percent of Green Ash Straight species 1241 77% Summit 143 9% Patmore 107 7% Cimmaron 50 3% Leprechaun 30 2% Sherwood Glen 19 1% Marshalls Seedless 15 1% Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 101 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Crabapple Crabapple species and cultivars are fifth in the population and represent 5.15% of the popula- tion. There are 28 different cultivars of crabapple represented in the crabapple population with the "unknown" and Donald Wyman topping the list (Table 413-6). Fifty percent of the crabapple are young as represented by the trees 6 inches in diameter or less (Figure 413-7). Diameter Distribution of Crabapple 600 500 400 0 300 M 200 3 100 z 0 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 Diameter Class Figure 4B -7. Diameter distribution of crabapple. Linden Lindens, as a genus, are approaching the 10% genus diversity guideline, representing 9.7% of the total parkway population (Figure 413-1). There are three species of linden represented in the population with littleleaf representing 54% of the linden (Table 413-7). Forty -seven percent of the linden trees are young as represented by trees 6 inches in diameter or less (Figure 413-8). Littleleaf linden represents 5.13% of the total parkway tree population (Appendix 413-1). There are five cultivars of littleleaf linden represented with the Greenspire cultivar topping the list (Table 413-8). Sixty -one percent of the littleleaf lindens are semi - mature as represented by trees in the 7 to 18 -inch diameter classes (Figure 413-8). Table 4B -7. Species of linden. Species Number of Trees Percent of Linden Littleleaf 1216 54.1% American 655 29.1% Silver 378 16.8% Table 4B -6. Frequency of crabapple cultivars. Cultivar Number of Trees Percent of Crabapple CRABAPPLE UNKNOWN 271 22.19% CRABAPPLE 'DONALD WYMAN' 259 21.21% CRABAPPLE 'RED JEWEL' 141 11.55% CRABAPPLE 'ADAMS' 125 10.24% CRABAPPLE 'SENTINEL' 99 8.11% CRABAPPLE 'PURPLE PRINCE' 63 5.16% CRABAPPLE 'PRAIRIFIRE' 60 4.91% CRABAPPLE 'ROYAL RAINDROPS' 29 2.38% CRABAPPLE 'ZUMI' 22 1.80% CRABAPPLE 'NARRAGANSETT' 17 1.39% CRABAPPLE 'SNOWDRIFT' 17 1.39% CRABAPPLE 'GOLDEN RAINDROPS' 14 1.15% CRABAPPLE 'JACKII' 12 0.98% CRABAPPLE DISEASE RESISTANT 10 0.82% CRABAPPLE 'FLORIBUNDA' 10 0.82% CRABAPPLE 'PROFUSION' 10 0.82% CRABAPPLE 'RED BARON' 10 0.82% CRABAPPLE 'BEVERLY' 9 0.74% CRABAPPLE 'CARDINAL' 9 0.74% CRABAPPLE 'WHITE ANGEL' 9 0.74% CRABAPPLE'ORMISTON ROY' 8 0.66% CRABAPPLE 'ROBINSON' 5 0.41% CRABAPPLE 'AD IRONDACK 4 0.33% CRABAPPLE 'SUGAR TYME' 4 0.33% CRABAPPLE PROFESSOR SPRENGER 1 0.08% CRABAPPLE 'RADIANT' 1 0.08% CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW' 1 0.08% CRABAPPLE 'USDA 2' 1 0.08% Total 1221 100.00% Diameter Distribution of Linden 1000 800 ~ 600 a y` 400 a E 200 z 0 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ Diameter Class Table 4B -8. Cultivars of littleleaf linden. Cultivar Number of Trees Percent of Littleleaf Linden Straight species 712 59% GREENSPIRE 462 38% GLENLEVEN 29 2% SUMMER SPRITE 10 1% KLEHM # 3 1 0% SALEM 1 0% Figure 4B -8. Diameter distribution of linden. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 102 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Diameter Distribution of Littleleaf Linden 400 350 d 300 250 200 150 £ 100 z 50 0 1 -3 4 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 Diameter Class Figure 413 -9. Diameter distribution of littleleaf linden. Species Distribution by Forestry Section Maple Forestry Section 2 has the highest numbers of maples and Sections 1.0, 2.0, 5.4 and 7.3 all have in excess of 500 maples (Figure 413-10). Sections 4.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 13, and 17 have the least number of maples, each with less than 100 trees. In four Forestry Sections the number of Norway maples exceeds 200 trees (Figure 413-11). Four sections have in excess of 300 silver maples and in two sections the numbers exceed 400 trees. Forestry Section 7.3 has the highest population of silver maples. Distribution of Norway & Silver Maple Among Forestry Sections 600 500 ❑ Norway Maple 400 ■ Silver Maple s= c 300 `w E 200 z' 100 0 rNMr Nr NM VCOrN MCOmOrNMV rNrNMf� LO LO LO LO r- r- r- r r r r r2 � 2 � 2 � 2 � 2 r Forestry Section T T T T T Figure 413-11. Distribution of Norway and silver maples among Figure 413 -10. Distribution of maples among Forestry Sections. Forestry Sections. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 103 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Other Species The distributions of crabapple (Figure 413-12), honeylocust (Figure 413-13), and littleleaf linden (Figure 413-14) vary substantially by Forestry Section. Notable highlights among these distributions are the relatively high proportion of honeylocust in Section 10 and littleleaf lindens among Sections 7.3, 8, 9 and 12. Distribution of Honeylocust Among Forestry Sections 500 400 300 0 `w 200 E 2 100 0 N M N N M7 "1 7 N M N M O N M 7 N l� 7711111] lf]lf] I� rr �� �� 111111 c0 Forestry Section Figure 413-12. Distribution of crabapple among Forestry Sections. Figure 413-13. Distribution of honeylocust among Forestry Sections. Distribution of Littleleaf Linden Among Forestry Sections 140 120 100 ~ 80 0 y 60 M E 40 z 20 0 N CO N N M 7 t O N M N M O N M 7 r N N M l� 7 7 11] 111 111 111 In l2 c2 c2 c2 Forestry Section Figure 413-14. Distribution of littleleaf linden among Forestry Sections. Discussion Clearly challenges remain in diversifying the parkway population. The populations of maples as a genus, silver and Norway maple and honeylocust as species, all need their representative percentages of the total population reduced. The percentages of maple as a genus and these other tree species have seen reductions in their percentages of the parkway population in spite of the fact they have continued to be planted over the last 20 years. The population of ash species is presently being reduced through the EAB management plan. No population diversity guideline is ideal, nor will it prevent tree losses. However, it is a sound urban forest manage- ment practice to monitor genera and species diversity in the population and suspend the planting of trees in at -risk genera or species. Urban Forestry, LLC recommends the Village adopt a tree species diversification policy that provides total tree genera and species population goals for parkway trees that are consistent with current urban forest best management practices. Planting under represented genera and species such as oaks and London planetree as part of the Village's various tree planting programs, as well as increasing the numbers of trees planted of these genera are the primary means to actively affect the population species diversity. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 104 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource The Forestry /Grounds Superintendent has selected the Santamour (1990) guideline as the Village's species diversifi- cation policy. Using this guidance, the Village should suspend planting the trees in the maple genus until the respective population falls below 20 %. Applying the species guideline, the Village should suspend planting the following tree species until their respective populations fall below 10% of the total population. • Norway maple • Honeylocust Projections Frequency of Norway maple, silver maple, and littleleaf linden will decrease in the future if plant- ing is restricted because of their large diameter distribution. Frequency of ash and American elm will decrease to low levels in the near future due to their inherent pest problems. Recommendations Adopt a tree species diversification policy that pro- vides total tree genera and species tree population goals for parkway trees that are consistent with current urban forest management best manage- ment practices. Continue diversification efforts through increasing the numbers of tree plantings and the use of underrepresented tree genera and species (Photograph 413-1). Photograph 4B -1. These diversified plantings on Prospect Avenue were installed as part of the Beautification Planting Program. 4C. Tree Condition or Health Introduction Tree health or condition is an important concern of urban forestry programs. Trees in good health are better able to resist or contain pest attacks and are more resistant to environmental extremes and stressors. Tree health also impacts maintenance demands and service requests, as trees in poor condition are more likely to have dead or dying branches, which require evaluation and pruning as a result of requests from the public. Tree health is made up of two components: the health of living parts of the tree, known as the symplastic or "biologi- cal" tree, and the health of the structural, apoplastic or "mechanical" tree. Biological health is the condition of leaves, twigs, and other organs that contain living cells in a tree. Structural health is the condition and strength of wood, branch connections, roots and the anchorage of roots in the soil. Both health types can vary independently, meaning biological health does not necessarily confer structural health and vice versa. Plainly, a tree can have a healthy canopy and be structurally unstable. Although biological and structural health is usually evaluated separately, the evaluations are often combined into a single health rating metric. Tree health is often one of the most important concerns of the public. It is affected by many factors, such as weather, site conditions and available growing space, and presence of pests. Ultimately, tree health can be an indication of the extent and attention to maintenance provided to urban trees. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 105 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Existing Conditions Forestry uses a 1 to 10 scale to rate the biological and mechanical health of parkway trees. The system was devel- oped from the initial inventory methods used by ACRT, Inc. (ACRT 1993) and elucidated further in the Tree Risk Man- agement Assessment Plan (Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants 2002) (Table 4C -1). The rating system is based on the 32 point CTLA (2000) system.The 1 to 10 scale reflects percentages (1 = 10 %, 2 = 20 %, etc.) that are also used to estimate tree value. The vast majority of trees (89 %) are rated in Very Good or Excellent condition. No trees are present that were rated Poor or were Dead, and only 31 trees were rated in Fair condition. Condition rating by Forestry Section is presented in Appendix 4C -1. The condition ratings in each of the Forestry Sections reflect the overall above average ratings for the population as a whole. Table 4C -1. Interpretation of the tree condition rating scale and number of trees in each condition class. Condition Ratin Condition Number of Trees 0 Dead 0 1 Poor 0 2 Poor 0 3 Fair 2 4 Fair 29 5 Good 275 6 Good 2387 7 Very Good 9973 8 Very Good 5494 9 Excellent 5490 10 Excellent 74 Discussion Condition Rating of Parkway Trees 70 60 50 ~ 40 0 30 v V 20 `w a 10 0 Fair Good Very Good Excellent Condition Class Figure 4C -1. Percent of parkway trees in various condition classes. By any interpretation, trees in the Village are in above average condition for urban street trees, a trend that was noted in 1993 and supported again in 2002 when the risk management plan was developed. This is likely the result of main- tenance of the five -year rotational pruning since the 1970s, and wide parkways that provide adequate growing space even though the trees are alongside streets. Parkway tree health or condition is not expected to change considerably in the near future. The impact of pests such as EAB, DIED, and elm yellows on tree health results is a relatively short -term impact on overall forest health. The re- moval of these trees will eliminate them from the population and the health of remaining trees will not be impacted. The recent drought may have some long -term health impacts; however, the duration appears to have been short enough that most parkway trees should not suffer a long -term decline in health. Projections • No measurable change in tree health in the immediate future. Recommendations Add the condition rating system to the Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Cross check condition rating with Forestry "Problems" code to identify trees that require closer condition evaluation when being re- inventoried. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 106 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource 4D. Tree Longevity Introduction The life span or longevity of the Village's parkway trees directly impacts Forestry operations and budgets, and maximizing longevity is important for the following reasons: • Obtaining the maximum environmental benefit from parkway trees since large trees produce the vast majority of benefits. • Minimizing costs associated with tree planting, maintenance, and removal as costs are spread over a longer time period and larger tree population. • Maximizing cost to benefit ratios, by extending the period and amount of benefits while spreading costs over more trees and time. • Reducing carbon footprints, because when trees are removed carbon expenditures used in maintenance usually contribute to a net negative carbon balance (Nowak et al. 2002). Recent studies show that urban tree life spans are significantly shorter than forest trees, but longer than previously esti- mated (Roman and Scatena 2011). Estimated mean life expectancy of street trees was 19 to 28 years, based on multiple studies, urban locations, and site types (downtown, residential, etc.) (Roman and Scatena 2011). Street tree longevity is also influenced greatly by tree species and planting location, and individual trees and spe- cies will live significantly longer than average. Existing Conditions Estimation of parkway tree life span is chal- lenging, as it requires intensive record keep- ing on planting and removal dates, or other means to estimate tree life span. Longevity of parkway trees was estimated for the Village from over 11,000 tree removals recorded since 1989. Where available, longevity was determined using planting and removal dates. If those data were not available, age was estimated by age to diameter equations for individual species developed by research- ers using urban trees in the Chicago area (Dwyer and Schroeder 2013). Based on these methods, the average park- way tree in Mount Prospect lives 36 years (standard deviation of 32 years) with a median age of 26 years (Table 4D -1). When trees that died before they reached three inches in diam- eter are eliminated from the data, (considered as "transplant" failures), the average parkway tree longevity is 43 years (standard deviation of 30 years), with a median age of 33 years. Table 4D -1. Average longevity based on the estimated age at the time of removal using either the planting and removal date, or the age based on diameter from equations developed from the greater Chicago area (Dwyer and Schroeder 2013). Forestry Section Without Transplant Failures (Average age in years) All Removals (Average age in years) 1 36.2 32.6 2 35.8 31.2 3 37.7 28.7 4.1 32.8 26.4 4.2 35.3 27.4 5.1 26.3 23.6 5.2 46.3 37.7 5.3 52.9 47.6 5.4 53.9 49.0 6 55.1 48.5 7.1 38.8 32.6 7.2 17.8 6.7 7.3 32.4 24.9 8 63.1 56.6 9 50.2 45.0 10 43.1 36.5 11 47.3 39.9 12 31.1 20.9 13 19.9 14.3 14 36.1 32.2 12.1 43.0 39.2 15.2 34.6 27.2 16.1 49.4 39.6 16.2 61.3 55.0 16.3 48.6 42.1 17 44.7 39.6 Ave rage All Sections 43.3 35.6 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 107 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource These estimates indicate that parkway trees in Mount Prospect are living longer than average street tree life spans pre- sented in the literature. The relatively high median age, and substantial increase in longevity when apparent transplant failures are removed from the data, and high standard deviation indicate that a significant number of individual trees are living longer than the average. Average longevity by Forestry Section is presented in Table 4D -1. Several of the Forestry Sections stand out by displaying a higher or lower longevity versus the total population's average longevity. Sections with notably higher longevity (greater than 45 years) are 5.3, 5.4, 6, 8, 9, and 16.2. Those with lower than average longevity (less than 25 years) are Sections 5.1, 7.2, 7.3, 12 and 13. Discussion The average life span of Mount Prospect trees is longer than reported in the literature for the locations in the country that were studied (Roman and Scatena 2011). Clearly, individual trees will live substantially longer than average as many larger- diameter parkway elms are remnants of original plantings in the Village. A seemingly important and obvious goal for the Village would be to increase the life span of parkway trees. However, elevated losses to EAB in the near future, and a general lack of known arboricultural management practices that directly increase longevity, may make this goal difficult to achieve. The data shows trees in Forestry Sections with higher levels of commercial and industrial development have the short- est life expectancy. This is a common occurrence in most cities and increased attention to species and site selection may help reduce this trend. Projections Short term decrease in longevity due to EAB losses and increased mortality of ash tree replacement trees because of the recent drought and inherent higher mortality rates of newly planted stock. Weather extremes, such as flooding, drought, and high winds will place continued pressure on tree longevity. Recommendations Closely monitor tree removal causes to help determine factors contributing to young and mature tree mortality. • Utilize careful tree and site selection in Forestry Sections with lower longevity. 4E. Tree Problems Introduction There are several common problems and conditions with urban trees that can present management challenges and provide indicators of emerging problems with specific trees and the urban forest in general. It is also helpful for man- agement to record trees that are conflicting with the infrastructure of the urban environment, for example, overhead power distribution lines. Recording common indicators and symptoms of these issues or problems can help managers evaluate a tree's health and structural integrity, and other management needs. Noting these issues in a specific tree data field in a computerized inventory can facilitate querying of trees that require inspection or special management. The Village identifies the presence (Yes) or absence (No) of 13 "Problems" on each tree that is inventoried. These fields are updated if the problem is noted at the time a tree is inspected. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 108 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Existing Conditions In 2012, the tree inventory identified Surface Roots as the most common problem followed by Girdling Roots and then the presence of overhead wires close to a tree (Table 4E -1). In 1993, the most common problems were Surface Roots followed by Major Wounds and Girdling Roots (ACRT 1993). Since 1993 there have been changes in percentages of trees identified with these types of "Problems" (Table 4E -1). In 2012, Surface Roots is still the most common problem followed by Girdling Roots and then Major Wound. Two problems revealed a decrease in their percentage of the population and the remaining all showed increases. Surface Roots showed the largest change, increasing by nearly 15% of the population. A closer look at the trees that have surface root problems reveals that maples exhibit this problem most frequently, and in particular silver and Norway maple (Figure 4E -1). Honeylocust is the third most common species with surface roots. Projections No substantial change in Problem frequency in the short term. • Reduction in the number of Bolt and Cable trees in the long term as this practice is used less frequently in the future, and trees with cables are gradually removed. Recommendations Develop data collection speci- fications for the Problems category to allow standardiza- tion of their collection. Cross check during re- inven- tory the trees with dieback, chlorosis, and badly mis- shapen and major wounds classifications to determine if condition ratings are commen surate with these problems. Table 4E -1. Percentage of trees coded with each type of "Problem" from tree inventory data and change from 1993 to 2012 Problem 1993 Percent of Population 2012 Percent of Population Change SURFACE ROOTS 10.50% 25.27% 14.77% GIRDLING 5.50% 13.27% 7.77% MULTIPLE STEM 2.50% 0.58% -1.92% FROST CRACKS 2.50% 4.00% 1.50% BADLY MISSHAPEN 4.50% 5.84% 1.34% CAVITY 0.05% 1.32% 1.27% WOUNDS MAJOR 9.50% 10.71% 1.21% CHLOROSIS 1.00% 2.15% 1.15% DIE BACK 5.50% 6.15% 0.65% BOLT AND CABLE 1.00% 0.84% -0.16% FENCE, AGAINST 0.05% 1 0.16% 10.11% CLEARANCE PROB. N/A 0.03% N/A WIRES IN /NEAR TREE N/A 11.60% N/A Species of Trees with Surface Root Problems N y 30.0 25.0 20.0 a 15.0 C 10.0 y 5.0 0.0 IL m � Tree Species Figure 4E -1. Species distribution of Surface Root problems identified in the population. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 109 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource 4F. Appraised Value Introduction Trees provide many benefits including aesthetic, environmental as well as the many products we use in our daily lives. Quantifying the financial value of forest products is relatively simple; we need merely measure tree size and look at the current market price for the value of those products. Appraising trees in the urban environment, however, is more dif- ficult as their worth is not based on their value as a commodity. Urban trees do provide environmental benefits and specific functions like other elements of the urban infrastructure and these benefits are quantified in Section 4G. The aesthetic value of urban trees, their impact and effect on property values, and their importance to quality of life is reflected in the appraised value of individual trees. This value is com- monly calculated using the 9th edition of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers trunk formula methodology (CTLA 2000). Existing Conditions The 2012 CTLA total appraised value of Mount Prospect's parkway trees is $117,803,000 and the average value per tree is $4,965. The appraised value of each tree is calculated within the Hansen® soft- ware using the Trunk Formula method (CTLA 2000), using a planted tree cost of $787, a base price of $71 per square inch for all trees, and species ratings provided by the Illinois Arborist Association, the State Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. In 1993, the total appraised value of Mount Pros- pect's parkway trees was $47,022,000 and the aver- age value per tree was $1,775 (ACRT 1993). The appraised value of each tree was calculated using the actual replacement cost for trees less than 3.5 inches in diameter and the Trunk Formula method for trees greater than 3.5 inches. For the latter, a planted cost of $545 and $36 per square inch was used. Figure 4F -1. 2012 appraised value of parkway trees by Forestry Section using CTLA (2000) methodology. The appraised value from each Forestry Section reveals the relative distributions across these sections has remained relatively the same from 1993 to 2012 (ACRT 1993) (Figure 4F -1). Adjusting the 1993 appraisal value using an annual inflation rate of 3% for 19 years, the present value of the 1993 appraisal value is $82,453,000. This reveals an in- creased appraised value of Mount Prospect's trees of approximately $35.35 million or 30% in the past 20 years. Discussion The increase in the appraised value of Mount Prospect's parkway trees could be accounted for by the increase in the size of trees in the population since tree trunk diameter is a primary multiplier in the CTLA Trunk Formula method. Certainly the overall numbers of parkway trees in several of the larger diameter categories has increased (Section 4A), suggesting size as one source of the appraised value increase. The differences in the calculation methodologies from 1993 and 2012 may also account for some of the increase. The CTLA valuation methodology is problematic because historically it has been shown to reveal significantly disparate valuations among evaluators appraising the same trees (Watson 2002). However, most of the variables that cause the differences (condition and location) are standardized and have not changed significantly over the last 20 years in the Village's inventory system. Given that tree condition and location have not changed significantly since 1992, it is likely that trunk diameter is the primary variable driving the increased CTLA valuation of Mount Prospect's trees. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 110 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Pry CTLA value may decrease slightly in the near term as larger diameter ash and American elms are removed and replaced with smaller trees. This decrease will likely be offset in the future by growth of remaining trees. 4G. i -Tree Streets Benefits Modeling Introduction Because of the numerous environmental benefits provided by urban trees, urban tree management has been used to improve the quality of life for urban dwellers. Urban foresters have also come to recognize that the environmental ben- efits of urban trees also have a significant monetary value to residents. In general, the monetary value of environmental benefits of urban trees is determined by the cost of obtaining similar benefit using engineered solutions. Quantification or measurement of these benefits has become possible through the creation of several models that measure type, extent, and value of urban tree benefits. The most well -known of these models is i -Tree from the USDA Forest Service (i- Tree.org). i -Tree is a state -of- the -art, peer- reviewed software program that provides several urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools. i -Tree Streets is one of the programs used to project the environmental benefits and value of these benefits of street trees, while also accounting for management costs and comparing the costs to benefits. This infor- mation is a valuable tool when advocating for urban forest management, and also provides scientific backed data on the magnitude and dollar value of environmental impacts stemming from urban trees. Existing Conditions The i -Tree Streets benefits model was run using input data from Mount Prospect including a current street tree listing, forestry management cost data (five -year average), energy cost values (from utilities providing services to Mount Pros- pect citizens), and regional air pollution, storm water, and carbon valuation data. The i -Tree Streets model provides measures of the size of selected environmental benefits such as air pollution removal, storm water runoff reduction, and an estimated dollar value of these benefits (Table 4G -1). The model also provides an environmental benefit dollar value to management cost ratio (benefit to cost) that helps capture the return on investment provided by the Village's parkway tree management efforts (Table 4G -2). Based on this analysis, citizens of Mount Prospect are getting a return of $2.29 for every dollar invested in urban tree management. The top 10 tree species producing the highest dollar value of environmental benefits is presented in Table 4G -3. Table 4G -1. Annual environmental benefits quantification by benefit type using i -Tree Streets model and the monetary value of these benefits. Annual Benefit Total Total CO2 Storm Air Pollutants Aesthetic Electricity Natural Avoided Water (ozone, nitrous and Other Saved Gas & Stored Interception oxides, Benefits Saved particles less than 10 microns, sulfur (MWh) (Lbs) (Gallons) dioxides) (Dollars) (Therms) (Lbs) Benefit Size 4368 593,120 17,623,274 41,782,335 54,764 $1,111,768 Total Value $202,957 $225,386 $132,175 $1,132,380 $153,881 $1,111,768 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 111 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Table 4G -2. Total and per tree monetary value of environmental benefits provided by parkway trees as calculated by i -Tree Streets model. A benefit to cost ratio is provided based on the Forestry /Ground budgets for parkway trees for 2012. Environmental Benefit Total Dollar Value Per tree ($) Energy Savings $482,343 $18.06 Carbon Dioxide $132,175 $5.57 Air Quality $153,881 $6.49 Storm Water $1,132,380 $47.74 Aesthetic /Other $1,111,768 $46.87 Total Benefits $2,958,547 $124.72 Management Costs $1,294,573 $54.56 Net Benefits $1,664,974 $70.14 Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.29 6 Table 4G -3. Total monetary value of environmental benefits as calculated by i -Tree Streets model by tree species. Tree Species Total Dollar Value Environmental Benefits Honeylocust $802,671 Silver maple $798,522 Norway maple $364,399 Green ash $194,620 White ash $109,784 Littleleaf linden $99,409 Red maple $79,059 American elm $58,413 Siberian elm $48,596 Sugar maple $47,688 All other $355,386 Total $2,958,547 Table 4G -4. Monetary value of the environmental benefits provided by parkway trees by Forestry Section. Zone Benefit Dollar Value 1 $ 202,180 2 $ 159,929 3 $ 135,633 4.1 $ 53,442 4.2 $ 158,210 5.1 $ 43,292 5.2 $ 23,771 5.3 $ 88,747 5.4 $ 200,247 6 $ 176,060 7.1 $ 26,119 7.2 $ 14,153 7.3 $ 185,515 8 $ 118,825 9 $ 168,032 10 $ 213,752 11 $ 157,621 12 $ 179,115 13 $ 32,585 14 $ 53,552 15.1 $ 101,674 15.2 $ 120,798 16.1 $ 155,312 16.2 $ 67,847 16.3 $ 94,125 17 $ 28,011 Total Value $ 2,958,547 Benefits provided by individual tree species are related to frequency and size. Honeylocust and silver maple are pro- ducing the greatest benefit to the Village because of their high frequency and larger size. Clearly, loss of ash species on the streets of Mount Prospect will have a significant impact in both extent and value of the benefits. They provide over $300,000 of annual benefits, which is 10% of the total for the Village. The monetary value of environmental benefits by Forestry Section are provided in Table 4G -4. Discussion Based on this i -Tree Streets analysis, the Village expends $54.56 per tree annually and is returned $70.14 in benefits. Comparatively, a study of five communities by McPherson et al. (2005) showed these municipalities spent between $13 -$65 per tree annually for a return of $31 -$89 per tree in benefits. Benefit to cost ratio for Mount Prospect was $2.29; for the communities studied by McPherson et al. (2005) the range was $1.37 to $3.09. These data show that Mount Prospect's ratio of expense to return is in line with those from other communities. Quantification of the environmental benefits that trees provide to the Village is only one aspect of their value. Trees also offer additional dollar value based on the services they provide that would otherwise be solved using other engineer- ing solutions. In essence, parkway trees are part of a "green infrastructure ", whose cost to maintain is outweighed by the benefits it provides to the Village. Trees are also one of the few assets that increase in value as they age, as the magnitude of benefits grows significantly as canopy size increases. Further, one of the most important benefits offered by parkway trees is their impact on psychological well- being, connection with nature, and overall quality of life. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 112 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 4. Existing Condition of the Tree Resource Further quantification of the benefit of the urban forest is possible through the use of the USDA;s i -Tree Eco analysis. i -Tree Eco quantifies urban forest structure and environmental benefits on both public and private property. Therefore, it provides a more comprehensive measure of the benefits of the urban forest that can be used to advocate for in- creased management and protection. In addition, the i -Tree Hydro model uses i -Tree Eco data to project hydrological impact of urban vegetation, and both models could be run if an i -Tree Eco project were undertaken. Projections • Loss of canopy cover due to EAB and DED removals will reduce the benefits of trees in the Village in the short term. Benefit size and value will rebound to current levels once replanting and growth of newly planted and existing trees increases. Recommendations • Use i -Tree Streets result to advocate for continued funding for parkway and urban forestry management. Consider obtaining grants for an i -Tree Eco analysis of private and public trees in the Village to further support management efforts. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 113 www.urbanforestryllc.com Introduction Projections on the growth and development of urban tree populations can be useful to help estimate future costs and alter management practices to account for foreseeable changes. These projections can also help to prepare for known changes, such as arrival of pests or to avoid management issues before they become severe. 5A. Long -Term Population Projection Analysis of historical removal rates, planting and replacement numbers, and current pest and other influences on the parkway tree population provide the basis for making future population projections. The level of maintenance, removal, and planting of trees in the Village are driven to a large degree by budgetary considerations. As a result, the tree popu- lation stocking level and management intensities are ultimately discretionary expenditures under the control of citizens and government. Tree size distribution is also influenced by management decisions, but to a lesser degree than tree stocking or popula- tion levels. However, a large population of mature parkway trees can only be realized through good stewardship and maintenance of urban management programs over an extended period of time. Projection of diameter or age distribu- tion is significantly more difficult than tree population trends, but historic trends can provide insight into growth and size changes that might be expected in the future. This section will project and discuss long -term population trends that might develop under different management scenarios. The estimation of future age distributions will be considered in general terms based on historical trends and current influences acting on the parkway tree population. Population Trend The arrival of EAB has increased removal rates in recent years. There are presently 1,979 ash remaining on the parkways that are unprotected from EAB. Mortality of these trees over time will keep the attrition rate elevated in the short run. Losses of American elms have also increased recently, however less than 300 elms remain so this limits any large -scale losses of this species. Barring any unfore- seen catastrophic events, the historic removal of 1.8% of the population a year will likely remain the same for the long term. However, even with this relatively low removal rate, Figure 5A -1 shows the parkway tree population would be reduced to about 15,000 trees and a 50% stocking rate in only 25 years if no trees were planted to replace removals. Population Projection Next 25 Years 30000 c 25000 +Current Stocking 0 .� 20000 - — —Full Stocking 0 15000 a No Planting Historic m 10000 Attrition Rate H Full Stocking in 10 5000 Years 0 —Full Stocking in 20 2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 2033 2037 Years --*— Planting Current Year Attrition Rate Figure 5A -1. Tree population trends under several different management scenarios. Full stocking scenarios assume all trees removed due to attrition are replaced. The recent losses due to EAB and DIED recently have increased the annual removal rate over the last five years to 2.9% (Section 3G). In general, the Village has planted slightly more trees than it has removed, increasing the stocking level from 86% in 1993 to 88% in 2012 (Section 3C). Assuming that this trend will continue even with the current elevated removal rates, the parkway tree population should remain stable with little change in the coming years. Table 5A -1. Number of trees that would need to be planted annually under the different management scenarios in Figure 5A -1. Management Scenario Number of Trees to Plant Replace Removals - Current Removal Rate 2.9% 688 Replace Removals- Historic Removal Rate (1.8 %) 427 Full Stocking in 10 Years 801 Full Stocking in 20 Years 637 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 115 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 5. Long -term Projections Using these removal rates and several different planting scenarios, parkway tree populations into the future can be generally projected based on different management decisions (Figure 5A -1). Numbers of trees that would be required to be planted for each management scenario is provided in Table 5A -1. Discussion Given the good to excellent condition of parkway trees, known populations of trees susceptible to EAB and DIED, and historic attrition rates, there should not be any significant reduction in the parkway tree population in the coming 25 years if current budgetary support of the Forestry program continues. Although losses of parkway trees will be elevated in the short term (next five to 10 years) because of DED and EAB, this should not be an ongoing or increasing trend. Parkway tree populations should remain stable unless tree planting is stopped or significantly reduced by the Village. Given that losses due to EAB and DIED have increased the removal rate to over 2% recently, reductions in the numbers of tree plantings could result in substantially reduced parkway stocking level in relatively short period of time (25 years). The current size (age) distribution also does not support significant increases in short or long -term tree losses. Adequate size distribution is present except for the largest diameter classes.The current tree size distribution structure, therefore, does not appear to be inherently flawed or likely to result in elevated changes in the future. In addition, 85% of the population is less than 19 inches in diameter providing a sound foundation for growth into the future. The greatest challenge the Village faces is increasing survival of newly planted trees and increasing successful tran- sition of trees into larger diameter classes (25+ inches and greater). Survival of recently planted trees is primarily a function of watering, assuming species selection matches site conditions and the tree was properly installed. Watering young trees is time consuming and costly. However, given that periodic drought is an inherent element of the local climate and is likely to increase in the future, an enhanced small diameter tree watering program should be given consideration. Enlisting the public in such efforts is a task that has already been used by the Village. Continuing these efforts and increasing their use and intensity may be a worthwhile investment in the future. Increasing survival of larger diameter trees may be problematic. Site conditions may be the ultimate factor limiting sur- vival into large size classes. However, many of the species now on Village parkways are not inherently long -lived (for example, crabapple, honeylocust, silver maple, linden, Norway maple), although they are well adapted to the high clay soils present in the Village. Where possible the Village should use long - lived, large -sized tree species in sites that will accommodate these trees. This could help longevity and improve benefit to cost ratios. Better tracking of the specific reason(s) for removal could help elucidate the primary causes of mortality in larger diameter classes. This all said, the parkway tree longevity appears to be above average based on the analysis completed as part of this plan (Section 4H). 5B. Long -Term Cost Projections Historically, forestry budgets in the Village have kept pace or exceeded the cost of inflation and the management levels needed to maintain the tree resource in the Village. Staffing needs are not projected to change for the Forestry/ Grounds Division. Increased expenditures will be required by Forestry in the short -term to address tree removal and stump grinding due to escalating losses from EAB, and continued losses from elm yellows and DIED. Removal of EAB- infested trees and the planting of replacement trees will be the primary drivers of any budgetary increases in the near term. Funding to plant trees will need to be increased in order to mitigate the losses due to EAB as well as keeping up with normal losses due to attrition. Overall since 1993, the Village has replaced more trees than are removed, and given this approach, planting funding needs to increase in the next few years to keep up with the increase in removals. Some of these costs could be offset perhaps by state grant opportunities the Forestry Division and Village have been successful at obtaining. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 116 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 5. Long -term Projections Pruning costs have escalated in recent years, but there is no expectation or overt reason that this trend should con- tinue. Loss of mature ash and American elms may help keep pruning costs stable because of the replacement of larger diameter trees with smaller ones. Alteration of the current pruning specification as recommended could reduce contractor pruning costs on mature trees and help stabilize any pruning costs in the near future. Pest management and plant health care costs should remain relatively stable or should increase slightly as more expen- sive EAB treatments are used, but this is a small albeit important portion of the total Forestry budget. Need for other pest management inputs are not expected to increase in the future, but the potential of new pest outbreaks always looms on the horizon. If increased management (primarily watering) of small diameter trees is implemented to increase survival, this could be an ongoing new or increased cost item for the Forestry Division. The most significant projected impact on the Forestry /Grounds Division and perhaps the Village budget as a whole is the potential requirement by the State to pay prevailing wage rates for contractual services that historically has not been required. The Superintendent of Forestry /Grounds estimates this change would increase the costs of contractual services between 65% and 100% for forestry and grounds services. Clearly, these increases would severely reduce the level of urban forestry services the Village presently provides. 5C. Long -Term Problems Projections Management decisions affect the development of most problems to some degree in any urban forest system. Although many problems can't be avoided, their impact can be minimized by planning and implementation of sound management practices. The most significant problems facing the Village's parkway tree population appears to be from the threat of significant losses from pests, increased frequency of catastrophic storms associated with climate change, and more frequent and intense drought. Pests Pest impacts have been discussed in detail in this plan. Losses due to EAB will eliminate the vast majority of the ash tree population and remaining ash will require treatment well into the future. The majority of the American elm population is gone due to DIED, and therefore the disease no longer poses a potential threat to a large number of trees in the Village. Threat from other introduced pests, and some native pests as climate change affects their distribution and host impact, is real but not imminent for any known insects or diseases. Clearly, Asian Longhorned Beetle poses the greatest threat to parkway trees, given that the pest was known in the Chicago area and over 50% of Mount Prospect's parkway tree population is susceptible to such an infestation. Most other current threats to parkway trees are species or genera specific, such as Gypsy Moth (mostly limited to oaks), sudden oak death, or episodic endemic pests that could increase for short periods of time and cause unex- pected damage. Winter Moth, a defoliating caterpillar affecting trees in some Northeast states, feeds on a wide range of deciduous trees, has a broader host range than most defoliators, and has the potential to damage parkway trees. There is no immediate threat to the Midwest by this pest at this time. Storms and Drought Climate change predictions suggest there may be an increase frequency of damage to parkway trees from catastrophic storms or drought. High winds and tornadoes, and ice storms have the greatest potential to damage parkway trees. The capacity to inflict serious damage with significant commensurate costs has been demonstrated a number of times in the past ten years. The Village is minimizing the potential impact of storm events by maintenance of its five -year pruning rotation and by diversifying the parkway tree population both in terms of age and species composition. This diversification is the greatest buffer the Village can offer to protect the urban forest from large -scale losses. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 117 www.urbanforestryllc.com Introduction This following information is presented in this section: • A summary of the findings and recommendations of the plan • Short and long -term objectives developed to addresses the findings • Additional objectives the Village has identified as important to guide the management of Mt. Prospect's urban forest resource into the future This plan is intended to provide guidance for management of Mount Prospect's urban forest over the next 10 years. A comprehensive review should be made at five years to review progress, incorporate new challenges, and make adjustments to the objectives as may be warranted. Summary of Findings and Recommendations The Village's management of the urban forest resource can be characterized as progressive, highly competent, well - funded and providing a high level of services to the citizens of Mount Prospect. Although there are some issues that threaten the stability of parkway trees, the majority of the forest is healthy and has a strong population of young and mature trees. The inspection and maintenance of the forest is exemplary. Efforts to reduce the risks that trees may present to people and property are comprehensive and progressive. The Forestry /Grounds staff is well trained and competent. The Village goes to exceptional effort to inform and educate the public regarding forestry activities and to provide current and timely information on tree care and health threats. Policy and legislation are clearly defined and adequate to provide for the protection and management of the resource. Village officials and the public recognize the function- al value and beauty of the urban forest, and its importance in making Mount Prospect a healthy and attractive place to live, work and play now and into the future. It is the role of government to allocate public resources in the most effective, efficient, and professional manner. This review of the Village's urban forest management practices is an example of how closely Village officials hold this charge. Although the Village is providing exceptional urban forest management, this management plan revealed several areas where improvement is possible. The recommendations and objectives outlined in this plan are designed to address these findings. The Village can take several steps to improve the health and structure of the resources. Emerald ash borer is pres- ently claiming what will ultimately be 12% of the parkway population, as well as unknown numbers of ash trees on private property. Dutch elm disease continues to kill American elms today and has reduced what was once an esti- mated population of 5,200 trees to less than 300 elms over the last 40 years. Asian Longhorned Beetle, although not present in Mt. Prospect, poses a significant threat to the Village's urban forest given the high percentage of maples and other preferred hosts in the Village. The growing global trade, the most common source of these introduced pests, will most certainly bring other unknown threats to forest health in the future. As a result, the Village must continue and improve on its efforts to diversify the species distribution of the urban forest by suspending the planting of at -risk tree genera and species until the populations of these trees fall below an established tree diversity policy. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 119 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Tree pruning is an established management practice the Village has effectively used to maintain and improve tree health and reduce the risks of tree failures. The science and benefits of pruning continues to evolve and recent re- search is reinforcing the importance of refining pruning practices. Review of the Village's pruning specifications and observations of the Village's pruning practices reveal several updates that should be made to the Village's pruning program and specifications to improve structural pruning. The advances in urban forest management and information technology have led to improvements in the management of the urban forest. The Village presently utilizes numerous documents that detail procedures and specifications to guide the daily management of the resource. However, it is our finding that these documents need to be compiled and consolidated into fewer topic- specific documents. This will improve access and organization of management prac- tices, and will help facilitate the implementation of the procedures and specifications they are designed to support. In summary, the recommendations and short and long -term objectives are intended to refine an already progressive program and serve as a means to aid in further refinement of Mount Prospect's urban forest management and plan- ning in the coming decade. Short and Long -term Objectives The Village has seven urban forestry goals that are defined in Chapter 9 of the Village code (Appendix Section 6 -1). The successful implementation of a plan requires clear objectives that are well organized and prioritized. To that end, the recommendations made in Sections 3 through 5 of this plan were compiled, organized, and collapsed into man- agement objectives. This process revealed the five overriding management categories defined below: • Forest Health — Objectives aimed at improving the health and forest structure of the urban forest. • Management — Objectives to improve the management of personnel, work practices and information technology. • Funding — Objectives to maintain acceptable funding levels. • Public Outreach and Education — Objectives to improve the notification of the public regard- ing forestry work activities, fostering public involvement and support, and education of the public on current arboriculture practices and urban forest management issues. • Public Safety and Health — Objectives to enhance public safety and health as it relates to urban forest management. Each recommendation from Sections 3 through 5 was collapsed into objectives, assigned to the appropriate man- agement category, and prioritized based on its importance (Table 6 -1). In addition, each objective includes notations to its applicable plan section, Village urban forestry goal and if the objective will have an impact on the Forestry/ Grounds or Village budget. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 120 www.urbanforestryllc.com y Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1. Management plan objectives assigned to Village forestry goals, duration (length of application), priority (importance) and budget impact (may require budget allocation). Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goal(s) (A -G) Intermediate, Moderate, (Yes, Long) Low) No) Forest Review and modify the current 3C A Short High No Health pruning specification to reduce or eliminate thinning of mature trees. Forest Review and modify the current 3C A Short High No Health pruning specification for size class 1 trees to prioritize pruning sequence for structural pruning. Forest Reinforce through staff training the 3C A Short High No Health importance of proper structural pruning when trees are young. Forest Continue funding five -year rotational 3C A Long High Yes Health pruning as the most important element of the tree management program. Forest Suspend planting of tree genera 3D B Long High No Health and species that do not meet general population diversification guidelines. Forest Take greater advantage of 3D A, C Long High No Health opportunity to use tree species that are appropriate for planting in Mt. Prospect and low representation in the population. Forest Reintroduce cost /share tree 3D, 4A A, B, C Long Moderate Yes Health planting program. Forest Continue investment in prompt 3E A Long Moderate Yes Health sanitation and management of elm population with existing practices. Forest Continue EAB sanitation and 3F A Long High Yes Health treatment program as developed, including removals in creeks and drainages. Forest Continue to coordinate infested ash 3F A Long High No Health removal program with park districts Forest Explore a more aggressive post 3G A Long Low Yes Health planting and young tree watering and maintenance program. Forest Streetscape projects will plan for 3P A, C, E, Long Moderate Yes Health parkways with tree lawns and trees whenever possible, or at least raised curb planters containing the minimum soil volumes as specified in the Village's Arboricultural Standards Manual. Trees in pits/ grates will be used as a last resort and only when structural soil is properly installed beneath sur- rounding brick pavement to meet soil volume requirements. Forest The effect on existing parkway trees, 3P A, D, E Long High No Health especially large specimens of desirable species, will be carefully considered before installation of new paving where trees exist (such as bike paths and sidewalk extensions.) Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 121 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1 (cont.) Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goal(s) (A -G) Intermediate, Moderate, (Yes Long) Low) No) Forest Continue and enhance efforts to 3P A, D, E Long High No Health protect public trees from construction injury. Forest Adopt a tree species diversification 413 A, B Long High No Health policy that provides total tree genera and species public tree population goals that are consistent with current urban forest management best management practices. Forest Continue diversification efforts 413 A, B Long High No Health through increasing numbers of tree plantings and use of under- repre- sented tree genera and species. Forest Utilize careful tree and site selection 4D B, C Long Moderate No Health in Forestry Sections with lower longevity. Forest Cross check during re- inventory 4E A Long Low No Health trees with dieback, chlorosis, badly misshapen and major wounds classifications to determine if condition ratings are commensurate with these problems. Forest Closely monitor tree removal 5A A, B, D Long Moderate No Health causes to help determine factors contributing to young and mature tree mortality. Funding Continue to fund Forestry at current 313 A, D Intermediate Moderate Yes levels and make short -term adjustments for emerald ash borer removals and replacements as projected in Section 5. Funding Provide funding for an appropriate 3M A, G Short Moderate Yes forestry staff member to enroll in ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification training program. Funding Improved Project Specifications and 3P A, E Long Moderate Yes Budgets will specify and pay for any tree removals needed, and appropriate replanting (ideally, inch for inch replacements but at least tree - for -tree, even if replacements are done outside the project limits). Funding Continue funding and tree 30 A, E Long Moderate Yes management along creeks and drainages in the Village. Funding Protect and increase Mount 3S A, D Long Moderate Yes Prospect's overall canopy cover through adequate legislation and provide sufficient human and financial resources. Funding Provide sufficient human and 3S A, B, D Long Moderate Yes financial resources to protect and prolong the life span of all trees within the Village. Funding Increase funding in the short term 4A A Short High Yes as needed to cover removals and replanting from increased impacts of EAB and DIED. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 122 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1 (cont.) Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goals) (A-G) Intermediate, Moderate, (Yes, Long) Low) No) Management Compile and organize all forestry 3A A, E, G Long High No standards, specifications and procedures and develop two new documents: Arboricultural Standards & Specifications Manual and a Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Complete regular reviews of all 3A A, E, G Long Moderate No standards, specifications and procedures manuals and update as appropriate. Management Increase frequency of quality 3A A, G Long Moderate No assurance and quality control (QA/QC) on Hansen® service requests. Management Continue transition from paper to 3A A Intermediate Low No electronic record keeping without losing important historical records. Management Work with Community Development 3A, 3P A, E, G Intermediate Moderate No on recent Chapter 14 and 15 tree protection ordinances and develop an implementation plan that matches the capabilities and needs of each department and fulfills objectives of these provisions. Management To the extent possible, work for 313 A Intermediate High Yes clarification and favorable legislation regarding prevailing wage issues. Management Revise annual published Forestry/ 3B A Long Low No Grounds budget performance measures to include actual total tree population figure at the beginning of the fiscal year and other historical events such as Ash trees removed or treated for EAB. Management Add Dutch elm disease 3E A, E, G Long High No management practices to proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures. Management Add EAB management program to 3F A, E, G Long High No the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Continue efforts to eliminate 3G A, D, E Long High No damage /removal of healthy trees due to construction activities. Management Add tree removal specifications to 3G A, E, G Long High No proposed Arboricultural Standards & Specifications Manual. Management Add tree removal evaluation 3G A, E, G Long High No methodologies to proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Tree removal operational and 3G A, E, G Long High No administrative procedures should be detailed in a Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 123 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1 (cont.) Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 124 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Plan Village Duration Priority Budget Objective Category Management Plan Objective Section Goal(s) (Short, Intermediate, (High Moderate, Impact (Yes, (1 -5) (A-G) Long) Low) No) Management Reduce use of "Other" removal 3G A Short Low No category and examine all management data Village collects regarding tree removal decisions, tree condition, problems, and evaluate relationship among these data to develop management strategies to reduce removal rate. Management Once the TRAQ program (managed 3H A Short Low No by ISA) is fully running and widely available, require consultants conducting risk assessments to be Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ), or demonstrate proficiency in use of new tree risk form from previous projects. Management Integrate new ANSI Tree Risk 3H A Short Moderate No standard and ISA Best Management practices into current tree risk program. Management Add tree risk management program 3H A, E, G Long High No procedures to proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Develop response time policies for 3J A, F, G Short Moderate No inspecting and completing work relative to a service request including prioritizing service requests if it is necessary. Management Reduce use of the Service Request 3J A Short Moderate No Code called "Other ". Management Revise Service Request Manual to 3J A, E, G Long High No focus on policies and procedures specifically related to responding to and resolving a service request. Management Finalize Storm Mitigation plan 3K A, E Short High No currently in development. Management Review and update Storm Mitigation 3K A, E Short Moderate No plan annually each winter as needed Management Add storm mitigation procedures to 3K A, E, G Long High No the proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Maintain participation in State Wood 3L A, F Long Low No Utilization Team. Management Avoid allowing ash removals to be 3L A Long High Yes disposed of in landfills or other non - sustainable methods. Management Be prepared to cooperate with 3L A, F Long Low No private sources willing to process wood from removal of Village trees. Management Formalize an annual divisional 3M A Long Moderate No training and meeting schedule. Management Continue to provide opportunities for 3M A Long Moderate No staff to attend safety and professional development workshops, training, seminars and conferences. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 124 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives — Table 6 -1 (cont.) Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goal(s) (A-G) Intermediate, Moderate, (Yes, Long) Low) No) Management Re -apply for Society of Municipal 3M F Long Moderate No Arborist accreditation. Management Track staff training and advise front 3M A Long Moderate No office annually. Management Plan for a seamless transition when 3M A Short High No Forestry /Grounds Superintendent retires by documenting procedures and past history, as well as educating current staff and helping them expand their capabilities. Management Formalize two -tier certification 3M A Short Moderate No program for staff, if Director approves. Management Update job descriptions to reflect 3M A Short Moderate No current responsibilities. Management Investigate possibility of pursuing 3M F Intermediate Low No ILCA awards for maintenance of selected grounds areas. Management Assist Public Works in obtaining 3M F Short Moderate No APWA accreditation. Management Consider /evaluate reducing number 3N A Intermediate Low No of tree inventory data variables and data variable codes. Management Add a "work need" data variable to 3N A Short Low No tree inventory data variables. Management Compile tree inventory data 3N A, E, G Long High No collection and data entry procedures into one document (proposed Technical & Administrative Procedures Manual). Management Work with Public Works 3N A Short Moderate No Administrative Superintendent to make modifications to the Hansen' application that simplifies work processes and provides necessary information for efficient and effective management of Village's tree inventory. Management Utilize Hansen'` for additional 3N A Short Moderate No record keeping /planning including costing and scheduling all work done in Forestry /Grounds Maintenance. Management Add drought management and 30 A, E, G Long High No watering procedures to proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Compile and review all Village's 3P A, E, G Long High No tree protection specifications and administrative procedures and publish them as appropriate in Arboricultural Standards Manual and proposed Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 125 www.urbanforestryllc.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1 (cont.) Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category 9 Y Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goals) (A -G) Intermediate, M (Yes, Lon 9) Low) No ) Management Continue to train new staff to 3P A, C, E Intermediate High No consider potential for future hardscape conflicts when planting new trees (avoiding conflicts with signs, and selecting properly sized species for each site to minimize conflicts with planting). Management Ensure all utility and construction 3P A, C, E Intermediate High No projects conducted by the Village and all plan sets include accurate placement of existing parkway trees, labeled with serial numbers, DBH and species code. Management Ensure Forestry/Grounds is 3P A, C, E Intermediate High No involved in entire plan review process, from early planning through to bid. Management Forestry /Grounds staff will be 3P A, C, E Intermediate High No routinely invited to preconstruction and progress meetings for all construction projects that may impact trees, and given a place on the agenda. Management Evaluate /consider higher level 30 A, C, E Intermediate Low Yes analysis documenting importance of parkway and private trees and canopy cover on stormwater management using i -Tree Hydro modeling. Management Inventory trees located on Village 3R A Intermediate Moderate Yes owned and managed greenspaces and add them to Village's computerized tree inventory. Management Maintain active participation in 3T A, E Long Low No regional and State offered pest management programs. Management Add condition rating system to 4C A, E, G Long High No Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Management Cross check condition rating with 4C A Short Low No Forestry "Problems" code to identify trees that require closer condition evaluation when being re- inventoried Management Reduce number of the data 3N A Short Low No variables Management Develop data collection 4E A Short Low No specifications for the Problems category to allow standardization of their collection. Management Use i -Tree Streets result to 4G A, D, F Intermediate Low No advocate for continued funding for parkway and urban forestry management. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 126 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1 (cont.) Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goals) (A-G) Intermediate, Moderate, (Yes, Long) Low) No) Management Consider obtaining grants for an 4G A, D, F Intermediate Low No i -Tree Eco analysis of private and public trees in Village to further support management efforts. Public Plant larger (at maturity) tree 3D, 3S A, B, C Long High No Health & species where site conditions permit. Safety Public Add an annual or biannual 3H A Long Moderate Yes Health & windshield inspection of all trees in Safety Village for obvious health or structural conditions that would prompt inspection under current risk program. Public Resume annual tree -risk program 3H A Long Moderate No Health & meetings. Safety Public Projects that require regrading of 3P A, C, E, Long Moderate Yes Health & parkways will, whenever possible, Safety result in adequate spaces for parkway tree planting after project is complete. Public Consider quantifying structure and 3S A, C, E Intermediate Low Yes Health & function of both public and private Safety tree resource using an i -Tree Eco sampling and analysis. Public Work to reduce response driven 3S A Intermediate Low No Health & work activities that require more Safety travel time from work site to work site. Public Encourage tree planting on private 3S A, F Long Low No Outreach & property. Education Public Develop a comprehensive public 31 A, E, FG Long High No Outreach & outreach plan that organizes work Education notification and educational needs of program and publish plan as an operational document or part of Technical and Administrative Procedures Manual. Public Explore existing electronic media as 31 A, E, F,G Long Moderate No Outreach & well as social media for use as a Education tool to enhance public notification and public education. Public Review various public notification 31 A, E, F,G Long Moderate No Outreach & publications Villages uses, Education consolidate and publish new pieces to fulfill needs identified in public outreach plan. Public Revise Village website to make it 31 A, E, FG Long Moderate No Outreach & easier for a visitor to find Forestry & Education Grounds and present all Forestry services and policies. Public Update and widely distribute revised 31 A, E, F,G Long Moderate No Outreach & `Trees of Mt. Prospect" working with Education citizen advisory group. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 127 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Section 6. Summary of Findings & Recommendations and Short & Long Term Objectives Table 6 -1 (cont.) Objective Plan Village Duration (Short, Priority (High Budget Impact Category g Y Management Plan Objective Section (1 -5) Goal(s) (A -G) Intermediate, M (Yes, Lon 9) Low) No ) Public Determine ways to make recognition 31 A, E, F,G Long Moderate No Outreach & of Village's tree heritage an Education important part of the 100th anniversary in 2017. Public Plan additional public presentations 31 A, E, F,G Long Moderate No Outreach & about Forestry /Grounds programs. Education Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 128 www.urbanforestryllc.com ACRT. 1993. Urban forest management plan for the Village of Mount Prospect, IL. Kent, OH 44240. ANSI. 2011. Tree, shrub, and other woody plant management- standard practices. Tree risk assessment. a. Tree structure assessment. ANSI A300 (Part 9) — 2011. ANSI, Washington, DC. 14 pp. ANSI. 2008. Tree, shrub and other woody plant management- Standard practices (Pruning). ANSI A300 (Part 1) -2008 Pruning. Revision of ANSI A300 (Part 1) -2001. 14 p. ANSI. 2005. Tree, shrub, and other woody plant management- standard practices. Management of trees and shrubs during site planning, site development and construction ". A300 -Part 5. Washington, DC. 46 p. American Public Works Association. Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers, Budget- ing & Funding. APWA Press. http: / /www2.apwa. net / Documents / About/ CoopAgreements /UrbanForestry /UrbanFor- estry -1.pdf Viewed May 2013. Baker, P. 1995. Ordinance control of street trees. Journal of Arboriculture 1:212 -215. Bond, J. 2006. Tree Inventory Best Management Practices. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL. 26 p. Bowles, M. & J. McBride. 2002. Pre - European Settlement Vegetation of Cook County, Illinois. Report to The Cook County Forest Preserve District, Corlands & The Nature Conservancy. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, III Bradshaw, Brian, K., Robert J. Ross, Xiping Wang, and Michael C. Wiemann. 2012. Wood utilization options for urban trees infested by invasive species. USDA Forest Products Laboratory. 84 p. Burban, L., and J. W. Andresen. 1994. Storms over the urban forest. 2nd Edition. USDA Forest Service. http: / /www. na.fs.fed.us /spfo /pubs /uf /sotuf /intro /intro.htm. Accessed May 2013. Burns and McDonnell. 2012. 2011 comprehensive storm water study for the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois. Project Number 63586. Clark, J. R., N. P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of urban forestry sustainability. J. Arbor. 23:17 -30. CLTA. 2000. Guide for plant appraisal. 9th Edition. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL. 143 p. Cortinas, J. 2000. A climatology of freezing rain in the Great Lakes Region of North America. Monthly Weather Rev. 128:3574 -3588. CMAR 2006. Data Bulletin: 2001 Land -use inventory of Northeastern Illinois. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Chicago, IL. www.chicagoplanning.org. 47p. Donovan, G. H., D. T. Butry, Y. L. Micheal, J. P. Prestemon, A. M. Liebhold, D. Gatziolis, and M. Y. Mao. 2013. The relationship between trees and human health. American J. Prev. Med. 44:139 -145. Dunster, J. A., E. T. Smiley, N. Matheny and S. Lilly. 2013. Tree risk assessment manual. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL. 198 p. Dwyer, J.F. and H. Schroeder. 2013. Permission to use granted by both authors. Data assembled by John F. Dwyer, Ph.D. Research Associate The Morton Arboretum, Lisle IL and Age- diameter Gompertz equations calculated by Herbert W. Schroeder Ph.D., Retired Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Evanston IL Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 129 www.urbanforestryllc.com Literature Cited EPA. 2013. Storm water to street trees. Engineering urban forests for storm water management. EPA 841 B 13 001. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 34 p. FEMA. 2007a. Public assistance. Debris management guide. FEMA -325. FEMA. 2007b. Public assistance. Public assistance guide. FEMA -322. Gilman, E. F. 2011. An illustrated guide to pruning. 3rd edition. 352 p. Gilman, Edward F. and Sharon J. Lilly. 2002. Best Management Practices. Tree Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL. 35 p. Grey, G.H. and F, J. Deneke. 1991. Urban Forestry, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York, NY. 299 pp. James, K. R., N. Haritos, and P. K. Ades 2006. Mechanical stability of trees under dynamic load. American J. Botany 93:1522 -1530. Frumkin, Howard. 2003. Health places: Exploring the evidence. Am J Public Health. 93(9): 1451 -1456. Fite, K., and E. T. Smiley. 2008. Managing trees during construction. Best management practices. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL. 3 p. Luley, Christopher J., Susan Sisinni, and Andrew Pleninger. 2002. The effect of pruning on service requests, branch failures, and priority maintenance in the City of Rochester, New York, U.S. J. Arb. 28:137 -143. Matheny, N., and J. Clark. 1994. A photographic guide to the evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. 2nd edition. Champaign, IL. 85 pp. Miller, R.H. and R. W. Miller. 1991. Planting survival of selected tree taxa. Journal of Arboriculture 17: 185 -191. Moll, G. 1989. Improving the health of the urban forest. Pp 119-130. In a Resource Guide for Urban and Community Forests. Moll, G., and Ebenreck, S., Island Press, Washington, DC. 349 pp. Natural Path Urban Forestry Consultants, Inc. 2002. Village of Mount Prospect's tree risk management assessment and plan. Montpelier, VT. 110 p. NRCS. 2011. Soil survey of Cook County, Illinois. National Resource Conservations Service. United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. 764 p. Online at http:// soils .usda.gov /survey /online_sur- veys /illinois/ Nowak, D. J., J. C. Stevens, S. M. Sisinni and C. J. Luley. 2002. Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. J. Arboriculture 28:113 -122. Nowak, David J., 1994. Urban forest structure: The state of Chicago's urban forest. Chapter 4. In Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem. Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. GTR -NE -186. USDA Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station. Nowak, David J., R. E. Hoehn III, D. E. Crane, A. R. Bodine, J. F. Dwyer, V. Bonnewell, and G. Watson. 2013. In Publi- cation. Regional Tree Census. Urban forests and trees of the Chicago region. http: / /www.nrs.fs.fed.us /people /dnowak McPherson, G., J. R. Simpson, P. J. Pepper, S. E. Maco, and O Xiao. 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five cities. J. of Forestry 103:411 -416. Miller, Robert W. Urban Forestry Planning & Managing Greenspaces, 1988, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ pg. 170. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 130 www.urbanforestryllc.com Literature Cited Pleninger, A. P. and C. J. Luley. 2012. ABC's field guide to small and young tree pruning. Urban Forestry, LLC, Naples, NY. 85 p. Raupp, Michael J., A. B. Cumming and E. C. Raupp. 2006. Street Tree Diversity in Eastern North America and Its Potential for Tree Loss to Exotic Borers. Journal of Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(6):297 -304. Roman, L. A. and F. N. Scatena. 2011. Street tree survival rates. Meta - analysis of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10:269 -274. Santamour, F.S. 1998. Trees for urban planning; Diversity, uniformity and common sense. Proceedings from the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance. 7:57 -65 Sass. L., Hildebrandt, R., and S. Key. 2010. Illinois urban and community tree programs: an update of the protection, care and management of our urban forests. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report 2010 (52). 409 p. Schmidlin, T. W. 2009. Human fatalities from wind - related tree failures in the United States, 1995 -2007. Nat Hazards 50:13 -25. Smiley, E. T., N. Matheny, and S. Lilly. 2011. Best Management Practices. Tree Risk Assessment. Companion pub- lication to the ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management— Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment). Champaign, IL:ISA. USGCRP (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Karl, T.R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson (eds.). United States Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. http : / /www.epa.gov /climatechange/ impacts- adaptation /midwest.html #ref 1 Watson, J. 2002. Comparing Formula Methods of Tree Appraisal. Journal of Arboriculture 28(1):11 -3. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 131 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendices Appendix Section 2 -1. Open Spaces Managed by the Village and Local Park Districts VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT E'Emrc V 10317-GFEEN SPACE.nW wP m ffM—A 2013 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 134 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 2A -1. Original Survey Map of Wheeling Township . } 'r'rr'!AR I+[�(J ..Y:''�`} e' • { {7llt � •1�...v l.. + � i>•r. �r' fl \�Ira.� r�lb'r ',r w��iw /e' 1 '� rrr •rrs lr' . A [� a ,r. .. „ ,. '•i ',. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 135 www.urbanforestryllc.com 1 � }� ; h , . .6541 Ki -lb +d.'^L {1.6 {. A.A9s SA+M�+fr+. *YY+W LF a6O4b �L9, FL l S2 \t .�LE?34 �Q3b.4.[3.. . , ... , ., 1 ,,� .. YV.? - -- 4L.,. •, r 1��F }+�.,. t}:,v« w..w i we... Yc�,: a N { f) to mar .�....s 7 ' sbw .eaµ ae c I I r tiq l Ault . a �+ :41fin . - '.a , +ai'a 4a.'1l'„ 4:.t 1`. ,: ^ LI.••,, t^ \., .,. i 1 P1T K+3F r........� • 1L- ��IRaW+O � �$ti +., ti /+{•o - .- =+.C1., - k. "YS�., 4 [� a ,r. .. „ ,. '•i ',. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 135 www.urbanforestryllc.com >— Appendices Appendix Section 2A -1. Original Survey Map of Elk Grove Township � ,.�.., w �� a ±...; �so-,�4"wr.',•.a� .�. �„`.. � rc �,� .. � ar - ri•saa }"' ,.a '� +� �, � • s= k+s�,� _ � w Fii4Pr6ura± - _� �• e�°.as.�.n6'��� . .Je_s5 a� •�'� - 1. x'' u air ++sr,� a°b w1E=0./#. i`9" �..,� xc r�r.re�D... g' € �Kt k • rwRa d .�.� c to ca—� . a vc q .cam., ,s cso.. �wu .3 ssuc ..c k� [s� • � �.°!. .�.f . � � -w, - ,• - 'at. _ _ - as'�cfn +�.1 �+ �r:�r�x� .sir.' �� a y 1 � • s,uE rca vti.q r� +++�x� �...a y ac YS' �,' a�.C :vim Y. 7K � ": K •.. -� Sae � h y'" �� � � j ,�p„� ,r : � + � � � ,�r.aY � /_' iL K - �f x�. ��•NA. � .. �NV � F ° r y ��rw� 4p�9et ��r�e+acs.�w•� ^ ���i� . - � � .. � j m _ � ,.,,,,' ..E 140.x. •"k'"�«+�. � - �'��`�� � \� • 1i►d� k 4SY5� ��..ns.. Prra." `� � ..r �u "��: .4ws -- � : atdws..iliirr {Gq.,a I - Ce4C4 +�. �,: S. � •. - 6, +c..ti 4tF f1..+, f• � I s.x �` q v�cw. •'n " �'�r aa� �. -- 't N+C �„ .. f+r,��'�.'. ' i +� i ' .. �.•+4.� '+�* •+*�F". ,-,,+r ,ra•- ,iYY; S..�e.,3' ��. � •�' i ;^A�r�,L ��.a '� �.'- "'Sr. �-•si T � ' � Acs °aA '. • � �,. .e u f r.• i je..rs.R.gl. - ��" L. � A•$fwi�.ss4�+ Y+ -cn4V� Y 6 py. s f afA' 4. '�,� `,�. r rr .s.✓ � wv .N�..� -s'..v M.n.G ..:r.Ft 6 R� j "'.. 1 .rca�,...f r�s ro.. +v .., y � r:rrt+j ,.+�6"�,.. .. .., iY.ww� M.�e �.r�o•� f••,..,•.� .a �, ...��� f', ,..q;R�t - .. •+� . / � .rr.l." w f .C{.n a .i��aY'a�s�':..2 — - • am r.r, _ .k�+r - «wire ,.ie , ." tiw.rF,. r..N "� M y r" ,, c�. u..� of F.. .` wr -r*' Ae Ow.�r lJGk° .ar s:• dr.. rtmw.� ear.w/ a+ ''• -w,� ,. ,- s.�F f ate. ,n'.RV —.', K' a�r,�+� w w -. y — Yw %� ,,, t l�Jr�t:• YA.=C A +v^�L ..�rrw I.r^� •oHA¢..:��/ %f a ',�[' .l.R. .sr Aw W'✓R,�.+ / se+b W�'. '' .. �r',�,r���,���,sffw a-a.: � F � - awl.,/ a r ^ `.r.. , .�i , " '+.+,�Qw.+/;;odPJ.f .1n, "� -erwv— n fly. tom• Grsae' ..r', .w: ,.,�, ,r 1, -.r /�« 6.w ,,n -.w•v .'w .! .:'J°..:e�'.,:� r � ' -�— _ -- Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 136 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices Appendix Section 2C -1. Wind Rose Showing Direction of Prevailing Winds in the Village Srm i ., Y'14U6 - C Hl1- AGr1-0 HARE INT'L dNPT. L .. r"oir'w' _ I \ i I\ I I � I I / � I / \ I Y MLYYLI+! a r l Cl'Vn.a� - r Mu, . - :r.....w11 10 { intwti Stete CMnatolOgisf Office ' C-i-LAI 11' CCMft.'i V - _, %%ne sr—i KFW*a 1 %1 17130 Annual Average f . IC 9.7! Knad 3.10% a' ! 0 k'h -/ 4 KOT'.jMOA -W PROJFCi^07110 DVWW Jon I - Doc 21 Jbinwinr13 from) md"01 - 11 PM Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 137 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 2C -2. Frequency of Annual Freezing Rain Events in Illinois .t a P—.;i 3;. i 5 A St. milt u 4 7 r E"tnwn . ;PV Freerino Rain Average annual number of days with frecarng rain Based on 1948- 2000 data III inois State Water Survey Copyright 2003 I i Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 138 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices — Appendix Section 3A -1 Village Ordinance - Summary of Language Related to Trees. Chapter /Article Title Summary Description 9.000 PUBLIC UTILITIES, PAVEMENT AND TREE REGULATIONS 9.101 SUPERVISION Defines management of parkway trees the responsibility of the Director of Public Works 9.700 TREES AND SHRUBS The Village of Mount Prospect Urban Forest Protection and Planning Ordinance 9.703 GOALS Goals of the urban forest planning and protection ordinance: A. Maintain A Healthy Urban Forest, B. Promote Age And Species Diversity Of The Tree Population, C.Improve Species And Site Selection For New Tree Plantings, D. Establish Optimum Canopy Closure. E. Resolution And Prevention Of Tree /Hardscape Conflicts Through Coordinated Planning, F. Promote Public Education And Support, G. Facilitate The Resolution Of Tree Related Conflicts 9.705 DEFINITIONS Definitions specific to the ordinance 9.706 AUTHORITY AND The Village will have the authority to RESPONSIBILITY manage trees located within the public right -of -way and on public property. 9.707 POLICY TO TAKE OVER Although boundary trees generally are, SOLE OWNERSHIP OF by operation of law, co -owned by the BOUNDARY TREES AS village and the private property owner PUBLIC TREES abutting the public property or right of way, it shall be the village's policy to take over, wherever possible, sole ownership and control of all boundary trees. 9.709 PLANTING ON PUBLIC Restrictions regarding planting of trees PROPERTY in the right -of -way and on public property. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 139 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices — Village Ordinance - Summary of Language Related to Trees. Chapter /Article Title Summary Description 9.710 PRUNING OF TREES Restrictions regarding pruning of trees in the right -of -way and on public property. 9.711 REMOVAL OF TREES Restrictions regarding the removal of trees in the right -of -way and on public property. 9.712 POTENTIALLY Provisions for the Village to take action HAZARDOUS TREES AND to correct dangerous conditions created SHRUBS by trees or shrubs located on private property. 9.713 DUTCH ELM Provisions for the Village to take action DISEASE /EMERALD ASH to correct trees infected /infested with BORER CONTROL DED or EAB located on private p roper t . 9.714 GYPSY MOTH CONTROL Provisions for the Village to take action to correct trees infested with Gypsy Moth located on private property. 9.715 PESTICIDE APPLICATION Provisions for a resident to treat a TO PARKWAY TREES public tree with pesticides with a permit from the Village. 9.716 OBSTRUCTIONS TO Prohibits the posting of signs or TREES attachment of foreign objects to public trees. 9.717 EXCAVATIONS AND Requires a permit for any construction CONSTRUCTION work that in the opinion of the Director of Public Works may impact a public tree. Director may formulate and require a tree protection plan. 9.718 INJURY TO TREES It shall be unlawful to injure any public tree. 9.719 PENALTY Penalties for damages to public tree or failure to adhere to this section of the code. 9.817 TREE PRESERVATION Specifies tree protection requirements 14.000 ZONING Chapter enforced mostly by Community. Dev. Director 14.503 PROCEDURES FOR PLANNED Requires the inventorying of trees 12 UNIT DEVELOPMENTS inches in diameter or larger Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 140 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices — Village Ordinance - Summary of Language Related to Trees. Chapter /Article Title Summary Description 14.230 INTENT AND PURPOSE Limit the removal of trees and require the replacement of trees on private property. 14.230 LANDSCAPE PLAN Requires the development of a REQUIREMENT landscape plan and limits the removal of more than 3 trees on any property upon approval by the Director of Community Development. 14.230 CONTENT OF LANDSCAPE Elements of the Landscape Plan PLAN including plant material to be planted and protection and preservation of trees during and after construction. 14.231 RIGHT OF WAY Where development abuts the public LANDSCAPING right of way, parkway trees shall be provided. 14.231 PARKING LOT Requires the planting of trees and plant LANDSCAPING material on parking lots. 14.231 FOUNDATION Requires the foundation planting of LANDSCAPING trees and plant material. 14.231 PERIMETER Defines the tree and plant material LANDSCAPING planting requirements for various types of properties. 14.231 TREE PRESERVATION Provides standards for the protection and replacement of trees on private ro e rt . 15.000 SUBDIVISION, Tree related provisions enforced mostly DEVELOPMENT AND SITE by Community Development Director IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURES 15.303 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF Subdivision applications require the SUBDIVISION inventory and protection of trees on public and private property. 15.403 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Requires the inventorying of trees on the parcel and parkway trees 15.502 SITE IMPROVEMENT Any site development shall be required REQUIREMENTS to provide parkway trees. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 141 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices — Village Ordinance - Summary of Language Related to Trees. Chapter /Article Title Summary Description 15.701 SITE SUBMISSION AND Require documents and drawings with REVIEW REQUIREMENTS the locations of parkway and parcel FOR BUILDING PERMITS trees. 15.808 PARKWAY TREE FEES Applicant must deposit with the Village the cost to plant parkway trees as part of the development. 16.000 SITE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 16.105 PROTECTION OF Requires the protection of public trees PROPERTY AND THE during construction activities. PUBLIC 16.902 REQUIREMENTS FOR Requires the planting of parkway trees PARKWAY TREES as authorized by the Director of Public Works. 16.903 EXISTING PUBLIC Requires approval of the Director of PROPERTY LANDSCAPING Public Works for the removal and planting of trees on public property. 21.000 BUILDING CODE 21.203 BUILDING PERMIT Requires survey including the location REQUIREMENTS of trees on the property to be filed with Community Development as part of application. 21.225 TREES Applicant must agree to pay for the planting of parkway trees. 23.000 OFFENSES AND Unlawful to damage any public tree. MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 142 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 313-1. Per Capita Spending by Community from Tree City USA Applications to the National Arbor Day Foundation (Source: National Arbor Day Foundation 2013) 2012 Illinois Tree City Applicant Per Capita Forestry Expenditures Municipality Population Forestry Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Glencoe 9,100 $810,665 $89.1 Lake Forest 22,400 $1,883,667 $84.1 Highland 10,000 $659,407 $65.9 Lincolnwood 12,500 $564,217 $45.1 Winnetka 12,419 $544,422 $43.8 Hinsdale 16,816 $612,951 $36.5 St Charles 32,000 $1,152,365 $36.0 River Forest 11,635 $412,820 $35.5 Bolingbrook 70,977 $2,517,602 $35.5 Evanston 74,486 $2,396,098 $32.2 Burr Ridge 10,599 $332,420 $31.4 Naperville 147,433 $4,618,197 $31.3 Northbrook 33,170 $1,038,672 $31.3 Algonquin 30,145 $896,360 $29.7 Elmhurst 44,000 $1,289,498 $29.3 Riverwoods 3,660 $104,964 $28.7 Addison 37,000 $1,047,165 $28.3 Northfield 5,420 $152,011 $28.1 Downers Grove 47,833 $1,282,319 $26.8 Glen Ellyn 27,000 $710,351 $26.3 Mount Prospect 54,167 $1,409,524 $26.0 Lincolnshire 7,275 $186,875 $25.7 Marquette Heights 2,824 $71,696 $25.4 Moweaqua 1,831 $46,411 $25.4 Oak Park 52,000 $1,313,079 $25.3 Bensenville 18,352 $456,155 $24.9 Riverside 8,895 $217,412 $24.4 Winfield 9,080 $219,831 $24.2 Kankakee 25,537 $616,584 $24.1 Wilmette 27,087 $639,157 $23.6 Western Springs 12,975 $306,091 $23.6 Bloomingdale 22,018 $500,560 $22.7 Glenview 44,692 $993,764 $22.2 Park Ridge 37,480 $780,107 $20.8 Steward 256 $5,324 $20.8 Bannockburn 1,583 $29,337 $18.5 Quincy 40,633 $722,266 $17.8 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 143 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices 2012 Illinois Tree City Applicant Per Capita Forestry Expenditures Municipality Population Forestry Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Barrington 10,000 $177,321 $17.7 Lake Bluff 5,700 $100,683 $17.7 Batavia 27,700 $479,833 $17.3 Streamwood 39,858 $687,275 $17.2 Arlington Heights 75,101 $1,294,351 $17.2 Buffalo Grove 42,963 $732,476 $17.1 Lagrange 15,600 $262,314 $16.8 Clarendon Hills 8,486 $139,224 $16.4 Skokie 63,354 $1,007,590 $15.9 Hoffman Estates 52,530 $832,314 $15.8 Vernon Hills 25,113 $392,036 $15.6 Morton Grove 23,270 $357,348 $15.4 Highland Park 29,882 $422,060 $14.1 Country Club Hills 16,200 $224,188 $13.8 Hanover Park 37,973 $496,990 $13.1 Lombard 43,890 $553,912 $12.6 Wayne 2,431 $30,402 $12.5 Normal 52,772 $634,609 $12.0 Itasca 8,302 $98,372 $11.9 Urbana 37,362 $439,960 $11.8 Olympia Fields 4,988 $56,941 $11.4 South Elgin 22,300 $248,041 $11.1 Galesburg 32,195 $357,579 $11.1 Brookfield 19,046 $211,367 $11.1 North Barrington 3,047 $33,832 $11.1 Rockford 150,115 $1,633,008 $10.9 McHenry 26,992 $288,561 $10.7 Gurnee 31,295 $333,569 $10.7 Oswego 30,355 $312,727 $10.3 Genoa 5,400 $55,000 $10.2 Palos Hills 17,428 $173,088 $9.9 Lisle 22,930 $220,867 $9.6 Libertyville 20,315 $195,552 $9.6 Warrenville 13,140 $126,375 $9.6 Petersburg 2,400 $22,948 $9.6 Mount Vernon 15,277 $145,656 $9.5 Stickney 6,786 $64,035 $9.4 Wheaton 52,894 $498,939 $9.4 Mokena 18,740 $174,745 $9.3 Golf 500 $4,625 $9.3 Lake In The Hills 28,965 $262,978 $9.1 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 144 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices 2012 Illinois Tree City Applicant Per Capita Forestry Expenditures Municipality Population Forestry Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Champaign 75,254 $667,972 $8.9 Des Plaines 56,945 $495,817 $8.7 Dakota 500 $4,318 $8.6 Palos Heights 12,960 $110,850 $8.6 Elburn 5,602 $47,349 $8.5 Deerfield 18,420 $154,366 $8.4 Palatine 68,557 $567,668 $8.3 Wauconda 13,603 $111,355 $8.2 Inverness 7,399 $60,570 $8.2 Berwyn 55,000 $443,832 $8.1 Pontiac 12,000 $96,753 $8.1 Clinton 7,300 $57,683 $7.9 Macomb 19,288 $149,130 $7.7 Oak Lawn 56,690 $435,360 $7.7 Orland Park 59,400 $450,000 $7.6 Woodridge 32,971 $247,269 $7.5 2,746,590 $20,509,033 $7.5 - Chicago Elgin 110,000 $810,000 $7.4 Hazel Crest 14,200 $103,506 $7.3 Greenville 7,000 $50,746 $7.3 Rolling Meadows 23,000 $164,416 $7.2 Channahon 12,560 $88,381 $7.0 Glendale Heights 34,208 $237,931 $7.0 Centralia 13,300 $91,900 $6.9 Bloomington 76,610 $528,928 $6.9 Charleston 21,852 $150,706 $6.9 Riverdale 13,549 $91,050 $6.7 Sleepy Hollow 3,304 $21,941 $6.6 Palos Park 4,847 $31,867 $6.6 Blue Island 25,370 $162,259 $6.4 Lake Barrington 4,973 $31,670 $6.4 Homewood 19,323 $122,500 $6.3 Lake Zurich 19,709 $124,056 $6.3 Homer Glen 24,220 $150,707 $6.2 South Holland 22,000 $136,703 $6.2 Dekalb 43,862 $272,006 $6.2 North Aurora 16,760 $100,114 $6.0 Alton 28,000 $163,231 $5.8 River Grove 10,227 $57,884 $5.7 Pittsfield 4,558 $25,553 $5.6 Decatur 76,000 $425,831 $5.6 Wheeling 37,648 $208,455 $5.5 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 145 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices 2012 Illinois Tree City Applicant Per Capita Forestry Expenditures Municipality Population Forestry Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Paxton 4,473 $24,320 $5.4 Westmont 24,900 $135,240 $5.4 Hickory Hills 14,049 $74,924 $5.3 Lincoln 14,504 $76,362 $5.3 Barry 1,400 $6,964 $5.0 Carbondale 25,902 $126,888 $4.9 New Lenox 24,394 $119,524 $4.9 Roselle 23,115 $112,657 $4.9 East Hazel Crest 1,600 $7,600 $4.8 Ottawa 18,400 $86,117 $4.7 Aurora 197,899 $924,060 $4.7 Princeton 7,660 $32,687 $4.3 Rantoul 12,900 $54,247 $4.2 Henry 2,464 $10,296 $4.2 Forrest 1,200 $4,938 $4.1 Buffalo 501 $2,020 $4.0 Scott AFB 7,724 $30,478 $4.0 Taylorville 11,500 $45,204 $3.9 Stockton 1,862 $7,263 $3.9 Orland Hills 7,149 $26,463 $3.7 Grayslake 20,957 $77,114 $3.7 Shorewood 15,708 $57,641 $3.7 Lindenhurst 14,462 $52,795 $3.7 Lagrange Park 13,579 $46,895 $3.5 O'Fallon 29,421 $100,918 $3.4 Du Quoin 6,500 $22,012 $3.4 Savoy 7,400 $24,693 $3.3 Indian Head Park 3,809 $12,338 $3.2 Edwardsville 24,293 $78,262 $3.2 Belleville 45,500 $146,241 $3.2 Burbank 28,095 $88,502 $3.2 Sycamore 17,519 $55,250 $3.2 Oakbrook Terrace 2,300 $7,120 $3.1 Frankfort 17,782 $54,649 $3.1 Moline 44,000 $133,663 $3.0 Rock Island 39,684 $119,463 $3.0 Carpentersville 38,062 $107,209 $2.8 Sugar Grove 8,997 $25,188 $2.8 Plainfield 49,581 $131,256 $2.7 Gridley 1,411 $3,710 $2.6 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 146 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices 2012 Illinois Tree City Applicant Per Capita Forestry Expenditures Municipality Population Forestry Expenditures Per Capita Expenditure Mackinaw 1,950 $4,898 $2.5 Lakewood 3,546 $7,772 $2.2 Forsyth 3,490 $7,404 $2.1 Joliet 147,433 $309,680 $2.1 Source: Randy Gordon, Program Manager at the Arbor Day Foundation, Lincoln, NE - June 2013 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 147 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Section 313 -2. Interoffice Memo Concerning Prevailing Wages Mount Pmspo= Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 4, 2012 SUBJ: CHANGES IN STATE OF ILLINOIS PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS Background In the 1940s, the State of Illinois enacted legislation requiring the payment of prevailing wages on public works projects utilizing state funds. At the time, this action was part of a national trend in which most states enacted local legislation intended to emulate the provisions of the federal Davis -Bacon Act. In fact, 1940s press reports often referred to these state acts as "little bacon ". Generally, this law required that workers on state - financed projects be paid at least what the locals were currently making in the area where the work was being performed. Since most communities lack the resources to establish justifiable prevailing wage rates, most workers are paid according to the prevailing wages rates established by the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) for the county in which the project is sited. Arguably, the State of Illinois has one of the most vexing prevailing wage laws in the country. In large part, the confusion surrounding this law stems from the fact that the statute is vaguely worded and court case rulings have done little to answer important questions about the scope of the law, For your reference, a complete copy of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act can be found at the Illinois General Assembly website: http:l /www.ilga..Qov /legislation /ilcs /ilcs3 .asp ?ActlD= 2405&Chapterl D =68 Initially, and for many subsequent years, the term "public works" was construed to refer to the construction of fixed works. That is, most lawyers advised public agency clients that the law applied to workers on state - financed construction projects. Notably, it was generally accepted that the law did not apply to maintenance work or non - construction work. It was also a widely held belief that the law did not apply to tree work or grounds maintenance work. Over the years, amendments to the act, as well as interpretations made by IDOL, have significantly expanded the scope of the law. Today, the Village Attorney has advised staff that the law generally applies to all construction work and most maintenance work paid for with Village funds or any other public funds. As a consequence, payment of prevailing wages is required on most contracts let by the public works department. One notable exception, however, has been contracts for tree work and grounds maintenance work. The Village Attorney has maintained, and staff concurs, that this type of work fails to satisfy the letter or intent of the 'fixed works" requirement specified in the Act's "public works" definition. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 148 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Page 2 of 3 Changes in State of Illinois Prevailing Wage Requirements January 4, 2012 Last November, staff attended a prevailing wage seminar in which an IDOL representative made a number of specific pronouncements that directly threaten the viability of our long -held tree work and grounds maintenance work exception. Specifically, IDOL stated: • "Any job paid by any public funds that requires a screwdriver, except for janitorial work, requires prevailing wages." • "If in doubt about whether prevailing wages are required, put it in ". • Tree planting and tree removal work requires the payment of prevailing wages because it "changes the landscape ". Problem Statement Arguably, these statements are not supported by the text of the state's prevailing wage law. Nevertheless, IDOL appears intent on construing the law widely. If the Village strictly adheres to IDOL's pronouncements, tree and grounds maintenance contract budgets could require increases ranging from 65% to 100% in order to maintain existing levels of service. Discussion Staff has researched the potential financial impact of requiring prevailing wages in all tree work and applicable grounds maintenance work contracts. Our research included discussions with contractors that have executed prevailing wage contracts as well as communities that have required prevailing wages in their contracts. Conservatively, we estimate that our contractual costs could increase by 65% or $789,910. However, some communities reported that their costs doubled. For your reference, the attached table depicts these anticipated increases in greater detail. Due to the vagueness of the statute, and differences in legal opinions offered by corporate counsel, there is no uniform interpretation of prevailing wage requirements among non -state public agencies in the Chicago metropolitan area. Some communities rarely require prevailing wages, others always require it, but most seem to have a unique mix of requirements that range between the two extremes. It is also relevant to note that this latest IDOL initiative, in combination with the detrimental effects of emerald ash borer (EAB), gypsy moth, Dutch elm disease, and extreme weather events, has the potential to create tremendous pressure on tree maintenance budgets. Infestations and big storms have forged a dramatic increase in the volume of tree work. At the same time, this mandate threatens to lessen the purchasing power of already limited funds. Potentially, it is a "perfect storm" of constraints that could substantially 'hamper the Village's urban forestry program. It is difficult to ascertain the vigor with which IDOL will pursue enforcement of their most recent prevailing wage interpretations. However, in the end, it seems certain that public agencies that fail to heed these interpretations will face enforcement action including fines and lawsuits. Recommendations Staff is currently advocating legislative clarification of prevailing wage requirements with respect to tree work and grounds maintenance work via several forums including the Illinois Arborists Association, the Illinois Landscape Contractors Association, the Illinois Municipal League, and Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 149 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Page 3 of 3 Changes in State of Illinois Prevailing Wage Requirements January 4, 2012 the North West Municipal Conference. The goal of these efforts is to garner the support of state lawmakers willing to champion a legislative amendment that specifically exempts tree work and grounds maintenance work from prevailing wage requirements. Our expectation is that this is a long -term solution that will not provide relief for the near term. Staff has also asked the Village Attorney to research the viability of enacting a local prevailing wage ordinance that creates specific exemptions for tree work and grounds maintenance work. The City of Naperville has enacted such an ordinance and reports a successful experience. Most importantly, the Naperville ordinance appears to have withstood a rather thorough vetting from IDOL. would greatly appreciate it if you could consider this matter for the January 10 Committee of the Whole agenda. Appropriate staff will be in attendance. G - Sean P. Dorsey Cc: Village Attorney Buzz Hill Village Clerk Lisa Angell Deputy Director of Public Works Jason Leib Forestry /Grounds Superintendent Sandy Clark Administrative Assistant to the Village Manager Doreen Jarosz CVccuments and Set ingslSDORSEYWy DmunnenlsTEGALTREVAILINO WAGESr.COW PREVAILING WAGE MEMO_ JAN 2o12.doc% Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 150 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices 313 -3. Estimated Impact of Requiring Prevailing Wages on Forestry /Grounds Contracts. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Revised December 2, 2011 FORESTRY /GROUNDS DIVISION PLANNED CONTRACTUAL WORK IN 2012 Contract Amount Budgeted REP /Bid Date Est. %Increase If Prevailing Wages Required New Contract Amount Prevailing Wages. Needed ?* Sodding $64,530 Yr 3 of 3 65% $106,475 Very likely Restoration Seeding $13,400 Yr 2 of 2 65% $22,110 Probably Urn /Bulb/ Shrub /Perennial Plantin $41,569 2/13112 654'n $68,589 Probably Greek Spray $2,000 2/20/12 65°10 $3,300 Probably Not Turf Fert and Broadleaf Weed Control $2A0 2/20/12 65% $3,300 Probably Not Spray Paved Areas $7,345 4/12/12 65% $12,119 Probably Not Landscape Maintenance Contract $107,000 1/13/12 65% $176,550 Probably Not Sprinkler Maintenance $8,487 2/20/12 651 $14,004' Very likely Expand Sprinkler Systems $7,000 6/15/12 65% $11,550 Very likely White Light Installation $33,390 7/13/12 100% $65,780 Very likely Installation of Flanging Baskets $6,070 1/18/12 65% $10,016 Very likely Maintenance of Hanging Baskets $7,600 1/18/12 65% $12,540 Probably Not Turf Mowing $65,000 1/13/12 65% $107,250 Probably Not Creek Trim /Removals $20,000 6/18/12 100% $40,000 Probably Creek Raking $5,000 4/3/12 65% $8,250 Probably Not Tree Fertilization $4,227 3/9/12 653'0 $6,975 Probably Not likely Tree Planting $58,043 12/30/31 65% $95,771 Very 4ikely 'Parkway Tree Removal $155,000 12/13/11 100% $310,000 Very likely Parkway Tree Trimming $183,000 12/30/11 100% $366,060 Probably Not Parkway Stump Removal $85,000 Yr 2 of Z 100% $170,000 Probably EAB and Gypsy Meth Treatments $38,760 2/10/12 65% $63,954 Probably Not Street Banner Installation $28,800 2/3/12 100% $57,60D Very Total $943,221 $1,733,131 * This is S. Clark's interpretation of how likely IDOL is to say prevailing wages are required, based on 11/9/2011 meeting and IDOL website. C: \Oocuments and Settings \sdorsey \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content. Outlook \[SK30TX4 \Planned Contract work 2012 - Revised 12 -2 -11 {31.alsx Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 151 www.urbanforestryllc.com likely Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 151 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices 313-4. Landscape Questions and Answers Regarding Prevailing Wages from the Illinois Department of Labor Dated 5- 10 -13. y i 3 ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Pat Quinn Joseph Costigan Governor Director May 10, 2013 David Bennett Executive Director Metropolitan Mayors Caucus 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 Dear Mr. Bennett: Enclosed is a copy of the Department's final Questions and Answers regarding Landscaping which will be posted on our website. The Department believes these Questions and Answers address majority of issues raised. While there still will remain certain situations which may need to be examined on a case by case basis, we believe that the vast majority of situations should be resolved. We thank you for your time and input on these issues. Sincerely, r Joseph ostigan Director Michael A Bilandic Building Regional Office Building 160 North LaSalle, Suite C -1300 900 South Spring Street 2309 West Main Street, Suite I IS Chicago, Illinois 60601 -3150 Springfield, Illinois 62701 Marion, Illinois 62959 (312) 793 -2800 (217) 782 -6206 (618)993.7090 Fax: (312) 793 -5257 Fax: (217) 782 -0596 Fax: (618) 993 -7258 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 152 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices LANDSCAPE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Many questions have been posed to the Department regarding the application of the Prevailing Wage Act in the counties of Cook, Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Kane, Will, Kendall, Boone and Grundy to work involving landscape (e.g. plants, bulbs, seeds, bushes, shrubs etc, dirt, organic materials, sod, and nonorganic materials used in connection with landscape) and the issues relating to modifications to real estate because of the uniqueness of the work and materials involved. In response to the above referenced inquiries regarding work in these counties and comments received from concerned persons, the Department believes it is appropriate to set forth certain questions and answers, which illustrate the Department's position as a matter of its enforcement policy to issues involving landscape work and the application of the Prevailing Wage Act. Nothing set forth below should be interpreted as a change in the Department's view regarding traditional "hardscape work" (by way of example and not limitation "work associated with building, making, forming, demolishing brick or concrete paths or walk ways, fountains, concrete or masonry planters or retaining walls ") that some might consider or refer to as falling under "landscape work." The Department has considered this work to have fallen under the Prevailing Wage Act and remains covered work under the Prevailing Wage Act. Where examples are given, they should be considered as examples only to help provide guidance and should not be considered all encompassing. 1. Question: Is work in connection with landscape work covered under the Prevailing Wage Act? Answer: Real estate is considered by the Department as a fixed work to which the Prevailing Wage Act applies. Work performed in connection with landscape is covered work depending upon the nature of the work. 2. Question: What established classification of employees under the Prevailing Wage Act covers those employees who perform landscape work, which falls under the coverage of the Prevailing Wage Act? Answer: For the purpose of the Prevailing Wage Act, the Department of Labor does not recognize the classification of "landscape plantsman," "landscape laborer" "landscape helper" "landscape installer" "landscape operator" or "landscape truck driver." Work performed by persons who sometimes may be called "landscape plantsman" or "landscape laborer" is covered by the classification of laborer. Work performed by persons sometimes referred to as `landscape operator" is covered by the classification of operator and work performed by persons sometimes call "landscape truckdriver" is covered by the classification of truckdriver. Neither bids nor contracts nor acceptances on landscape work covered by the Prevailing Wage Act should be based upon rates of pay Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 153 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices other than that those associated with the classifications of laborers, operator, or truckdriver the Department has published. 3. Question: What are examples of landscape work that is covered under the Prevailing Wage Act when performed in connection with other work covered under the Prevailing Wage Act? Answer: All work involving the installation or removal of landscape materials in conjunction with or as part of work which is otherwise covered under the Prevailing Wage Act is also work covered by the Prevailing Wage Act. For example only, and not by way of limitation; 1) original installation of landscape materials in connection with covered work involving buildings or structures; 2) landscape work in conjunction with covered work involving any road, boulevard, street, highway, bridge project, sewer or underground project; 3) lawn and landscape restoration performed in conjunction with covered work involving trenches and manholes, pipes, cables and conduits; 4) preparation of and landscaping of approaches associated with covered work performed in connection with shafts, tunnels, subways, and sewers; 5) landscaping of an old or new site in conjunction with covered work involving underpinning, lagging, bracing, propping r shoring; 6) landscaping in connection with covered work involving earthmoving and grading; 7) landscaping in connection with covered work performed at a park or preserve. Even if the landscaping is to be performed after completion of the covered project, if it is an integral part of the overall project, it is deemed being performed in conjunction with or part of the project. The passage of time is not determinative. For example a municipality builds a new city hall, and the landscaping is to occur a year later or in stages over years, the landscape is an integral part of the overall project and is covered. 4. Question: When is landscape work no longer, considered to be performed in conjunction with or as part of a project otherwise covered under the Prevailing Wage Act? Answer: Landscape work is no longer considered to be performed in conjunction with or as part of a project when the architect, project manager, or other appropriate authorized representative issues a certificate of substantial completion to the landscape contractor or other document reflecting substantial completion, such as final payment, which under the contract is to be made upon completion of work. If the manager refuses to issue such a certificate, then when the installation and or removal of all materials as required in the contract has been completed, subsequent work is no longer considered in conjunction with or part of the project For example, after planting a tree or shrub, the initial edging, mulch application and watering and continued mulching, watering, edging, trimming of already installed materials while the contractor is at the job site performing work under the contract, is work performed in conjunction with and/or part of a project since it is work integral to the covered activities. However, if the contractor has fulfilled the installation/removal work required under the contract and left the project, and the contractor has to return months later to replace an installed plant that has died or is required to water the plants, the replacement would not be deemed work in conjunction Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 154 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices with or part of a project since it is not integral to the covered activities Thus, continued watering or pruning or mulching after the substantial completion is no longer work performed in conjunction with or as part of a covered project. 5. Question: Can work associated with landscape work by itself be considered work covered under the Prevailing Wage Act? Answer: When landscape work changes the nature, function, or character of the real estate, although no other covered work such as "hardscape" is involved, the work is covered work under the Prevailing Wage Act. For example, and not by way of limitation, covered work under the Prevailing Wage Act would include projects involving earthmoving and grading; converting a vacant lot by the planting of trees, flowers, shrubs, or sod - grass; removing all trees on a lot and the replacing of trees by the planting of shrubs, grass or the making of a nature park; or the removal of trees and vegetation to leave the lot as a vacant lot so as to make the lot ready for construction.. 6. Question: What are examples of work associated with landscaping that is not covered work when it is not done in conjunction with or part of covered work or does not fall within the scope of the work described in Question 5? Answer Lawn mowing or grass cutting; line trimming; edging; weeding; cultivating beds; mulch application; bed preparation using soil amendments; core aeration; sweeping and blowing of landscape materials; pruning, planting, removal or replacement of shrubs, plants, and flowers; pruning of trees and replacement of trees that are planted as a replacement due to the removal of diseased or irreparably damaged trees, or trees that constitute a hazard; non - substantive replacement of sod, the removal of diseased or irreparably damaged trees or trees that are a hazard; seeding, including the preparation and application of erosion control blanket, application of fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, fungicide; aquatic applications, raking, watering of trees, shrubs, plants, flowers, bulbs, seeds and sod; grooming; dividing plants; dead - leafing; sweeping; trash pick -up and removal of landscape litter; holiday light and seasonal decoration installation excluding the electrical connections if any. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 155 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices Appendix Section 3C -1 for 2003 to 2015 Planned Annual Tree Trimming Schedule for the Village Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 156 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 3C -2. Proposed Five -year Tree Trimming Cycle in the Village Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 157 www.urbanforestryllc.com PROPOSED 5 -YEAR TREE TRIMMING CYCLE Update Feb 2013 (Village) Total 0 (Contractor) x Trees Year 5ecl Location' Last Trim Date Trees 0 Trines . -3.0'• 3.0" 2011 7 3 (Fairview Gardens 6 carpatcs .7 Penmcior) 2M 759 705 54 M"11 7 2 (KCB) 2005 549 327 222 9 2006 1445 1226 219 5 5.1 (WedgewvW) 2006 503 498 15 6 2006 1380 1225 155 4 1 3911 665 2012 10 2007 1086 848 740 13 2007 537 407 130 16 16.3 IS of Lincoln) 2007 863 767 96 11 2007 1318 1071 247 17 2007 325 278 47 14 2007 778 615 163 _ 4907 4084 823 2013 4 a.2 (E of Bm-ntwood) 2008 1336 1166 170 5 6,4 (S of Hlghlard) 2008 1611 1390 221 16 16.1 (W. of COMM*) 2008 1047 964 83 12 7008 1389 '.174 215 5383 4594 889 2014 1 2009 1375 1281 94 8 2009 1234 1032 202 16 15 1 IN of Lincoln) 2009 796 718 78 2 2009 1183 1076 107 7 7 1 (Lae Buckman) 2010 241 719 22 4629 4326 503 2016 15 15 2 (all of l inr&n) 2010 1286 1123 163 3 2010 1102 1018 84 5 5 3 (Kensgtn d Highland) 2010 456 415 41 5 5 2 (Prospect Meadows) 2010 270 242 28 16 16.2 (E. of CundoW) 2010 660 596 64 4 4 1 (W. of Brentwood) 2010 479 423 56 M „ 7.3 (Fairview Gardens d • s,r+so 2016 73 Perimeter)' 2010 530 475 55 2010 4783 4292 491 TOTALS 24538 21387 3111 Notel) For 24,580 trees mutt average 491Wyear to maintain 5 y" cycle. Note 2) In "Last Trim Date' column. urderlared number shows calendar year when work was completed. Note 3) s of trees Includes" Contractual and "in- himme" uirnming, Note 4) Locations are a00roxsr+ate In regards to boundary streets (see H,FORESTRYILXCELI19991AREA- SECTION XLSi H #omWrV*xCEt.*TM YEAR Trost CYCLE.X* Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 157 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 3D -1. Tree Species planted in 2012 Tree Species Planted in 2012 Tree Species Common Name # of Trees ACER CAMPESTRE HEDGE MAPLE 14 ACER GRISEUM PAPERBARK MAPLE 1 ACER MIYABE MIYABE MAPLE 33 ACER PLATANOIDES NORWAY MAPLE 3 ACER PLATANOIDES'COLUMNAR' NORWAY MAPLE'COLUMNAR' 1 ACER PLATANOIDES CRIMSON KING NORWAY MAPLE'CRIMSON KING' 20 ACER PLATANOIDES EMERALD LUSTR NORWAY MAPLE'EMERALD LUSTRE' 19 ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 1 ACER SACCHARUM GREEN MOUNTAIN SUGAR MAPLE 'GREEN MOUNTAIN' 10 ACER TRUNCATUM SHANTUNG MAPLE 10 ACER TRUNCATUM PACIFIC SUNSET SHANTUNG MAPLE'PACIFIC SUNSET 2 ACER X FREEMANII FREEMAN MAPLE 1 ACER X FREEMANII AUTUMN BLAZE FREEMAN MAPLE'AUTUMN BLAZE' 80 CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 15 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS HACKBERRY COMMON 67 CLADRASTIS LUTEA YELLOWWOOD 19 CRATEAGUS CRUS -GALLI INERMIS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN THORNLESS 3 GINKGO BILOBA'AUTUMN GOLD' GINKGO'AUTUMN GOLD' 17 GINKGO BILOBA MALE GINKGO BILOBA MALE 1 GINKGO BILOBA PRINCETON SENTRY GINKGO'PRINCETON SENTRY' 10 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS HONEYLOCUST THORNLESS 15 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS KENTUCKY COFFETREE 27 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 'JC MCDANI KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 'JC MCDANI 10 LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA TULIPTREE 17 MALUS CRABAPPLE UNKNOWN 1 MALUS 'CARDINAL' CRABAPPLE 'CARDINAL' 9 MALUS'PRAIRIFIRE' CRABAPPLE'PRAIRIFIRE' 9 MALUS 'PROFUSION' CRABAPPLE 'PROFUSION' 1 MALUS'RED JEWEL' CRABAPPLE'RED JEWEL' 19 METASEQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES DAWN REDWOOD 11 NYSSA SYLVATICA BLACK TUPELO 9 PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA EXLAMATN LONDON PLANTREE'EXCLAMATION' 17 PRUNUS DOMESTICA COMMON PLUM 1 PRUNUS SUBHIRTELLA FLOWERING CHERRY 1 PYRUS CALLERYANA CALLERY PEAR 3 PYRUS CALLERYANA'CHANTICLEER' CALLERY PEAR'CHANTICLEER' 24 QUERCUS ALBA WHITE OAK 13 QUERCUS IMBRICARIA SHINGLE OAK 5 QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 4 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 158 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Tree Species Planted in 2012 Tree Species Common Name # of Trees QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII CHINKAPIN OAK 15 QUERCUS ROBUR ENGLISH OAK 14 QUERCUS RUBA RED OAK 11 SYRINGA PEKINENSIS 'SUMMER CHA TREE LILAC 'SUMMER CHARM' 10 SYRINGA RETICULATA IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC IVORY SILK 27 TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALD CYPRESS 1 TILIA AMERICANA'DOUGLAS' AMERICAN LINDEN 'DOUGLAS' 20 TILIA AMERICANA'REDMOND' AMERICAN LINDEN 'REDMOND' 52 TILIA AMER ICANA'SENTRY' AMERICAN LINDEN 'SENTRY' 20 TILIA CORDATA LITTLELEAF LINDEN 32 TILIA TOMENTOSA'STERLING' SILVER LINDEN 'STERLING' 28 ULMUS AMERICANA'PRINCETON' AMERICAN ELM 'PRINCETON' 20 ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID 'PATRIOT' 'PATRIOT' ELM 4 ULMUS JAPON X WILSONIANA 'ACCOLADE' 'ACCOLADE' ELM 23 TOTAL 800 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 159 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix 313-2. Tree Species Planted Reforestation & EAB Programs 1993 -2012 SCIENTIFIC NAME CULTIVAR REFOREST pROG. EAB REPLACE PROG. TOTAL by Cultivar TOTAL by Species ACER CAMPESTRE 9 9 18 ACER GRISEUM 10 10 ACER MIYABE 11 26 37 ACER PLATANOIDES 22 1 1 CLEVELAND 1 1 COLUMNAR 1 1 CRIMSON KING 15 4 19 ACER SACCHARUM 11 GREEN MOUNTAIN 8 2 10 LEGACY 1 1 ACER TRUNCATUM 6 NORWEGN SUNSET 2 2 PACIFIC SUNSET 2 2 4 ACER X FREEMANII 16 AUTUMN BLAZE 10 4 14 MARMO 2 2 ALNUS GLUTINOSA 52 48 48 IMPERIALIS 4 4 AMELANCHIER ARBOREA 19 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE 10 2 12 COLE'S SELECT 7 7 AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 32 FOREST PRINCE 27 27 SPRING FLURY 5 5 CARPINUS BETULUS 52 42 42 COLUMNARIS 10 10 CARPINUS CAROLINIANA 52 16 68 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS * 241 143 50 193 CHICAGOLAND 48 48 CERCIDIPHYLLUM JAPONICUM 6 6 CLADRASTIS LUTEA 9 18 27 CORNUS MAS 'GOLDEN GLORY' GOLDEN GLORY 9 9 CORYLUS COLURNA 169 6 175 CRATEAGUS CRUS -GALLI INERMIS 7 2 9 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 160 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices — SCIENTIFIC NAME CULTIVAR REFOREST PROG. EAB REPLACE PROG. TOTAL by Cultivar TOTAL by Species FAGUS SYLVATICA SPAETHIANA 10 10 FRAXINUS AMERICANA 7 1 1 AUTUMN PURPLE 5 5 WINDY CITY 1 1 FRAXINUS EXCELSIOR KIMBERLY 5 5 FRAXINUS MANDSHURICA MANCANA 6 6 FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA 9 CIMMARON 7 7 SUMMIT 2 2 FRAXINUS QUADRANGULATA 135 135 GINKGO BILOBA 189 AUTUMN GOLD 55 5 60 MAGYAR 91 91 MALE 5 5 PRINCETON SENTRY 28 5 33 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS SHADEMASTER 7 7 GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 43 5 48 LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA 54 31 85 MALUS 'cultivars' 199 13 13 ADAMS 5 7 12 CARDINAL 4 5 9 DONALD WYMAN 20 20 GOLDEN RAINDROPS 14 14 JACKII 2 2 PRAIRIFIRE 9 9 PROFUSION 5 5 PURPLE PRINCE 14 16 30 RED JEWEL 6 4 10 ROYAL RAINDROPS 18 18 SENTINEL 57 57 METASEQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 63 63 NYSSA SYLVATICA 13 9 22 OSTRYA VIRGINIANA 58 18 76 PHELLODENDRON AMURENSE 11 4 4 MACHO 7 7 PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 152 10 10 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 161 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices SCIENTIFIC NAME CULTIVAR REFOREST pROG. EAB REPLACE PROG. TOTAL by Cultivar TOTAL by Species BLOODGOOD 84 84 EXCLAMATION 22 36 58 PYRUS CALLERYANA 8 5 5 CHANTICLEER 3 3 QUERCUS ACUTISSIMA 12 12 QUERCUS ALBA 65 7 72 QUERCUS BICOLOR 103 103 QUERCUS ELLIPSOIDALIS 18 18 QUERCUS IMBRICARIA 32 53 85 QUERCUS MACROCARPA 121 30 151 QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII 98 30 128 QUERCUS ROBUR 63 26 89 QUERCUS ROBUR'REGAL PRINCE' REGAL PRINCE 11 11 QUERCUS RUBRA QUERCUS RUBRA 201 4 205 SYRINGA PEKINENSIS CHINA SNOW 10 10 SYRINGA RETICULATA 84 13 13 IVORY SILK 47 24 71 TAXODIUM DISTICHUM 37 33 33 SHAWNEEBRAVE 4 4 TILIA AMERICANA 492 DOUGLAS' 77 10 87 REDMOND 161 39 200 SENTRY 184 21 205 TILIA CORDATA 28 1 1 GLENLEVEN 17 17 GREENSPIRE 2 2 SUMMER SPRITE 8 8 TILIA TOMENTOSA 188 30 30 STERLING 158 158 ULMUS AMERICANA 21 1 1 PRINCETON 18 2 20 ULMUS CARP X PARVIFOL FRONTIER 9 9 ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID 30 COMMENDATION 5 5 HOMESTEAD 24 24 TRIUMPH ELM 1 1 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 162 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 163 www.urbanforestryllc.com REFOREST EAB TOTAL TOTAL SCIENTIFIC NAME CULTIVAR REPLACE by by pROG. PROG. Cultivar Species ULMUS JAPON X WILSONIANA ACCOLADE 24 12 36 'ACC' ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 13 13 TOTALS 1 3,071 593 3,664 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 163 www.urbanforestryllc.com — Appendices — Appendix 3G -1. 2012 Tree Removals by Tree Removal Reason Category Year 0 U V a L Q o Q 0 ® W D o m W w IA 0 Q "' ca Q W w E - 0 N 0 > ° v9 Q- E L N ® E L LC 0 E t% �, Q ++ 0" d L +, = 0 E (C M Q 1993 15 31 116 25 42 39 24 14 5 311 1994 14 21 158 15 60 26 60 28 5 387 1995 18 57 129 24 41 18 106 26 9 428 1996 8 15 173 13 95 24 103 24 30 485 1997 14 10 142 15 20 96 23 71 62 3 456 1998 17 50 91 22 41 92 137 82 22 554 1999 16 5 112 54 77 2 94 104 13 477 2000 24 86 90 28 3 21 181 94 20 2 549 2001 15 37 180 48 7 63 21 119 21 1 512 2002 17 13 191 62 15 45 4 59 20 0 426 2003 13 79 159 66 2 16 33 65 12 3 448 2004 16 37 141 28 6 49 35 68 12 0 392 2005 22 13 93 61 1 12 19 77 41 2 341 2006 14 6 154 65 3 35 22 128 9 6 442 2007 20 12 149 110 0 25 340 93 21 3 773 2008 17 38 252 72 63 1 13 17 76 13 4 566 2009 20 19 168 78 145 5 31 32 21 8 1 528 2010 8 22 157 26 23 151 18 7 37 58 18 4 529 2011 18 7 184 34 171 0 11 322 40 28 2 817 2012 7 291 34 715 1 29 15 51 10 1 1,154 Totals 313 558 3,130 880 909 359 82 809 1,302 1,544 573 116 10,575 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 164 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix 31-1-1. Risk Management Annual Calendar for the Village {� fi c a C -4 ,. 10 � r-1 E tL W C 5 W E U CJ U E a a C . ~ W Al LA E o m is C 13 '� � � } er g V5 {�. 3 it p� E m y G j fl' E a T E E c E E M T 0? EL A 3 ( W 2 H a } Li LL LL � � � � � � � � 4 VJ 9rd 01 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 165 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 3M -1. Mount Prospect's Participation in Research Projects and Studies Since 1993. 1. Girdling Roots Study and Journal of Arboriculture Article — Dr. Gary Watson; Morton Arboretum - 1993 2. Soil Compaction Study — Dr. Frederic Miller; University of Illinois Extension - 1993 3. Norway Maple Rootstock Study — Dr. Gary Watson and Dr. Susan Wiegrefe; Morton Arboretum - 1998 4. Ash Peeling /Trap Tree Project — Morton Arboretum Staff — 2006 and 2007 5. EAB Purple Traps Project — Illinois Department of Agriculture — 2008, 2009, 2010 6. Gypsy Moth Scouting Project — Dr. Frederic Miller and Morton Arboretum staff — 2009, 2010 7. Diameter Growth of Street Trees Research Study — Dr. John Dwyer; Morton Arboretum — 2009 8. EAB Treatment Project — Rainbow Treecare Scientific Advancements — 2012, 2013 9. Urban Site Index Study — Dr. Bryant Scharenbroch; Morton Arboretum - 2013 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 166 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 3N -1. Hansen® Promotional Description MA7`W - miN THE - 1 5INE55CF ANDWORKMANACEMUNJ Assn. Managwnenc isrgins,wile an orpnimtorvs straceglc. budgeting wd phnn+ng d&CWQM wid con- -ousts throstgl, irtzh lat+cn, crperacion u,d wwi wally 4spcs41 a the ass+ Ins= alar#on „prrwn ri+e rn�ntenartc>:, u+*:chrdulerY naairtte +swat�C aatd evaluaticnn are all a Bart cf Uwe axset ifetyelc. TFIe +ors: of naaifrteMOCC anal reglacen+er,c represents a Mai icarrt,pvor-.imn cf the cpca:rng and "-21 ees. of Jse assets Bottern lire savings cc+ne from elife4;rve mset inin geamn: arad repment. direct sa,ivV to lmz crganirauons operaiw -t b+iAget. i wnon'SAsse:. anodwbr�la KoiMwiwwr Mc=doles vAM o feeaively help you rrurt. -lhe fud asset and worfc mime ge,rerr_ cycle vvMfe SSunng mmss+r dAe haeafrs aa,d kcturn on Investanem (KDI). Fade module uacludes integrated work cider, prevowive eiPCiatt ttFllarite- iirspecuoii..�An ar)d tv+idluorr aaaCS;in°i.•rr. c;rpalal!;les v.sd, rrw evw p►e•slelrened reports. Aass±t MarseRement Hansen s soluur_n provide asm specrtic chi -a rield€ for etch usn type. An o%miratloer a:ar+ ca:,sleg acid oiudcl all UIVIersi - rd serf abovelno rsd assets warrlim he Hansen scitcuen Asser. rtwdeling +ray l:e pw7o"nod in a fr,ear mtYmck (arac#, ax a sewer syvLon) or Ina hierarctV (sud s DATA MO erl � �Sa L as pfanUfacdr;yli The syitan is scalable fcs dw umileat cd lacal C rete gcrea+mnaw,, agencies; to the larg 77= sus. cf suet* and federal t d ar Hier�archica l rrtpin;S Flansear Isar r.. Dire allCo rr*renmDnrri'.+arllarr;agC all gstv�ttra4etr, - aereeererVow” .aS•` u +ncludlnr 'Wrim Ileiwe'f Mae* Prss>raurl�f d �, earat.�, iww ereie' • f'larr (°Fm1 lea. - - `xrlaa pnsrr� Vehicles} Segmented o - - - -- - ------ b *mew Sewer (Manes. Manhole% Service point Lines, Li'h Stwicns. , - 40des ) Area • wa4,W (Mlinss.Valvws. Mows, Hydiants Linear Service larses,wacrr NkAvv O • S°reeAoadway tSegtnnats fft twat k Sigmils, Signs Ll tx - Traps Larelscap+r, us:ersnctivns. Er,algesl • korm (Clunnek Inlets. Maims. M:.1rAoles. CAA "F SWrage Basin F • Pkrl�s (Widmt,s Ege.pntarrt.T res. f'?:aygr i',ws d 14uipment- Spc+rs Cosnpleaces) Ry" IEquipment.Trackc Signals, Sigres,Y;ardsl Custe.Itver Service (Service Re�testffa+xsrarerstp 1111 "Filk ear r le 7ee110% McMe feels s Feeetneiiw l•cleer aFe..+ot faireeFra. NFMrnear �P s , +rly 2 4% 1 1121 0 11 41 11 %. 1111% feeep e4 some HANS EN , Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 167 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 3P -1. Tree Protection Plan Document + rrrti, t Village o f Mount Prospect PUBLIC TREE Public Works Department – Forestry/Grounds Division 9.740 Weat Central Road PRO TECTION Mount Prospect, Illinois 6W.% ( P. Phone; 847J870 -%40 Fax: 947j252� 377 'TDD$ 392-1235 PLAN ' Ptok,ut Addreeiu Forestry Minn T.P.P. Frepared by _ ! Doer Prty The V- .1lage takes lit prime in its 24,(Y104- p iblidy- owned. u vrea. A kign.3,Tx= Frotmum Plan is required before wort begins (inel+udink equipment mobilization) for any ptopm that may impact publicly o mtd treet: Protecting thoese trees is the responsibility of each prnpen awrnegFeonuxt:tar throughout the cot aTuctim pit cess. Tk follawing is a wffl aty of the Vffl c's code "uiremrats as of Jam 2008. Panora to follow the rrgtd11i0" its the VinW Cad¢ may result in a Stop 1tlLwofk Ovier and lxm iblc srtbstantilenl fines. !dote that the 'U'ARW errr,siders it a "acparate offense~ comaxitted' for e"h day that a violation occurs /oontinue -e, Now,, The following duet Project tyres tr4utte adherence. to Part A regulations below only (tmles9 ormstruction Activim dicizie. otherwise)-. 1) 1411 flatw•ork anal any drivcutay a f+mAs replaced witbout wkbming, 2}l mefgerKy se%w tepair k%cmvatiatns, and 3)$udd* addidutts with no pars wPay cxcavarinn. All ether pro*ts require advance wvie w and completion of Part h betryw by Forestry /Grounds Division. **Also, be aware tbaF during calm trucrfon, the Village reserves the right to reeluitr additional tree protection measures, mcfoding &now fenci the Critical Root Zone, if trees are being impacted. #* VA RT .A GENERIC REQUIREIM4 FOR ALL PROJECTS Fxcrpi as noted below. the fat ing measures must be raken to protect all trees a4ij*xmi to tx affccred by the pToK -:t - Kccp the area within the tree'ts dripline, excer for erixring graved a,'em, free fatten heArF egttaprrKrtt operation spoil Piles, or materiel storage, ■ Do not pie publicly -owner trees without a prom - fir. If branches interfere with ennsmiction, pall ) rr Do riot excavate inside the deipKae of any patkwgy tree wtwhhout written ituthotLeAtion by the Village on Fart E of this Tree Protection laUA with the fntlownng two exceptionc A, Diivetwap aprons maybe repbowd 'in-bbd" without anp wrideaing, but rr r is mum be preened as dessrilxd lrelow- h. Exr avatirorus for emv -rwr■cy = sower repairs map be made within the dripline if necessary. '+fake every possible effort in these situation: m keep exeavanort ovodde the "lnfflifflum Reunited Separatim" shove n in LXtail 1. I# this "tiiienwnt cannot be followed, contact the Foreguy /(.,mounds Diviskm befen pruovdume ■ Properly prmc tree ruolt i 2'' or L%, r with a saw before backfilling (see Detail 2). Do not ba ll the upper 18" of sail within the critical now zo nt before the Forestry /Grounds Division has inspected it (tnspectmns can be scheduled by ealluhll (847) 9701 -3W)- Tic aware that if tree root d=&ge is too exicnaiwe, the ltoreetty /t rrriitrnd's 13ia lion may derernhine that the tree needs to be renutw d sever chuge the cost of remoael /replaretxtettr to the party wbo signed the tree protection plan. Additional fines m2 be added if it is deetcnmt nod that tree damage was more extensive than ti rssa ry- Follow all other +,tillage esteems re trdiog putt trees then.: c.An I found in (Impter 9 or the Village [;note seed in the Vio e Ar?muif�ulWrwl Siarrdxrrlx MW 3W cal. 'Illcac rcytaletiottffi Pra}r+bit ranch + -al of public trees without a parmit. grwdc changes within the tln;Flur4, trunk wnunding, ec. PART S--- ALtDUION L REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC' TO THIS PROJECT Ilrl ii id4 son to the rcquirm ats is !Fart A. the foilowing measures shAU also be takcua to protect all pubbelyowned terse.$ arJ0r:Grtt to sir aniseed l rr this PMKC r_ "7 The location and trunk diameter (ar d tli' above gmund) of all publicly owned trees must be shovm on Plans. 1 'Tree Protecrian snow fencing attest be puUCM before equipment mobilization and maintained until project completion- (Stc tlt:taill.:'°:ot+: tttAt �ww f�atue alu>tild bo PTaCer3 t�rne fr>Gt belaiut� �wfb /lxitshtcru ecl}�- '1 - sees tits lee feroccvi seed fenGrc riir2tea3sions: 1114 not deviate frown the aha ve dimensions without chtai n.l.ng an amendment form from Forestry / Grounds f acct? 0 No e"xvation or pavement installation shall be all rwed within rkL dnplirte!5 of pul i cly owrxi trees (also kaowru as CRZ sae Detail 1), cx+reptt sP- eCiflad'l+elvw. 0 Fscawation Or pa VeM«n r unseal! 40n within ilea Critical Root Zone (CI shalt be allovocd far the followiuyt trscz, luir nrilY imEtte the conditions listed helocw R) Every effort Shad be made m routine+•+- exsavaticrn withdaa the CR:L, acid to Unvi excavation to only one KWc of the tree. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 168 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices b) F- = Y ztion shall not be made my closer than tht- "94hnimum RcquivA Separntion'r shown on Oct" 1, vAihoui express w iotcvn authorization from the PubfiL Work% Dircoor- e] Any toots 2" in diameteE end over shall be deanh• want pnuwd wah a raw (sec Derail 2). d) Coamcttyr shalt be requimA to call for and 0131 eirl a Imw nKvt inspection from the Porestrg /Grourtrds DivLmon aftu moot pmuxuig' mncl before 1rackFillin1l the top 19" of soi! t;} [fin spite of the above peeciucions, the resulting damage neccrsitatce removal of the rmtse in the k opirwi oT), the party + ju o signed the tree prntcctirm p42n .ShAll be required trt pas far rcmolral /replxcfl Cot of the tree 21 &C ntes catrrertilY specified in dle VOIRge codc- Q Nb drive may be mstml[ecl any r=laraer than a Frame the +omter of any publkly owftcd tzce- Note: that for 1 Q" diameter trtcs and !racer, davrwwp must be further away (see Drt tail 1). '4tlhen abmmdoming elastiisg driveways, all pmmmw/atune must be Eemovod trr a minimum depth of 2 feet and reptaced with topsail. Q Wie[ spccYal proviaianrs spc fie to Ilnis proa v- IAA T 'C —x >PR TEC `10N DETAILS 1) CRLT IC&L ROOT ZONE (C R7 Dripfinc I e No Iiuot Disturba a gl; t lkywvd iti this Zonu -- Critical Root Zone - Minimum Rr lutred separacIm 'rw tYrt®eaer ex rhu Faumdr tEner:"rnean 1* xa 3r IT w 14' [Al IV' it e tfr lrl' (S Tree -tl M Y aba,z Rmundt (New Pi Mem) lrrr *. Y tf rwe 6 V u. r C 1rr W 14' 11T 15'rr1Y t? duaL7' 15' h <r+�arn waruruirr, sreaehing.. pa,inx, rtc. and the new rr of the �.r 2) PROPER ROOT PRUMWG [t� R,o aN nirl, 64,i t.c+d w-dl.l,6s3dy l—Ia x ex.rt. d tuc to t t&'tv n IC �wlv. R cnittrc!d or k;= xmK kads In 4 yawd Proeedlrre-4%eo oirindtog ar a ndirg rrn. cc a net p-6,11— treereLi entefuit'i h5' ha.nd,.K mxtalre near arses, zauin�{ nx.0 4n'er? us ,lua'.e :a 4Lke rk� �vr fl-!. uidi .the Axle frlx li xl�..ks. :mss m. Ll. 1r .tie. fl-d to P. rYf 1Mt It9e LrdL 1 4 '9t INn rc!nls S° M IUW an aeewtntall r tsrt14e11, �li,�,,x,l c,...�{l,.�f dK IC4'W4tl w a„ 1h� m unctrrn,a�rd p zrnan 1a( the newt Id Y,tAk �9 a]Y.9t.6Y S NOTE SIGNED TREE PROTECTION ALAN MUST BE KEPT ON J OB SITE! I itcknowledgc that T h!tvv. reccivcd and nsd this tl umetrt. and that it will he fei®rsv.W' Doi2lirnu nary rmly he Marla° if aurh+ uizi-d rri wdlig.l: hV the PubLic V,. oinks Director or other authorized staff P"srnrir Pm y *1 ,4&rw APPAWW xa¢W (N d) # ff1-f mm at a owl (C.idro" (a 1'raw bem .4, else i Sri Dau Sigmrd '1,$ 7 iar.G& Pan A air�l � rsaRCJ ar law A aad S K.iux., ,4)rSMrtt ar fGvsciraAiTt su (GVTk GX4 C*UCF ACUCLg n Cf]Ir O]r ContPa ATorestrylVIC i1k2M "I UBL1C TREE PROTECTKXw' PLAN - Rinsed 11-09.dm C*FA Iorifiw i f ardr,r, Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 169 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices ! Appendix Section 3P -2. Boilerplate Construction Tree Protection Specifications Boiler Plate Construction Tree Protection Specifications Village of Mount Prospect TREE PROTECTION (Incidental) To preserve parkway trees, the Village has adopted ordinances in Chapter 9 of the Village code and standards in the Village's Arboriculture Standards Manual. A copy of the Village code is available at the Village Clerk's office and the Arboriculture Standards Manual from the Forestry Division at the Public Works Department. All tree protection shall be incidental to the contract and shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Tree Protection Ordinance and plan as specified by the Village. REMOVAL PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED: All trees shall be maintained, saved, and protected from damage unless removal is approved by the Village. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: To prevent unnecessary damage to existing public trees during construction, proper tree protection guidelines must be followed, particularly in the root zone where major support roots securely hold the tree in the soil. This Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is defined as the entire ground area within the vertical projection of the crown of a tree. This is also commonly referred to as the area within the drip line of a tree. Power equipment may not be used to excavate soil, change grades, or dig trenches in the Critical Root Zone. All soil excavation done within the CRZ must be done by hand, except as authorized in these specifications. Exceptions to the above shall be granted only with written permission from the Director of Public Works. FENCING: All unpaved ground on public property within the Critical Root Zones (CRZ) of existing trees subject to construction damage shall be fenced before any work is started. This Tree Protection Fencing will be paid for as specified in these contract documents. Once assembled, no fencing shall be removed without prior approval of the Engineer, and there shall be no construction activity or material including storage, stockpiling, and equipment access within the enclosure. Fencing material shall be orange polypropylene snow fence supported with metal posts, and installed according to the detail which will be provided by the Forestry Division. CHANGES TO EXISTING GRADE: No changes to original grade shall be allowed inside the CRZ. ROOT PRUNING DURING CONSTRUCTION: All tree roots greater than two inches (2 ") in diameter that are encountered in any construction process shall be cut cleanly with an appropriate saw or pruning shear or other tool specifically designed for cutting wood. Axes or other such chopping tools shall not Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 170 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices be used. Shovels or other tools designed for digging shall not be used. Contractor shall contact Forestry for a root inspection before backfilling. ATTACHMENTS TO TREES: No signs, placards or other objects may be nailed or stapled to trees. BRANCH REMOVAL: Tree branches shall not be cut, pruned or trimmed by the Contractor. If parkway tree branches interfere with the Contractor's work, he should contact the Forestry Division to request pruning. If Forestry deems the request reasonable they will endeavor to promptly prune the branches at the Village's expense. PENALTIES FOR TREE DAMAGE: Where limbs, trunks or roots of trees not approved for removal are damaged, the Village shall determine whether the tree can be repaired or must be removed. Repairs may include, but are not strictly limited to, pruning of broken limbs, removal of loose bark and proper shaping of wounds, thinning of the crown to compensate for root loss, fertilization, straightening and staking. Repairs shall be performed by the Village. The cost of such repairs shall be paid for by the Contractor to the Village, using rates listed in the current edition of the Village's Equipment and Labor Rate Charges Additionally, the Village may fine the contractor for unnecessary tree damage according to the schedule listed in Appendix A, Division III of the Village Code. If in the opinion of the Village, the amount of damage warrants removal of the tree due to safety or aesthetic concerns, the Contractor shall remove the tree, along with its stump to a depth of 12 inches below grade. The Contractor shall pay the Village for replacement of the tree. Replacement cost will be determined by multiplying the diameter of the damaged tree, as measured 4 -1/2 feet above the ground, by the rate of $150.00 /inch. The Contractor shall be responsible for being familiar with and complying with all aspects of the Village of Mount Prospect Tree Protection ordinances and Arboricultural Standards Manual as they relate to the various site locations. Any questions regarding tree protection shall be directed to the Village Forestry Division and their response or direction shall be considered as the final word /decision on tree protection issues. Any costs for tree protection fencing, posts, labor or other associated labor or material shall be incidental to the fixed cost per unit bid. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 171 www.urbanforestryl[c.com Appendices Appendix Section 3S -1. Mount Prospect Greenspaces Managed by the Village Mt. Prospect Greenspaces Managed by the Village Forestry Sub Facility /Address /Location Section Sec # 03 0 Fire Station # 14 (1924 Kensington Rd.) 05 1 Well #17 (1480 North Elmhurst Road -- South of Camp McDonald) 05 4 RR ROW on NW HWY Waterman Entrance Marker (South side NW Highway, near Waterman Ave.) 05 4 RR ROW on NW HWY from Waterman Ave. to Central Rd. (From Poles 1- 25) 05 4 Prospect Manor Ave. at NW Highway - Center Island 05 4 NW Highway (North Side) Central Road to 1040 West NW Highway (State Farm) 05 4 Pine St. at Henry St. - Center Island 05 4 Ridge Ave. at Henry St. - Center Island 06 0 Well # 5 (112 E. Highland St., at Emerson St.) 06 0 Northwest Corner of Rand Road and Central Road - Gateway Sign 07 2 Kensington Center Island at Feehanville Dr. and Wolf Road 07 3 Centennial Park - 1000 Centennial Dr. (North side Centennial Drive from Westgate Rd to 900 Centennial Dr.) 07 3 1400 Horner Ln. - Bed area around Generator 08 0 2 S. Mount Prospect Road - West side of S. Mount Prospect Rd South of Central Rd. 08 0 NW Highway (North Side) Albert St. to Mount Prospect Road 08 0 NW Highway (North Side) Owen St. to William St. 08 0 RR ROW on NW HWY Central Rd. to West Commuter Lot (From Poles 26- 31) 08 0 RR ROW on NW HWY West Commuter Lot (Between Pine St. and S. Main Street) (From poles 32A - 38A) 08 0 RR ROW on NW HWY Train Station (11 East NW Highway) (From poles 40A - 43A) 08 0 RR ROW on NW HWY East Commuter Lot (East of Emerson St.) (From poles 45A - 50A) 08 0 RR ROW on NW HWY East Commuter Lot to Mount Prospect Road (From Poles 51 -71) 08 0 RR ROW on NW HWY Mount Prospect Road Entrance Marker (250 feet West of Mount Prospect Road) 08 0 Water Tower (Northeast corner of Maple St. and Evergreen Ave.) 08 0 Public Safety Building (1 12 East NW Highway) 08 0 Historical Society Museum (101 S. Maple St.) 08 0 Streetscape II & III - Village block of NW Highway, Main St., Busse Ave., and Both sides of Emerson St. 08 0 Village Hall Civic Block - Village block of Busse Ave., both sides of Main St., Central Rd., and both sides of Emerson St. 08 0 Busse /Wille Improvement - Village block of Busse Ave, Main St, and Northwest Highway Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 172 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Mt. Prospect Greenspaces Managed by the Village Forestry Section Sub Sec # Facility /Address /Location 08 0 Wille Street (Between Central Rd. and NW Highway) 08 0 Village Centre Lot (Between Main Street and Wille St.) 08 0 Streetscape I - Village block of NW Highway, Central Rd., and Pine St., including S. Elmhurst Ave. 08 0 Pine Street (East Side) from NW Highway to Central Rd. 08 0 Central Rd. south side (Pine St. to Wille St.) 08 0 Moehling Park (10 S. Pine St.) 08 0 NW Highway (North Side) George St to Edward St. 08 0 NW Highway (North Side) Edward St to Louis St 09 0 RR ROW on Prospect Avenue Maple St. to Mount Prospect Road 09 0 RR ROW on Prospect Avenue Main St. to Maple St. 09 0 Prospect Avenue South Side Main St. to Maple St. 09 0 Prospect Avenue Center Islands Main St. to Emerson St. 09 0 Prospect Avenue Center Islands Maple to Mount Prospect Road 09 0 School St. and Berkshire Ln. (North of footbridge) 09 0 Klehm's Island (Northwest corner Main Street / Lincoln St.) 09 0 Maple Street Lot (Southeast corner East side of Maple St. from Prospect Avenue to Lincoln St.) 09 0 717 S. Louis St. - Bed area around Generator 09 0 Southwest Corner of Berkshire Lane and William St. - bed area around Generator 09 0 Between 203 and 205 E. Berkshire Ln. - Bed area around Generator by Creek 10 0 400 E. Lonquist Blvd. - NE Corner of School St. and Lonquist Blvd. includes area between William St. and Owen St.) 10 0 Emerson Street Bridge (at Weller Creek) 10 0 Main Street Footbridge (at Weller Creek) - Both sides North and South of Creek 10 0 North East Corner of Golf Road and South Elmhurst Rd continuing along sidewalk East to Country Lane 10 0 208 West Hiawatha Trl. (Village Lot) 11 0 Lonnquist Center Islands from S. Main St. to Busse Rd. 12 0 Fire Station # 12 - 1601 W. Gold Rd to include Vacant Lot to the east 16 1 Central Road (South side) From Busse Rd. to Prospect Avenue 16 1 Behind 315 We Go Trail - bed area around Generator 16 2 Elmhurst Avenue Center Islands from Lincoln St. to Prospect Avenue 16 2 Along Pine Street from Prospect Ave. to Alley on both sides 16 2 Parking Lot at 115 South Pine Street - along alley just east of Pine St. 16 2 Wille Street Parking Lot - West of Wille Street and North of 122 S. Wille St. 16 2 Along Wille Street from Evergreen to Prospect Avenue on both sides 16 2 Along W. Evergreen Ave. to include center Islands and sidewalk on both sides from Main St. to Elmhurst Ave. 16 2 Center Islands along Prospect Ave. from Main St. to Central Rd. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 173 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Mt. Prospect Greenspaces Managed by the Village Forestry Sub Facility /Address /Location Section Sec # 16 2 Sidewalk on the South Side of Prospect Avenue from Main St. to Central Rd. 16 2 RR ROW on Prospect Avenue from Main St. to Central Rd. 16 2 Center Island at Hi Lusi Ave. and Prospect Ave. S -Curve by Saint Raymond's Church - Both sides of Lincoln Ave. at S. 16 3 Elmhurst Rd. continuing along S. Elmhurst Rd. to Sha Bonee Trail - Not to include bed aing fenceline. 17 0 Center Island at Central Rd. and Lancaster St. 17 0 Well # 4 at 117 North Waverly PI. 17 0 Center Island at Central Rd. and Waverly PI. 17 0 Public Works Facility (1700 West Central Rd.) and Emergency Operations Center (1720 West Central Rd.) Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 174 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 4A -1. Percent of Trees by Size Class (diameter) in the Village's Forestry Sections Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 175 www.urbanforestryllc.com Size Class (dbh) Section 1 -6 7 -12 13 -18 19 -24 25 -30 31 -36 37+ 1 18.0 14.9 27.8 26.6 9.6 2.5 0.6 2 18.8 16.6 20.7 24.2 16.3 2.9 0.5 3 18.8 23.0 23.1 21.8 10.0 2.8 0.5 4.1 30.7 14.8 21.0 17.1 12.0 3.9 0.4 4.2 20.3 16.9 23.0 26.3 10.4 2.8 0.3 5.1 21.9 37.8 23.2 9.5 5.4 1.7 0.4 5.2 33.7 25.6 13.0 16.7 6.7 3.0 1.5 5.3 17.9 12.0 17.0 28.1 19.9 3.6 1.6 5.4 21.2 20.4 19.7 18.5 10.5 5.4 4.2 6 24.9 15.2 20.7 22.6 10.8 4.1 1.6 7.1 20.8 22.9 22.1 20.3 13.0 0.9 0.0 7.2 75.6 18.5 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.3 19.4 21.1 14.3 22.0 17.4 5.4 0.3 8 34.8 13.7 27.7 15.1 4.6 2.0 2.0 9 26.6 15.2 22.8 21.6 10.4 2.7 0.6 10 17.8 13.4 17.7 27.9 20.9 1.6 0.7 11 25.9 20.6 18.8 17.9 13.0 2.1 1.7 12 20.2 24.7 17.4 20.1 13.1 3.5 0.9 13 45.3 30.7 17.3 3.8 2.3 0.4 0.2 14 56.0 14.7 12.7 9.6 4.7 2.1 0.1 15.1 18.7 13.7 20.6 31.2 12.3 3.0 0.5 15.2 29.3 23.3 21.8 18.0 5.6 1.4 0.5 16.1 16.7 19.5 16.8 22.6 19.9 3.1 1.4 16.2 32.4 18.9 22.7 18.0 5.2 2.1 0.7 16.3 30.0 16.1 20.4 20.1 9.2 2.2 2.0 17 31.5 29.9 16.7 14.1 5.1 2.3 0.3 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 175 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 4B -1. 2012 Parkway Tree Species Distribution Botanical Name Common Name # of Trees % of Pop ABIES BALSAMEA BALSAM FIR 4 0.02% ACER CAMPESTRE HEDGE MAPLE 47 0.20% ACER GINNALA AMUR MAPLE 9 0.04% ACER GRISEUM PAPERBARK MAPLE 16 0.07% ACER MIYABE MIYABE MAPLE 181 0.76% ACER NEGUNDO BOXELDER 49 0.21% ACER NIGRUM BLACK MAPLE 72 0.30% ACER PALMATUM JAPANESE MAPLE 1 0.00% ACER PLATANOIDES NORWAY MAPLE 3,006 12.67% ACER PSUEDOPLATANUS SYCAMORE MAPLE 7 0.03% ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 724 3.05% ACER SACCHARINUM SILVER MAPLE 3,342 14.09% ACER SACCHARUM SUGAR MAPLE 414 1.75% ACER TRUNCATUM SHANTUNG MAPLE 46 0.19% ACER X FREEMANII FREEMAN MAPLE 307 1.29% AESCULUS GLABRA OHIO BUCKEYE 40 0.17% AESCULUS HIPPOCASTANUM HORSECHESTNUT COMMON 18 0.08% AESCULUS X CARNEA HORSECHESTNUT RED 1 0.00% ALNUS GLUTINOSA EUROPEAN BLACK ALDER 29 0.12% AMELANCHIER ARBOREA SERVICEBERRY 69 0.29% AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA APP SERVICE BERRY 24 0.10% BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 21 0.09% BETULA PAPYRIFERA PAPER BIRCH 10 0.04% BETULA PENDULA EUROPEAN WHITE BIRCH 12 0.05% CARPINUS BETULUS EUROPEAN HORNBEAM 29 0.12% CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 60 0.25% CASTANEA MOLLISSIMA CHINESE CHESTNUT 1 0.00% CATALPA SPECIOSA NORTHERN CATALPA 4 0.02% CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS HACKBERRY 704 2.97% CERCIDIPHYLLUM JAPONICUM KATSURATREE 18 0.08% CERCIS CANADENSIS REDBUD 4 0.02% CLADRASTIS LUTEA YELLOWWOOD 22 0.09% CORNUS FLORIDA FLOWERING DOGWOOD 1 0.00% CORNUS MAS CORNELIAN DOGWOOD 9 0.04% CORYLUS COLURNA TURKISH FILBERT 186 0.78% CRATAEGUS VIRIDIS GREEN HAWTHORN 1 0.00% CRATEAGUS CRUS -GALLI COCKSPUR HAWTHORN 110 0.46% ELAEGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA RUSSIAN OLIVE 3 0.01% FAGUS SYLVATICA EUROPEAN BEECH 1 0.00% FRAXINUS AMERICANA WHITE ASH 777 3.28% FRAXINUS EXCELSIOR EUROPEAN ASH 135 0.57% Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 176 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Botanical Name Common Name # of Trees % of Pop FRAXINUS MANDSHURICA MANCHURIAN ASH 6 0.03% FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA GREEN ASH 1,605 6.77% FRAXINUS QUADRANGULATA BLUE ASH 255 1.07% FRAXINUS TOMENTOSA PUMPKIN ASH 1 0.00% GINKGO BILOBA GINKGO BILOBA 408 1.72% GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS HONEYLOCUST 2,879 12.14% GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS KENTUCKY COFFETREE 128 0.54% ULMUS JAPON X WILSONIANA 'ACCOLADE' 'ACCOLADE' ELM 122 0.51% JUGLANS CINEREA BUTTERNUT 1 0.00% JUGLANS NIGRA BLACK WALNUT 17 0.07% JUGLANS REGIA ENGLISH WALNUT 3 0.01% JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS CHINESE JUNIPER 7 0.03 JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA EASTERN RED CEDAR 25 0.11% LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA SWEETGUM 7 0.03% LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA TULIPTREE 97 0.41% MACLURA POMIFERA OSAGE ORANGE 2 0.01% MAGNOLIA SOULANGIANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA 11 0.05% MALUS PUMILA APPLE 2 0.01% MALUS SPECIES CRABAPPLE 1,221 5.15% METASEQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES DAWN REDWOOD 80 0.34% MORUS ALBA WHITE MULBERRY 30 0.13% MORUS RUBRA RED MULBERRY 6 0.03% NYSSA SYLVATICA BLACK TUPELO 22 0.09% OSTRYA VIRGINIANA HOPHORNBEAM 66 0.28% PHELLODENDRON AMURENSE AMUR CORKTREE 35 0.15% PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 58 0.24% PICEA GLAUCA WHITE SPRUCE 16 0.07% PICEA PUNGENS COLORADO SPRUCE 173 0.73% PINUS BANKSIANA JACK PINE 2 0.01% PINUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN PINE 8 0.03% PINUS RESINOSA RED PINE 49 0.21% PINUS STROBUS EASTERN WHITE PINE 25 0.11% PINUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE 10 0.04% PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS SYCAMORE 29 0.12% PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANTREE 156 0.66% POPULUS ALBA WHITE POPLAR 7 0.03% POPULUS DELTOIDES COTTONWOOD 67 0.28% POPULUS NIGRA LOMBARDY POPLAR 1 0.00% POPULUS TREMULOIDES QUAKING ASPEN 1 0.00% PRUNUS AVIUM SWEET CHERRY 1 0.00% PRUNUS CERASIFERA PURPLE LEAF PLUM 1 0.00% PRUNUS DOMESTICA COMMON PLUM 1 0.00% PRUNUS PENSYLVANICA PIN CHERRY 1 0.00% Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 177 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Botanical Name Common Name # of Trees % of Pop PRUNUS SEROTINA BLACK CHERRY 10 0.04% PRUNUS SUBHIRTELLA FLOWERING CHERRY 1 0.00% PRUNUS VIRGINIANA COMMON CHOKECHERRY 7 0.03% PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR 15 0.06% PYRUS CALLERYANA CALLERY PEAR 571 2.41 PYRUS COMMUNIS PEAR COMMON 1 0.00% QUERCUS ACUTISSIMA SAWTOOTH OAK 19 0.08% QUERCUS ALBA WHITE OAK 72 0.30% QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 166 0.70% QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 1 0.00% QUERCUS ELLIPSOIDALIS HILLS OAK 18 0.08% QUERCUS IMBRICARIA SHINGLE OAK 87 0.37% QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 233 0.98% QUERCUS MUEHLENBERGII CHINKAPIN OAK 137 0.58% QUERCUS PALUSTRIS PIN OAK 62 0.26% QUERCUS ROBUR ENGLISH OAK 197 0.83% QUERCUS RUBA RED OAK 427 1.80% QUERCUS X SCHUETTII B/S WH OAK BUR /SWAMP WHITE OAK HYBRID 4 0.02% RHAMNUS CATHARTICA BUCKTHORN COMMON 48 0.20% ROBINIA PSEUDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 31 0.13% SALIX WEEPING WILLOW 2 0.01% SORBUS AUCUPARIA EUROPEAN MOUNTAINASH 1 0.00% SYRINGA PEKINENSIS PEKIN LILAC 47 0.20% SYRINGA RETICULATA JAPANESE TREE LILAC 440 1.85% TAXODIUM DISTICHUM BALD CYPRESS 35 0.15% TAXUS SPP. UPRIGHT YEW 4 0.02% THUJA OCCIDENTALIS WHITE CEDAR 14 0.06% TILIA AMERICANA AMERICAN LINDEN 655 2.76% TSUGACANADENSIS CANADIAN HEMLOCK 3 0.01% TILIA CORDATA LITTLELEAF LINDEN 1,216 5.13% TILIA TOMENTOSA SILVER LINDEN 378 1.59% ULMUS AMERICANA AMERICAN ELM 282 1.19% ULMUS CARP X PARVIFOL FRONTIE 'FRONTIER' ELM 9 0.04% ULMUS CARPINIFOLIA EUROPEAN ELM 16 0.07% ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID COMENDTN 'COMMENDATION' ELM 7 0.03% ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID DANDA CHA 'DANADA CHARM' ELM 2 0.01% ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID HOMESTEAD 'HOMESTEAD' ELM 24 0.10% ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID 'PATRIOT' 'PATRIOT' ELM 12 0.05% ULMUS COMPLEX HYBRID TRIUMPH 'TRIUMPH ELM 7 0.03% ULMUS PARVIFOLIA LACEBARK ELM 12 0.05% ULMUS PUMILA SIBERIAN ELM 294 1.24% ZELKOVA SERRATA JAPANESE ZELKOVA 1 0.00% Total 23,724 100.00% Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 178 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 4C -1. Percentage of Trees by Condition Rating by Forestry Section Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 179 www.urbanforestryllc.com Condition Rating Forestry Section 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 0.0 0.1 0.5 14.4 56.1 19.0 9.9 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.6 11.7 48.7 23.8 15.1 0.0 3 0.0 0.6 2.6 17.2 55.6 10.5 13.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 24.7 41.6 10.1 22.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.2 1.4 8.7 46.6 25.1 16.5 1.5 4.3 0.0 0.0 6.0 10.5 49.5 24.3 9.5 0.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 14.8 47.4 13.7 21.9 0.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 16.1 61.1 5.7 14.5 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.1 1.5 8.8 34.8 25.2 28.1 1.5 6 0.1 0.0 0.6 5.2 35.6 33.1 24.9 0.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 14.7 45.5 20.8 18.2 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.8 1.9 5.0 29.9 28.8 33.3 0.4 7.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 4.8 64.5 19.3 10.8 0.1 8 0.0 0.1 0.5 9.9 34.1 24.2 31.1 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.0 33.5 36.0 24.9 0.1 10 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.9 49.8 25.4 19.4 0.0 11 0.0 0.1 1.5 6.0 25.5 32.4 34.1 0.4 12 0.0 0.0 1.5 9.0 47.9 25.3 15.5 0.7 13 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.1 14.8 35.7 45.9 0.0 14 0.0 0.1 0.4 3.2 16.9 24.2 55.1 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 31.0 40.8 13.5 14.2 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.9 2.2 15.7 57.1 5.0 19.1 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 12.9 43.8 19.8 21.4 0.5 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 13.2 37.1 17.2 32.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 3.7 26.8 33.1 36.0 0.0 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 20.6 37.0 41.5 0.0 Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 179 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices Appendix Section 6 -1. Village of Mount Prospect Urban Forestry Goals, adopted in Village code in 2002. A. Maintain a Healthy Urban Forest: The urban forest of Mount Prospect is a dynamic ecosystem comprised of trees, soil, water, air, wildlife and humans. Proper stewardship of the ecosystem is the most efficient and economical method of ensuring a safe and relatively hazard free environment for the citizens of Mount Prospect. B. Promote Age and Species Diversity of the Tree Population: The long term health of Mount Prospect's urban forest depends on a proper distribution of young, middle aged and mature trees. Adequate stocking of variously aged trees ensures that as mature trees decline and are removed, younger trees are available to fill in the canopy. Species diversity is also important to guard against substantial losses to a species specific pest or disease, such as Dutch elm disease. C. Improve Species and Site Selection for New Tree Plantings: Increasing species diversity will only improve the urban forest if the species are matched with the site in which they are growing. Large trees provide the greatest benefits relative to energy conservation, air quality and stormwater retention, but require sufficient space to reach their full size at maturity. Large growing trees shall not be planted directly under existing power lines. Small trees can be used in a variety of places that are size restricted, however, if a space will accommodate a tree that achieves a larger size at maturity, the larger growing species should be considered. The proper tree should be located according to the conditions of the site with consideration given to increasing canopy closure, maximizing environmental benefits and achieving consistency in the landscape design. D. Establish Optimum Canopy Closure: Trees help to conserve energy by providing shade to buildings during the summer. Additional cooling can be realized by shading roads and parking lots that would otherwise absorb sunlight and radiate heat. Since Mount Prospect is located in a climate where considerably more energy is spent on heating than cooling, consideration must also be given to the effect of shade on heating costs in the winter. Careful consideration of the establishment of new trees will result in the optimum canopy closure relative to energy conservation. E. Resolution and Prevention of Tree / Hnrdscape Conflicts Through Coordinated Planning: Trees require space for roots, trunk, and branches. Frequently the space occupied by portions of trees is needed for other elements of the infrastructure such as roads, sewers, utility lines and buildings. Conflicts between trees and other infrastructure components can be minimized through cooperation of the various village departments, local utility companies and citizens. The Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 180 www.urbanforestryllc.com Appendices provisions of this article are intended to facilitate communication and cooperation between those individuals and agencies charged with maintaining Mount Prospect's infrastructure. F. Promote Public Education and Support: The primary reason to care for trees and natural resources in Mount Prospect is to improve the community for its citizens. The urban forest management program must be based on the informed support of the citizens. A goal of this article is to provide proper tree care through informed, professional management based on knowledge. Those village employees responsible for the management of natural resources in Mount Prospect are also responsible for sharing their knowledge and sources of information with the public. G. Facilitate The Resolution of Tree Related Conflicts: A goal of this article is to make available reasonable and fair guidelines for maintaining healthy, structurally sound and safe trees, and providing a comprehensive standards manual for planting, pruning and removing trees. By providing these guidelines in a clear and understandable format, equal and fair treatment is guaranteed for all residents. Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois 181 www.urbanforestryllc.com Christopher I Luley, Ph.D. Project Manager /Urban Forester I Urban Forestry LLC 6050 Hicks Rd. I Naples, NY 1 451 2 -9327 1 (585) 330 -1722 chris @urbanforestryllc.com Andrew Pleninger Vice President I Urban Forestry, LLC 2553 Creek Road I Palmyra, NY 14522 1 (585) 415 -8720 andy @urbanforestryllc.com u rba nfo re stryl I c. co m URDAN FORGSTRYLLC