HomeMy WebLinkAboutTree_Protection_Zones
Tree Protection Zone
During Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 490 – SENIOR SEMINAR
FALL 2023
ERIN NEWTON, HANNAH PAMPUCH, KONNER GOETSCH, DAMARI RAMIREZ
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3
Background ........................................................................................................................... 4
Recommended Action ............................................................................................................ 5
Stakeholder Identification ...................................................................................................... 7
Travis Derks – City Forester, Oshkosh ..............................................................................................7
Bradley Spanbauer – Director of Sustainability, UW Oshkosh ..........................................................7
Troy Heiman – Forestry Superintendent, West Allis, WI ...................................................................8
Dylan Wenker – City Arborist, Menasha, WI ....................................................................................8
Brandon Hellenbrand – City Forester, Sun Prairie, WI ......................................................................9
Sayer Larson – Parks Superintendent, McFarland, WI ......................................................................9
Mike Stanonik – City Forester, Appleton, WI ................................................................................. 10
Dan Traas – Owner, Ranger Services Inc. ....................................................................................... 10
Justin Gierach – Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer, City of Oshkosh ............................... 10
Dr. Elsbeth (Misty) McPhee – Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, UW Oshkosh ............. 10
Craig Pinkalla – Forestry Preservation Coordinator, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board ............. 11
Benchmarking ..................................................................................................................... 13
La Crosse, WI ................................................................................................................................ 13
Washington D.C. .......................................................................................................................... 14
Stevens Point, WI ......................................................................................................................... 14
McFarland, WI .............................................................................................................................. 14
Sun Prairie, WI ............................................................................................................................. 15
Minneapolis, MN.......................................................................................................................... 15
Costs ................................................................................................................................... 16
Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................................. 16
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Regular Forestry Grant ............................................................... 16
Inflation Reduction Act ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Barriers ............................................................................................................................... 18
Significance for Sustainability .............................................................................................. 19
Environment ................................................................................................................................ 19
Society ......................................................................................................................................... 20
2
Economy ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 23
References ........................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix B .......................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix C .......................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix D .......................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix E .......................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix F .......................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix G .......................................................................................................................... 40
3
Executive Summary
Currently, the City of Oshkosh does not provide any form of concrete guidelines for
protecting existing urban trees. This proposal aims at addressing this discrepancy to help the City
of Oshkosh meet their sustainability goals by proposing the implementation of a Tree Protection
Zone (TPZ) ordinance. Provided in this proposal are the viewpoints of various stakeholders we
have spoken to, including other cities’ forestry managers, a sustainability director, an arborist, an
engineer, and a conservation expert and resident.
In addition, provided are a few examples, both from within and outside Wisconsin, that
serve as guidelines for best practices regarding urban tree protection. La Crosse is a good
example of a city that prioritizes its urban forestry. Their efforts can be seen through initiatives
of having a comprehensive urban tree inventory, successfully removing and replacing all ash
trees to prevent the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer and providing many opportunities for
community members to get involved in urban forestry practices. Another example of excellent
urban forestry initiatives comes from Washington D.C. Here, the urban forest is an integral part
of the city’s design, boasting a tree canopy of 35%. This is made possible through their strict tree
protection regulations applied to both public and private property. Likewise, Stevens Point,
McFarland and Sun Prairie Wisconsin, and Minneapolis, Minnesota are all cities that have
implemented tree protection ordinances into their forestry management plans and can serve as
guides for TPZ policies in Oshkosh.
While the ordinance itself is void of costs, costs are accrued by the actual application of
TPZ barriers which will require construction fencing, steel posts, and signs. Funding for these
costs can be supplemented through grants and fines collected from non-compliers. In addition,
extra time and planning will be required from all individuals involved, including the forester, city
planners, and the construction companies to place barriers and conduct inspections. However,
overall, investment in the protection of existing trees increases their return on investment as the
benefits urban trees provide to the community increase as the trees mature. These include
increases in air quality, stormwater management, critical habitat for wildlife, reducing the urban
island effect, improved mental health and many more. These benefits make it crucial to protect
Oshkosh’s urban tree canopy with an institutionally recognized TPZ ordinance.
4
Background
The current standard for tree protection during construction in Oshkosh is based upon
“good faith” with the various companies and departments that are involved. Protecting trees is
necessary to ensure a healthy, diverse urban forest that will provide optimal benefits to the
community, including stormwater infiltration, carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat. The city
will face astonishing consequences if there is no action taken to protect the urban forest. Current
ordinances do not provide any requirement to retain trees during different types of construction,
including new development and street reconstruction, among others. This ordinance could also
help increase the city's canopy cover, which is currently at 9%, whereas the average canopy
cover in Wisconsin is just above 28%. Since Oshkosh is well below the state average, it is even
more important to establish a TPZ.
A healthy urban forest does not only provide economic and environmental benefits but
will also provide the community with many social benefits. There are numerous studies that
show the positive impact that urban green spaces have on an individual’s mental, physical,
emotional, and spiritual health. Retaining an urban forest would create a positive interaction with
nature and improve an individual’s overall well-being. If the economic and environmental
benefits were not sufficient, then the additional social benefits make it essential to protect the
urban tree population to better the community. A community will see tremendous benefits from
supporting a healthy and diverse urban forest.
5
Recommended Action
We recommend that the City of Oshkosh adopt a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) ordinance
that aims to ensure the protection of the existing urban tree canopy and tree roots during
construction and related activities. Currently, Oshkosh does not have any set standards or
guidelines outlining best practices for urban tree protection prior to, and during, development
project’s formation and simply operates on a “good faith” system. The creation of an ordinance
of this kind will help mitigate tree loss and tree damage.
A TPZ is an area that is blocked off where no construction or related activities can occur.
This includes storage of equipment, materials, excavation, and other activities. The picture below
from the North Carolina Urban Forest Council shows an example of a TPZ. The inner circle is
the dripline, which is where the tree canopy ends and prevents physical damage to the canopy
and trunk. The outer circle is the critical root zone, which is the area roots are expected to be
growing and prevents root and soil damage. The size of the TPZ is determined using a few
different equations which will be included in Appendix A.
Figure 1. Example of a TPZ
The lack of specified guidelines leaves urban trees susceptible to being abused and
uprooted without consideration of the impacts this will have on the overall health of the
community. Urban trees provide various ecosystem services that help mitigate costs associated
with increasing temperatures, rainfall, air pollution, and health issues. As a result, an ordinance,
like the one being proposed, will allow Oshkosh to be more prepared with the increasing
challenges posed by climate change through the protection of its existing urban tree canopy.
6
To achieve this, the goal is to create an ordinance that would require communication
between construction companies and the city forester prior to construction to ensure protection of
healthy and mature trees are not ignored in the planning process. Outlining who, when, and how
to contact the pertinent departments prior to construction allows for improved co llaboration
between agencies and city departments. This is important to set the stage for what the
expectations and standards are when working with and around public urban trees. The guidelines
should include tree specific guides to protect tree limbs, trunk, and roo t system. Each salvageable
tree, as determined by the city forester or a certified arborist, should have the appropriate
specifications of the TPZ calculated. They, the city forester or a certified arborist, may also
provide information on the specific tree’s root handling guidelines if there's a potential risk of
root damage. Having a certified tree arborist on construction sites is not part of our proposal, but
it is something that we strongly suggest.
Lastly, the ordinance should include a penalty clause to allow the city to collect a
monetary sum for improper handling of urban trees. For example, in any case of violation, the
Forestry department holds the right to place a fine for a violation that results in damages to a
public tree; the sum of the fine can be calculated in accordance with the value of the damaged
tree(s) and the ecosystem services they provided. In turn, the money acquired through this
method can be allocated to fund urban forestry maintenance or future projects (see Appendix G
for TPZ fine example clause).
Figure 2. Bank First- 1159 N Koeller St, Oshkosh. A group of mature trees cut down to build Bank First.
Maintaining the health of existing trees increases their return on investment. Overall,
research shows that economic benefits of street trees are typically correlated to tree variables like
trunk diameter and canopy surface area. Presented in the pictures above is an example of what
we consider a missed opportunity. The pictures show the construction site of Bank First on
Koeller St, here in Oshkosh. As you can see, several mature trees were cut down on the
construction site to make way for the building and extensive pavement for vehicle parking. With
a TPZ ordinance in place, situations like these can be avoided and a healthy urban forest can be
maintained.
7
Stakeholder Identification
Travis Derks – City Forester, Oshkosh
Travis Derks has been the Landscape Operations Manager and City Forester for the City
of Oshkosh since April of 2022. As such, he directs, manages, and supervises all aspects dealing
with public trees like planting, removal, pruning, and general maintenance. He is also entrust ed
with informing the public on forestry projects and providing educational material for tree care.
Travis has been taking charge of proper tree maintenance and follows a 5 -year pruning cycle. He
is also committed to diversifying the urban tree canopy in Oshkosh; so far, he has managed to
plant trees of 27 different species and 20 different genera. In addition, he is managing the spread
of the Emerald Ash Borer in Oshkosh by removing any trees infected beyond repair and treating
healthy Ash trees with a pesticide to protect them from infection.
Mainly, Travis identified that there is currently no true protection for public trees from
being harmed or removed during construction operations. He said that even though he does
encourage contractors to be mindful of tree locations when designing their plans and working
near trees, essentially relying on a “good faith” system, it leaves public trees vulnerable to be
negatively impacted. As a result, he believes that having a TPZ ordinance can help uplift the
chances to public tree safety which will contribute to the overall health of the urban forest.
Bradley Spanbauer – Director of Sustainability, UW Oshkosh
Bradley Spanbauer is the current Director of Sustainability at the University of
Wisconsin-Oshkosh as well as an active member of the City of Oshkosh Sustainability Advisory
Board member. When asked about the state of urban forestry here in Oshkosh, he had a lot to
say. Spanbauer stated that the city has many well-developed neighborhoods with healthy mature
trees, however, he noted multiple areas of possible improvement as well. He noted that tree
species diversity can always be improved, as this is important in creating a successful and
resilient urban forest which can serve as a habitat for birds and other native species. In addition,
Spanbauer urged the importance of emphasizing the implementation of native species as much as
possible as opposed to non-native species.
Bradley Spanbauer also believes that public education is a huge factor that also needs
improvement. He stated that often, citizens are not aware of the importance of various native tree
species, and the benefits they can provide the urban forest and the community overall as opposed
to these non-native alternatives. Education of the public as well as incentives for citizens
planting native terrace trees could be successful and beneficial to improving Oshkosh’s urban
forests. Spanbauer noted that the city of Oshkosh should investigate possibly obtaining native
species to plant for cheap rates, or possibly applying for grants to obtain funding for these trees.
He mentioned that there are many available grant options for urban forestry projects such as this,
including ones of the Wisconsin DNR for up to $25,000 per year. These grant opportunities are
discussed below.
Additionally, Spanbauer pointed out that the city of Oshkosh forestry website page
includes articles and data that is incredibly out of date, with the most recent being a Street Tree
and Urban Tree Canopy Report completed in 2012. This report is now, for the most part, not
relevant to the current state of Oshkosh’s urban forest. There are also links to Wisconsin urban
tree articles from 2007, which are also not relevant anymore. Spanbauer explained that a possible
urban tree inventory analysis would be a good place for the city to start in terms of gathering
accurate, up-to-date information that the public can have easy access to. Also, including sections
8
on their website which discuss the importance of native tree species would be beneficial. Lastly,
Spanbauer noted an area of concern for Oshkosh’s urban forest being tree protection during road
and sidewalk construction. He explained that terrace trees are often overlooked and are never
accounted for in the construction planning process. 200-year-old healthy and fully mature trees
are uprooted and removed. Spanbauer emphasized that this is unacceptable, and a policy or
ordinance to enforce tree protection during construction would be beneficial in this regard.
Troy Heiman – Forestry Superintendent, West Allis, WI
Relevant Ordinance is included in Appendix B.
Troy Heiman is the forestry superintendent in West Allis. West Allis is a suburb of
Milwaukee with a population of about 60,000 people. As the superintendent, Troy oversees the
arborists that maintain the 22,000 street trees that the city has. Troy was recently promoted to the
position when the former superintendent, Mike Rushmer, retired in September. Troy worked
closely with Mike throughout the years allowing him to learn about the best management
practices for urban forestry. Although Troy doesn’t have a direct relationship with the city of
Oshkosh, his expertise can still benefit the city.
One thing that Troy talked about was the importance of pruning, especially in areas with
construction. Pruning is done for safety reasons and to benefit trees directly by enhancing growth
and structure. If trees are not pruned in construction sites, there is a higher chance that
construction equipment will tear up the branches which can lead to harming the tree later in life.
Pruning trees will also help construction crews perform their jobs more efficiently. Another
factor in maintaining a healthy urban forest that Troy stressed was having a more diverse forest.
They did a study in 2020 to see how diverse their forest was. They found that they needed to
decrease some tree species and increase others. Overall, more diversity within their urban forest
will increase the health of it. Troy also talked about what West Allis is doing for protecting trees
during construction. He mentioned that it is important to plan before and during construction
projects to prevent damage or loss of trees. One policy that the city has that needs to be enforced
is the root protection zone. This zone is five feet on each side of the centerline of the tree. No
excavation can occur within this zone and construction equipment and materials cannot be
placed there.
Troy’s perspective is valuable to our project because he has the same goals that we are
pursuing in maintaining a healthy urban forest and preventing tree damage from construction.
The reason he emphasizes diversity is because of his familiarity with invas ive species. He has
seen Dutch elm disease destroy the elm population in the city as well as a decline in ash trees due
to the emerald ash borer. His perspective on urban forestry has also been influenced by his years
of experience working under the former forestry superintendent.
Dylan Wenker – City Arborist, Menasha, WI
Dylan Wenker is an expert stakeholder whose knowledge about the practice of urban
forestry could prove useful. Dylan is the City Arborist for Menasha. He also emphasizes the
importance of having a diversity of trees. Menasha tries to follow the Wisconsin DNR standard
of having no more than ten percent of the forest be one species. Th ere are multiple actions that
the city is doing to maintain a healthy urban forest. One action is a one-to-one replacement of
trees per every removal. Whenever they have to remove a tree, they replace it. The replacement
tree is carefully selected with increasing diversity in mind. There is currently not a pruning cycle
9
but there are hopes to start a four-cycle in the future. The emerald ash borer is also impacting
Menasha. To account for this invasive species, Dylan is treating the Ash tree population with a
chemical injection.
Another important facet of urban forestry that Dylan mentioned is community education
and outreach. Educating the public on the benefits of trees is important in keeping a positive
attitude towards urban forests. Dylan has had prior experience working in forestry in the City of
Madison. He has noticed a difference in people's mindsets towards trees between Madison and
Menasha which has influenced how people react to new plantings and other forestry related
work. This shows how important it is to understand what the local community thinks about how
urban forests are managed. It is also crucial to talk with council members and residents about
their concerns and ideas. Two ways that Menasha keeps their residents informed is through the
city website and Arbor Day events. They also use a GIS software called the Wisconsin
Community Tree Map to keep an inventory of their trees to help them make planting decisions
and inform residents on those decisions.
Currently, Menasha has one ordinance in place for tree protection. The ordinance
demands that there must be protective measures put into place with any excavation or
construction near public trees. No excavation can occur within a ten-foot radius of any public
tree without a permit from the City Forester. Dylan said that it is great to have ordinances, but
the best policies always start in planning and design. The best chance to protect a tree is durin g
the design phase of a construction project. This is why it is important for arborists to be in the
early design and planning meeting to talk with engineers and construction managers.
Brandon Hellenbrand – City Forester, Sun Prairie, WI
Brandon Hellenbrand is considered an expert stakeholder as he has been in the industry
nearly twenty years. He was recently appointed the City Forester of Sun Prairie in February of
2022, which was the beginning of a standalone Forestry Division for the city. Brandon’s focus is
managing and maintaining the public trees to receive optimal benefits from the urban forest. This
includes routine pruning and pest management. Since his arrival, he has initiated the
development of a Hybrid Urban Forestry Management Plan through a 2023 WI DNR Urban
Forestry Grant. It is still currently being created but will include long-term and short-term goals
for sustainability and management. His experience in the industry provides key insight to the
importance of urban forestry. Brandon was also delighted to share with me that Sun Prairie has
an ordinance pertaining to tree protection during construction. This was one of the first cities we
found across the state that had an ordinance related to this and provided a valuable baseline when
planning a recommendation.
Sayer Larson – Parks Superintendent, McFarland, WI
Sayer Larson is considered an expert stakeholder with experience in a wide variety of
topics before taking on the role as Parks Superintendent for the Village of McFarland. Sayer has
experience in landscaping and ecological restoration in both the public and private sectors giving
him a unique perspective in how to properly manage an urban forest. He says that the Village is
in the process of developing an Urban Forestry Management Plan, which is important for their
long-term management goals. Currently, Sayer and the other Village staff do perform pruning,
removals, and plantings, but a plan would create a routine in these actions. Additionally, they
have begun to use the standard 20-10-5 in their new plantings to diversify their urban forest to
10
better withstand diseases/pests. Sayer mentioned that there are a few ordinances that relate to tree
protection, but not necessarily one specific to construction.
Mike Stanonik – City Forester, Appleton, WI
Mike Stanonik is considered an expert stakeholder with twenty years of experience as an
arborist. He was appointed City Forester of Appleton in May 2023, and is still working to
understand the practices that were put forth by the previous forester. Appleto n’s current focus is
responding to emerald ash borer through treatment and removal. They also maintain a seven-year
pruning cycle. When asked about a construction ordinance, Mike saw the potential for one in the
future, but needed to first understand the current construction practices throughout the city. He
also said he collaborates with the city engineer to discuss street reconstruction plans prior to
them occurring.
Dan Traas – Owner, Ranger Services Inc.
Dan Traas is the owner of Ranger Services Inc., which has been in business for over
thirty years and is based out of Appleton. Dan is considered an expert and primary stakeholder
because he has extensive knowledge about the relationship between urban trees and construction,
and he works in the Fox Valley area. He agreed that trees are too quickly removed when they
could be saved during a construction process and shared with us the importance of retaining
urban trees. In his opinion, trees are as much of a city’s infrastructure as anything else and
should be treated like it because they can provide valuable benefits to the community. Dan
thought the first step to tree protection during construction was to require a qualified arborist on
the team for all reconstruction projects and establish that tree protection is desired. It is important
that trees are put into the initial projects plans to ensure that tree protection is as much of a
requirement as any other area in the project. He also recommended investigating Milwaukee’s
plan as it covers both reconstruction and new construction and is mostly based on street
reconstruction.
Justin Gierach – Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer, City of Oshkosh
Detailed email included in Appendix C.
Justin Gierach is a Professional Engineer with the City of Oshkosh. He saw the benefit to
maintaining as many large trees as possible because they provide more benefits than
young/newly planted trees. However, he had several concerns about the implementation of an
ordinance of this kind. One concern was the required maintenance of existing utilities that are
within the public right-of-way. This means that anything in the way of maintaining their utilities
area at risk of being removed or replaced. An additional concern was the difficulty to enforce the
avoidance of the critical root zone in all construction projects (public and private). In general, the
Department of Public Works would not support an ordinance of this kind because of these two
concerns stated. He did state that they look at each project individually and try to save as many
trees as possible within the construction limits.
Dr. Elsbeth (Misty) McPhee – Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, UW Oshkosh
Dr. Elsbeth McPhee is an associate professor of environmental studies and b iology at the
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and a resident of Oshkosh. Her specific research interests are
in endangered species, conservation biology, and animal behavior. Dr. McPhee’s expertise on
11
environmental conservation and her association with the city as an involved member of her
community makes her an important stakeholder. Changes in the urban tree canopy can
potentially impact her quality of life as well as her community’s.
When asked for her views on urban forestry, she stated that she believes that trees in
urban settings are essential for mitigating issues that are exacerbated by climate change, like
helping with stormwater runoff, carbon sequestration, reducing the urban heat island effect, and
addressing social justice issues. Being aware of the unequal tree distributions within
communities, she states how trees are especially important for people in underserved
neighborhoods. This is because these communities, who typically tend to be in areas where there
is a prevalence of health issues, stand to benefit the most from green projects.
Dr. McPhee’s main concern is tree removal and unreliable tree replacement efforts, so
she is a strong proponent of increasing the urban tree canopy within Oshkosh and protecting the
canopy that is already in place. Dr. McPhee draws on her expertise to reiterate the importance of
having and maintaining a healthy tree canopy in urban areas for the various ecosystem services
they provide.
Craig Pinkalla – Forestry Preservation Coordinator, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
Craig Pinkalla is the Forestry Preservation Coordinator for the Minneapolis Park &
Recreation Board (MPRB) in Minneapolis, MN. Looking through their various websites, it is
evident that much work and dedication has gone into the health of their urban forest. He was able
to provide some information on how their TPZ policies are helping Minneapolis meet their urban
tree canopy goals. Craig Pinkalla can be considered an expert stakeholder; he will not be
impacted by any changes regarding TPZ’s in Oshkosh, but his stake is attributed to his valuable
experience and expertise in dealing with TPZ regulations. As the Forestry Preservation
Coordinator, he has experience with what works and does not regarding tree protection. He
believes that requiring protection at an institutional level limit the impacts on tree root systems
and the health of trees during and after construct ion activities. It also creates an awareness over
time that trees are important, and that protection is just part of doing business . He further
elaborated that their tree protections specifications are intentionally not part of but referenced by
[their] policies to allow annual review and update of specifications without the involved process
of amending ordinance or revising policies. This has proven an effective way to adjust to
changes in industry technology or best management practice.
Also, as part of the MPRB, one of his responsibilities is to conduct tree inspections for
project plans, this cost is covered by the MPRB department. When thinking about Oshkosh,
perhaps it would be beneficial to consider collaborating with the parks department, a
collaboration can help lessen the workload brought on by having to conduct tree inspections on
construction sites. Other valuable information he provided was on various challenges faced with
such regulation. He said that initially they had no standard specifications for tree protection, so
there was not a standard to hold projects accountable to. However , now, their requirements are
part of the City of Minneapolis Standard Specifications and therefore are enforceable on all work
that touches the public way. And, even though compliance in practice continues to be an issue,
the procedural nature of the requirement allows for enforceable actions to correct, mitigate, or
assess for damage as appropriate. Having tree protection requirements clearly shown on plan sets
has reduced the frequency of non-compliance. There is, however, no substitute for inspection
during construction. The other primary challenge he talked about is thoughtful design ; just
because you circle a tree on a plan and call out tree protection , it doesn’t ensure that it is a tree
12
that can or should be protected. As a result, they are piloting a Tree Protection Priority Report
that describes each tree in the scope of work for large projects and assigns a Preservation Priority
to guide the design. A lot of the information he provided can be used to guide how we approach
presenting TPZ’s in Oshkosh. Craig Pinkalla provided good ideas on how to mitigate challenges
associated with tree protection, like allowing the regulation to be flexible to meet situational
challenges or having a prioritization analysis done to mitigate construction/tree conflict.
13
Benchmarking
La Crosse, WI
When looking within Wisconsin, the City of La Crosse is a great example of a
community that prioritizes their urban forest. The population of La Crosse totals 52,680 people
with a poverty rate of 22.1%. Their urban forests are resilient and successful, and this is due to
their constant commitment to improving their practices. The City of La Crosse has been named a
Tree City USA since 1989 because of their dedication to urban forestry. Tree City USA
recognizes green communities across America, and since their birth in 1976, they have
recognized 3,559 cities, invested $1,569,831,172 in urban forestry, and been responsible for the
planting of 1,002,569 trees. In order to receive the annual Tree City recognition, cities must
follow the four overarching standards which are: (1) maintaining a tree board or department, (2)
having a community tree ordinance, (3) spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry, and (4)
celebrate Arbor Day. The City of La Crosse has achieved all four of these standards for 34 years
straight, emphasizing and displaying their commitment to their urban forest.
La Crosse is home to over 20,000 urban trees with a tree canopy coverage of 16.6%,
compared to Oshkosh’s 9.2%. Their urban trees assist with controlling storm water run -off,
improving air quality, reducing utility prices, increasing property values through aesthetics, as
well as providing viable habitats for native wildlife. Recently, in the summer of 2021, the City of
La Crosse completed a tree inventory which accounted for every urban tree to help their forestry
department better manage their urban forest. To fund their various urban forestry projects, La
Crosse relies on various grants. For the past few years, they have received a grant from the
Wisconsin DNR in the amount of $25,000, as well as $25,000 grants from both the Community
Development Block Grant and the Paul E Stry Foundation.
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has been a threat to countless urban trees across the United
States, and La Crosse has does nothing short but be quick to address and irradicate the threat of
EAB in their city. The beetle first reached La Crosse in 2012. That same year, the city had
devised and published an EAB Management Plan Resolution which included irradicating the ash
tree population to stop the spread of the invasive insect. By 2020, all ash trees in the City of La
Crosse were successfully removed and replaced which now signifies the successful completion
of the EAB Management Plan. The way La Crosse handled the Emerald Ash Borer issue in their
community is a great example of their commitment to the resilience of their urban forests.
Involving community members in their urban forestry practices is also a priority of the
City of La Crosse. Citizens can add to the City’s urban forest by requesting the planting of
boulevard trees. They are given a list of approved tree species and locatio ns, and the city forester
goes through the requests that are submitted and completes them. In addition, citizens can get
involved through the “Beautify La Crosse” program. This program assists individuals,
businesses, clubs, and neighborhood groups in adop ting an area within a neighborhood and
completing different urban forestry projects. Project ideas include planting a micro prairie or
pollinator garden, establishing a rain garden, adopting a planet box at a local park, or planting
native plants in traffi c circles. This is a great example of a way to implement education of the
importance of diverse urban forests for the community.
Looking forward, La Crosse plans to prioritize urban tree inventory assessments to help
them further the development of their urban forests and obtain future funding through grants. La
Crosse is a prime Wisconsin example of a community committed to excellence of their urban
forests that Oshkosh could use as a benchmark to track their own progress.
14
Washington D.C.
One place that is known for its urban forests is Washington D.C. Urban forestry has been
a key part of the city since 1791, which was the year that the L’Enfant plan was drafted. This
plan was the urban plan for Washington which reserved space in the public right of way
specifically for trees, making forests an integral part of the design for the city. There are a total
of about 1.9 million trees throughout the city, but only about 175,000 of them are public street
trees which the urban forestry division manages. The district currently has an urban tree canopy
of 35% but has a goal to have 40% of the district covered with a healthy tree canopy by 2032.
This would put the city among the top-ranking cities in the country in terms of tree canopy cover.
To meet this goal, the urban forestry division prunes, plants, and removes thousands of trees each
year.
The district also has strict laws and regulations that work to protect trees. The Urban
Forest Preservation Act and Tree Canopy Protection Act save trees from any excavation or
construction activities. They regulate the removal and protection of mature tre es on private
property. Arborists often inspect construction sites to make sure laws are being followed. A
couple of tree protection measures that are used are fencing, signage, root protection matting,
and root pruning. Once construction has taken place, treatments including irrigation, organic
mulch, pest management, and soil amendments are used to combat any possible stressors. The
city also has a list of tree species that are intolerant to construction disturbance, so special
management is needed with these trees.
Washington D.C. also has a permit system for residents and contractors that want to
plant, prune, or remove a tree that is within the public right of way. The permit system ensures
that the city's trees are being carefully managed. A problem that many cities face today is the
invasion of exotic insects. To try and prevent the spread of these invasives, the district uses the
Early Detection Rapid Response Program provided by the US Forest Service. This program
attempts to detect exotic bark and beetles before they are fully established. According to the non-
profit organization, American Forests, the total value of Washington D. C’s urban forests is
estimated to be 3.6 billion dollars. This was calculated by measuring how many pollutants were
removed by trees, how much carbon was stored and sequestered, and how much building energy
was reduced. The functions of urban forests have a significant economic impact on the city.
Stevens Point, WI
Relevant ordinance and specifications include in Appendix D.
Stevens Point is an excellent example of a city that recognizes the importance of
protecting trees during various forms of construction. In addition to a chapter in their municipal
code dedicated to forestry and requirements, they have a separate document labeled “Forestry
Specifications for Construction on Public Lands.” Included in this is different tree protection
efforts that are necessary for underground and above groundwork. If these specifications are not
followed, there can be fines associated with it. Stevens Point’s ordinance provides Oshkosh with
many different starting points to adopt a similar ordinance.
McFarland, WI
Relevant ordinances included in Appendix E.
McFarland is a suburb of Madison that also resides on a lake and river like Oshkosh.
They are in the process of developing an urban forestry management plan, but already have
15
various ordinances in place that protect trees during excavation and development. They have
worked towards increased biodiversity within the city and hope to expand ordinances specific to
tree protection during construction in the future. McFarland has two distinct ordinances that
address two different areas of construction and is a valuable example for Oshkosh.
Sun Prairie, WI
Relevant ordinance included in Appendix F.
Sun Prairie is a suburb of Madison that has a relatively new standalone Forestry
Department that was established in February 2022. They are developing their first “Hybrid
Urban Forestry Management Plan,” however, they already have an ordinance pertaining t o tree
protection during construction. In Chapter 12, under “Prohibited Acts,” Section B highlights
what actions cannot be taken during excavations and construction to protect tree canopy and
roots. This ordinance is brief, but powerful for the future of trees as it gives the necessary
protection for them to mature. Sun Prairie provides a great example of what Oshkosh could also
implement.
Minneapolis, MN
Relevant ordinance included in Appendix G.
Minneapolis, Minnesota is a prime example of best practices implementation regarding
urban tree canopy. They pride themselves with a tree canopy of 29.8% (Trees & the Urban
Forest - Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, n.d.), compared to Oshkosh’s 9%. One of the
reasons Minneapolis is meeting their urban canopy goals is due to their extensive guidance on
how to maintain, protect, and manage the Minneapolis urban forest, which is laid out in the
Minneapolis Urban Forest Policy guidelines. The specific area of interest, relevant to this
proposal, are the policy sections pertaining to tree pr otection.
Section 5.6 of the Minneapolis Urban Forestry defines a TPZ as “an identified area where
activities are restricted surrounding existing trees within a construction zone with the primary
functions: (1) to avoid physical damage from contact by equipment, materials, and activities; and
(2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state.” In addition to
clearly defining the goal of the TPZ policy, they provide guides on proper coordination between
project developers, Forestry Preservation Coordinator (FPC), and the appropriate city staff prior
to construction to avoid damage to trees and their root systems. The Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board of Commissioners created the position of Forestry Preservation Coordinator
(FPC), their role is to make tree related recommendations regarding construction practices, utility
work, permitting, development review, and plan design for both Public Works and the MPRB.
Additionally, the FPC serves as field representatives to mitigate impacts to trees for any
construction and repair conflicts. Their extensive guidelines provide information on tree
protection for various scenarios involving land development processes, construction, conduit
boring, management, and any other project that has the potential of impacting existing trees. The
comprehensive nature of these TPZ policies increases Minneapolis’ chance of preserving long
established trees and aids them in advancing towards their goal of increased tree cano py cover
which makes them a good example of best practices.
16
Costs
The creation of an ordinance would pose minimal costs to the City of Oshkosh. In our
proposal, we are suggesting that street reconstruction projects implement tree protection and
retainment throughout the process. Specifically, we recommend mandating a Tree Protection
Zone (TPZ) during projects. Implementing an ordinance in this regard would require extra time
in the planning and design phase to ensure urban trees will be protected during construction.
Prior to any construction, the TPZ barrier would need to be in place and inspected to confirm it
was installed correctly. This would add an additional labor cost to install the barrier and to have a
qualified arborist perform the inspection.
Our project would require a barrier to block off the designated TPZ. To do this, fencing
would need to be purchased. We would recommend using orange construction fencing that
comes in 4ft x 100ft rolls, with prices ranging from $20-45 depending on where it is bought. We
would also need steel fence posts, which would be less than $20 per post. This fencing can be
reused from project to project until it is severely damaged. Another consideration would be
signage designating the tree protection area. These would cost around $10 each depending on
where they are bought from but can be reused long-term from site to site as they will face
minimal damage. The amount of fencing needed depends on the size of the tree, so the total price
per tree would vary. Although reusing the fencing, posts, and signs would be ideal, we recognize
that this may not be possible long-term practice. The only additional maintenance cost would be
for repurchasing materials when they are severely damaged, or more material is needed.
This ordinance would provide other financial benefits to the city too. Maintaining the
health of existing trees increases their return on investment. Overall, research shows that
economic benefits of street trees are typically correlated to tree variables like trunk diameter and
canopy surface area. In a study conducted by Mullaney et al., researchers found that on average,
a single tree can provide: an energy savings cost of $2.16 to $64, reduced stormwater runoff
costs by $2.78 to $47.85, and mitigate air pollution with a savings ranging from $1.52 to $34.50
(2015). Another study found that carbon sequestration benefits range between $0.34 to $13.38
and urban trees can increase property values anywhere between $7 to $165 (X.P. Song et al.). To
reiterate, the benefits of trees are linked to the size and height of the tree, meaning that benefits
are maximized from mature trees as opposed to relying on new tree plantings. This calls for the
prioritization of protecting established trees through implementing a TPZ.
Funding Opportunities
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Regular Forestry Grant
There are a variety of grant opportunities available to use for urban forestry projects at
the city level. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources offers the Regular Forestry
Grant. This grant is a cost-share grant which ranges from $1,000 all the way up to $25,000. The
Wisconsin DNR describes the intended use of this grant as being “to support new, innovative
projects that will develop sustainable urban and community forestry programs, not to subsidize
routine forestry activities” (WDNR). These grants are of the 50-50 match type, meaning the
project sponsor would initially fund the project in full. Following, the project sponsor would
apply for the grant to be reimbursed for 50% of the project cost, meaning that the project sponsor
would be responsible for covering half. Applications for this grant are open and will be accepted
between June 30th and October 2nd of the year before they are given out. Eligible projects
should relate to community tree management, maintenance, or education within Wisconsin cities.
17
The Wisconsin DNR lists possible eligible project topics as tree inventory or canopy
assessments, public outreach, and tree ordinance development and revision.
Inflation Reduction Act
Another source which allocates funding for urban and community forestry grants yearly
is the United States Forest Service under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They feel that
healthy urban forests are unimaginably valuable to their communities. In an interview, Assistant
Director for Urban and Community Forestry, Beattra Wilson, stated, “Urban trees are the hardest
working trees in America. Having more trees and more access to green space is critical for our
communities”. Thanks to the inflation reduction act, $1.5 billion was invested to increase urban
tree cover across the nation. The U.S. Forestry Service is responsible for dividing and allocating
these funds in the form of grants. For Wisconsin specifically, they have allocated $13.5 million
dollars to the award. At the time of this research, there are minimal funds available for urban
forestry projects. As a result, the City of Oshkosh could greatly benefit from the use of these
grants in terms of advancing their own urban forestry practices.
18
Barriers
One possible barrier to this proposal is public perception. If the residents of Oshkosh
aren’t aware of the benefits that trees in urban areas bring, then people might not care to protect
them. To overcome this barrier, public education and outreach is necessary so that citizens are
more informed. Informed citizens would more likely than not want to protect trees and could
help in making sure that potential ordinances or policies are enforced.
Another impediment to this project could come from the construction companies
themselves. The main cost of protecting trees during construction would be paid for by these
companies, so there could be conflict here. These companies might not want to pay the extra cost
of buying the necessary barriers. Protecting trees will also be another piece to add in the planning
phase. Construction projects may be prolonged when having to deal with public trees and
figuring out how to protect them. There is also the problem of enforcing the ordinance.
Construction crews could ignore it and just do business as usual. If this project is to work, these
barriers need to be addressed. This project can work if the community and construction
companies are educated, and the ordinance is enforced.
A third barrier is faced in the support from the City’s Engineering Division and Public
Works Department. One concern they have is the enforcement of the ordinance. They also worry
that the ordinance would be hard to follow when maintenance on existing utilities needs to be
done. These should be heard and would require the collaboration of the Sustainability Advisory
Board and the DPW to reach a solution to the concerns. Appendix B includes the detailed email
regarding concerns of the implementation of this ordinance.
19
Significance for Sustainability
There are many ben efits that come with maintaining a healthy urban forest. These
benefits can contribute to the sustainability goals of the city of Oshkosh and can offset other
problems that the city faces. Maintaining a healthy urban forest by protecting trees during
construction has environmental, social, and economic implications.
Environment
One environmental impact that urban forests have is the ability to remove carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere. This is known as carbon sequestration. Cities are the areas that produce the
most carbon emissions, so maintaining the health of mature trees could prove valuable in
lessening carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which will also aid in mitigating climate change.
According to Nowak and Crane, urban forests in the United States currently store 700 million
metric tons of carbon with the opportunity to store much more (2002). They also mention that
the southeast, north central, northeast, and Pacific northwest regions have the greatest capacity
for carbon storage. Oshkosh, belonging to the north central region in this study, should try to
maximize the amount of carbon that can be captured. Another study showed that trees located
closer to larger bodies of water have higher contribution rates than trees that are away from water
(Zheng et al., 2013). Oshkosh is located between Lake Butte des Morts and Lake Winnebago
with the Fox River running right through the middle of the city. According to the studies listed
above, Oshkosh is a city that can make a significant impact in lessening the amount of carbon in
the atmosphere by keeping a healthy urban forest.
Another environmental benefit that urban forestry brings is a reduction in air pollution.
As cities become more populated, more and more pollutants are released. Trees remove
pollutants from the atmosphere just as well as they remove carbon dioxide. Douglas, Irga, and
Torpy did a study to see how well trees do at removing pollutants using variables such as land
cover use, traffic density and industrial air pollutant emissions. They found that air pollutants
were negatively correlated with tree canopy cover and positively correlated with population
density (2019). There is a statistically significant relationship between urban forestry and a
reduction in air pollution. An important factor to consider is the pattern of green space when
trying to reduce air pollutants. The spatial patterns of green space have implications for not only
air pollution but also life satisfaction. Wu and Chen showed that the fragmentation of green
space is negatively associated with air pollution (2023). In other words, more divided green
space will lead to less air pollution. This is contrary to the pattern of green space needed to
enhance life satisfaction. Densely distributed small green spaces is related to higher life
satisfaction (Wu & Chen, 2023). This piece of information is important for policymakers to keep
in mind when protecting trees during construction and when thinking about the areas that urban
forestry needs to be prioritized. Air pollution removal positively affects human health. According
to Tan, damage to city forests can lead to excess deaths up to 1.8% (2022). A decline in tree
numbers has led to an increase in air pollutants which has also increased cardiovascular and
respiratory disease. Even if air quality improvements are low, human health can still be heavily
impacted.
Additionally, urban trees can provide valuable habitat for various organisms and provide
a crucial role in urban biodiversity. Although many organisms designate urban trees as their
home, birds are one of the most common animals to utilize trees every day. Trees give birds
necessary shelter, food, and breeding locations. With Oshkosh located along the Fox River and
Lake Winnebago, it is an important stop on migration routes for many birds and urban trees can
20
give these birds somewhere to rest and feed before they continue their journey north or south.
Non-migratory birds can also use these same resources that trees provide. Communities with
urban trees will see a much higher percentage of birds than those without. Trees can provide
habitat for other organisms as well, like insects and squirrels. As urbanization increases, these
organisms will lose their familiar habitats and will have to learn to adjust, but protecting urban
trees can give them necessary habitat to survive.
Lastly, urban forests can play a vital role in the biodiversity crisis. Biodiversity is the
species richness and abundance of a given area. In many cities, there is very little biodiversity in
trees which can make them more susceptible to pests and less resilient. For an urban forest to be
resilient, it needs to have a variety of species planted so one is not more prominent than others. If
one species is to face a pest or disease disturbance and are forced to be removed, there will still
be other trees left in the urban space for habitat. Biodiverse urban forests can also host numerous
organisms that may rely on specific species or specific tree sizes. Mature trees can have more
benefits for bigger organisms where smaller trees can help smaller organisms. It is essential that
there is variety in species and size of trees to be a resilient urban forest.
Society
Urban forests and green spaces can provide immense social benefits to their communities
and Oshkosh is no exception to this. These green spaces serve as a prominent tool to increase
human quality of life in urban settings. Individual benefits received by urban green spaces
include those to mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Culturally, urban green spaces
provide a place for social engagement and for connections which can lead to long term
relationships. In an urban setting, people often overlook and underestimate their relationship with
nature. Lisa de Kleyn and her colleagues state in their article, “From green spaces to vital places:
connections and expression in urban greening that allow people develop relationships with nature
through their understanding of their place in nature, values, current and past interactions, and
associated cultural understandings and social relationships which influence behavior” (2020).
Groups of people that use urban green spaces on a regular basis to build strong social
connections often tend to also value themselves in relation to nature. De Kleyn and her
colleagues describe that there is a concrete feedback loop between urban green spaces and their
qualities, human practices, and human response. The opportunity of cashing in the social benefits
that urban green spaces have to offer is determined by how humans interact with them. This
connects to the idea that urban green spaces must be successfully planned and implemented in
ways that optimize these opportunities for all groups of people.
Ultimately, health deficits of the community are a social issue. Things that can improve
the overall health of the community, both mentally and physically, should be a priority to
communities. Urban forests have been shown to have immense positive effects on community
health. A.C.K. Lee discusses these benefits in his academic article “The health benefits of urban
green spaces: a review of the evidence”. Between 2000 and 2050, the percentage of the global
population that will live in an urban setting is expected to rise from 46.6% to 69.6% which
increases the urgency of developing resilient urban forests. Urban forests and green spaces
provide opportunities for urban populations to engage in outdoor physical activity on a regular
basis in places that they otherwise would not have. Benefits from outdoor physical activity
includes reduced of risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, various types of cancer, and so on.
Additionally, mental health benefits provided from urban forests are abundant. Spending
21
valuable and routine time in nature can decrease the risk of depression, anxiety, and overall
confidence and mental well-being.
Economy
The monetization of ecosystem services has become a way to put a price value on natural
systems so that ‘saving’ them, and promoting them, does not feel as burdensome. With the
undeniable evidence of climate change, both the frequency and intensity of weat her events is
increasing. There is no escaping climate change, but there are things communities can do to
increase their resiliency to better withstand these coming changes. One way to increase resilience
in urban communities is by increasing their green infrastructure and protecting the existing
vegetation within the highly impervious urban environment.
Urban areas experience a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect . This is
when cities replace natural vegetated surfaces with dense concentrations of pavement, buildings,
and other surfaces that absorb and retain heat. These alterations to the vegetated environment led
to increases in energy use and higher air pollution levels. Protecting existing trees can be an
effective way to reduce energy demand through cooling and warming effects (Ko, 2013). Urban
trees help moderate the urban heat island effect by reducing the temperature of the air and
ground surfaces, thus, reducing the need for air conditioning. Likewise, in the winter, urban trees
serve as protection against cold winds to buildings which help lower heating costs. A study
conducted in Toronto, Ontario, found that residents benefited by a savings of up to 20% in
heating costs (Ko, 2018). However, improper tree species selection, location, and lack of
consideration of the regional climate can lead to creating a “heat penalty” effect. Nevertheless, it
was found that energy savings averaged at $2.16 to $64 per tree per year (Mullaney et al., 2014).
Research shows that economic benefits of street trees are typically correlated to tree variables
like trunk diameter and canopy surface area, making the protection of exis ting trees important for
obtaining the most effective form for mitigating energy costs.
Similarly, urban trees aid in the management of stormwater. Stormwater management is
an urgent 21st century urban challenge. Street trees can lower stormwater runoff by intercepting
large volumes of water over impervious surfaces which can reduce downstream pollution levels,
reduce costs for stormwater drainage infrastructure, and minimize the need for costly stormwater
treatment systems. Urbanization often comes at a cost to green spaces; the expansion of
impermeable surfaces leads to an increase in soil erosion. Soil erosion causes disruptions to the
surrounding watersheds by altering drainage patterns, water quality, and altering ecosystems. It
is important to recognize and appreciate the ecosystem service urban trees provide by the
reduction in stormwater runoff. It is estimated that a single urban tree can reduce stormwater
runoff by 3.2 kL (1kiloliter= 1,000 liters) to 11.3kL; the assigned financial annual value varies
from $2.78 to $47.85 per tree (Mullaney et al., 2014). Additionally, urban trees can also mitigate
air pollution, with an economic savings ranging from $1.52 to $34.50, and sequester carbon
which has cost savings range of $0.34 to $13.38 per tree (X .P. Song et al.). Again, it is important
to understand that the most benefits are derived from well-established trees which tend to have a
larger canopy and extensive root system. Both canopy and root dimensions, in regard to
stormwater mitigation, are important to gain the most benefits.
Additional economic benefits associated with urban trees are that they can increase
property value. Mullaney et al. found that trees influence choice of residence, and that home
values are higher in areas that have a 20-30% tree cover, next to, or near the property. They also
found that income for businesses can increase up to 20%. This is due to consumer perceptions of
22
a more positive atmosphere, increased comfort level, and the experience of a more favorable
environment when shopping when there is a decent tree canopy.
In contrast, there are several areas of concern for planners and residents regarding urban
forestry. Some concerns are potential damage to urban facilities, pavement, and plumbing from
tree roots. Tree roots pose a hazard for pedestrians that have trouble walking and end up tripping
on roots and getting hurt. As you can imagine, repair costs, litigation costs, and maintenance
costs can end up cutting into city budgets. Another area of concern regards resident perception
and preferences. Some residents, particularly in lower income neighborhoods, are cautious of
supporting green infrastructure projects because they often overlook how the increases to
property values impact rent prices, which can lead to the displacement of already marginalized
communities (Salm et al., 2023); a process known as green gentrification. Limited awareness of
possible issues and consequences of urban forestry can raise program costs. Many of these
unintended and unplanned consequences for costs can be prevented, or mitigated, through
preventative measures which include but are not limited to: public education, knowledge has the
potential to shape attitudes and intention; and prior research, figure out what areas can most
benefit from the project and tailor education and communication campaigns to best suit all
stakeholders (Jim et al., 2021). In general, proper planning, management, and maintenance of the
urban forest can help prevent unnecessary costs.
Given these points, maintaining the health of existing trees increases their return on
investment. Research shows that economic benefits of street trees are typically correlated to tree
variables like trunk diameter and canopy surface area. Overall, if all preventative measures are
taken, it is estimated that on average, the net monetary benefit is $50 per tree per year . To
reiterate, the benefits of trees are linked to the trunk size, root diameter, and height of the tree.
This means that the maximum benefits are derived from mature trees; as a result, this calls for
the prioritization of protecting established trees through the implementation of a TPZ.
23
Conclusion
Maintaining a healthy urban forest provides many benefits. These include environmental
benefits such as carbon sequestration and protecting wildlife habitat, social benefits like
increased like satisfaction and mental health, and economic benefits like a reduction in energy
usage by municipal and residential buildings. These benefits will be enhanced if mature trees are
thought of during the planning phase of construction projects and are protected from injury or
removal from construction. Cities across the country and even right here in Wis consin value their
city trees over new infrastructural developments so that they can keep their trees in good
condition. Looking into what these cities are doing is important so that Oshkosh can compare
their practices to cities that have prominent urban forests. There are some barriers that may
interfere with this proposal. The citizens of Oshkosh and construction companies might not be in
favor of or follow the proposed ordinance. The most important action that can be taken to
prevent these barriers is to educate the community about the significance of urban forests. The
proposed ordinance has the potential to further advance the City of Oshkosh’s sustainability
goals.
24
References
Alvey, A. A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening, 5(4), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003
Douglas, A., Irga, P., & Torpy, F. “Determining broad scale associations between air pollutants
and urban forestry: A novel multifaceted methodological approach.” Environmental
Pollution, vol. 247, 2019, pp. 474-481.
Jim, C. Y., Zhang, H., Hui, L. C., & Parker, J. (2021). Agreement levels of London tree officers
towards the benefits and costs of urban forests. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 65,
127356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127356
Ko, Y. (2013). Urban Form and Residential Energy Use. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(4),
327–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412213491499
Ko, Y. (2018). Trees and vegetation for residential energy conservation: A critical review for
evidence-based urban greening in North America. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,
34, 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.021
Mullaney, J., Lucke, T., & Trueman, S. J. (2015). A review of benefits and challenges in
growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134,
157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.013
Nowak, D., & Crane, D. “Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA.”
Environmental Pollution, vol. 116, no. 3, 2002, pp. 381-389.
Ordóñez, C., & Duinker, P. N. (2012). Ecological integrity in urban forests. Urban Ecosystems,
15(4), 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0235-6
Rogers, E. C., Ries, P. D., & Buckler, D. C. (2023). Examining species diversity and urban forest
resilience in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA) metropolitan area. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry, 49(5), 230–246. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2023.017
Salm, J. A. P., Bočkarjova, M., Botzen, W. J. W., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2023). Citizens’
preferences and valuation of urban nature: Insights from two choice experiments.
Ecological Economics, 208, 107797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107797
Song, X. P., Tan, P. Y., Edwards, P., & Richards, D. (2018). The economic benefits and costs of
trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 29, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017
Tan, B. “Save a tree and save a life: Estimating the health benefits of urban forests.”
Environmental & Resource Economics, vol. 82, no. 3, 2022, pp. 657-680.
The Minneapolis Urban Forest Policy. (n.d.). Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board.
https://www.minneapolisparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Urban-Forest-Policy.pdf
25
Tree protection during construction. North Carolina Urban Forest Council. (n.d.).
https://www.ncufc.org/tree-protection-during-construction.php
Wood, E. M., & Esaian, S. (2020). The importance of street trees to urban avifauna. Ecological
Applications, 30(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2149
Wu, L., & Chen, C. “Does pattern matter? Exploring the pathways and effects of urban green
space on promoting life satisfaction through reducing air pollution.” Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, vol. 82, 2023, pp. 127890.
Zheng, D., Ducey, M., Heath, L. “Assessing net carbon sequestration on urban and community
forests of northern New England, USA.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 12, no.
1, 2013, pp. 61-68.
26
Appendix A
Various Equations for TPZ Specifications
Below details the various equations that can be used for TPZ and Critical Root Zone (CRZ)
calculations.
North Carolina Urban Forest Council:
There are two ways of finding the size of a CRZ:
1. A legal CRZ area is determined by using a formula based on a tree’s trunk diameter, as
defined in municipal codes. Most municipalities define a legal CRZ as a circle with a 1,
1.25- or 1.5-foot radius for each inch diameter of the trunk.
o To find the size of the CRZ circle when the ratio is 1:1.5, measure the trunk 4.5
feet above the ground, called diameter at breast height (DBH). Then measure
outwards from the trunk 1.5 feet for every inch DBH. This will give you the legal
CRZ. For example, if the legal CRZ is 1.5 foot for every 1 inch DBH, a 20-inch
diameter tree would require a 30-foot radius circle of protection around the tree to
meet the legal CRZ standard. Generally, municipalities require that the legal CRZ
have a minimum of a 6-foot radius regardless of tree diameter, although this
varies from place to place.
2. A biological CRZ area is determined by an arborist through analyzing tree characteristics,
site factors, and anticipated construction impacts. In other words, the biological CRZ is
defined as the area needed to preserve the roots necessary for the tree to survive
construction. For most trees growing in an open setting, the biological CRZ spans from
the trunk to the edge of the canopy, or the “dripline.” For older trees, sensitive species, or
trees growing in poor sites, the biological CRZ many actually be much larger than the
dripline. Conversely, younger trees, resilient species, or trees on good sites may have a
biological CRZ smaller than their driplines.
For trees growing in a forest setting or with small crown sizes relative to their trunk size, the
dripline may not capture all the roots needed for survival. In this case, the size of the
biological CRZ may be found by using a DBH ratio calculation similar to what is done for
the legal CRZ. An arborist can help determine what the ratio should be by evaluating tree
factors (such as size, age, condition, and species sensitivity) and site characteristics (such as
soil quality, water availability, and exposure).
For young, healthy trees growing in good sites, the ratio could be as small as 1:2. So a 10 -
inch DBH sweetgum would need a circle with a 20-foot radius. For older, sensitive trees
growing on poor sites, the ratio could be 1:4 or more. At a 1:4 ratio, a 24-inch DBH white
oak would need a 96-foot radius circle of protection.
While both the legal and biological CRZ varies from place to place and tree to tree, it is essential
that we make the effort to preserve as many roots as possible. Trees provide many services to
your site, and smart investment in protection pays dividends in results. We recommend creating a
tree protection plan prior to any construction project, which identifies protection areas for trees
remaining on site.
27
Tree Protection Guidelines:
Portland, Oregon Specifications
• 1 foot per inch of DBH (diameter at breast height)
West Allis Specifications
Sun Prairie Specifications
• 10 ft radius around tree
28
Appendix B
West Allis Tree Protection Practices
4. 2.2.4 BORROW EXCAVATION.
Borrow excavation shall consist of furnishing, placing, and compacting approved soil behind the curb in
areas where sod is to be installed and other areas as needed prior to placing topsoil and sod.
5. 2.2.5 TREES.
1. (a) CLEARING AND GRUBBING.
The Contractor shall clear the ground, remove and dispose of designated trees, as well as stumps,
roots, rubbish or other refuse found within the limits of the work. The price bid for grading shall
include the removal of trees and stumps smaller than four (4) inches in diameter.
Separate payment will be made for clearing and grubbing trees and stumps four (4) inches in
diameter and larger.
Stumps and roots shall be ground by an approved mechanical grinding machine to a depth of
eighteen (18) inches below the proposed ground elevation. Other methods of grubbing may be
used only with the approval of the Engineer.
All grubbing holes shall be cleaned of chips and grindings and filled with approved compacted
fill. The top three (3) inches shall be topsoil.
2. (b) ROOT SAWING.
This item of work shall consist of sawing the roots two (2) inches behind the back of the proposed
curb, approximately ten (10) feet either side of each tree, and to a depth of eighteen (18) inches, as
directed by the Engineer and as shown below. This may require the concrete curb and gutter to be
constructed by steel or wood forms, i.e. "hand" methods, at some tree locations if conventional
slip form machinery cannot be used. The cost of this additional work shall be included in the
contract unit price bid per lineal foot of "31" Concrete Curb & Gutter." All street lighting cable
will be de-energized and replaced after new curb installation.
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect trees at the work site. An approved
mechanical root cutter shall be used to saw the tree roots which interfere with the proposed curb
and gutter construction, except in those situations where hand implement usage is adequate.
29
When tree roots are sawed, the following provisions shall apply:
ROOTS SHALL BE SAWED ON ONLY ONE SIDE OF A TREE.
The root system shall not be sawed deeper than eighteen (18) inches below the proposed elevation of the new curb
and not more than two (2) inches from the back of the proposed curb.
Caution shall be used during root sawing operations, so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the tree or its root
system.
All debris from the root sawing operation shall be used to fill root sawing trenches before the end of the workday.
Root foundations for all trees must remain adequate to withstand heavy windstorms.
All exposed and severed tree roots shall be immediately covered with a mulch and watered to prevent drying until
such time that the concrete work is complete, the form removed and the area between the tree and concrete work
backfilled with approved topsoil. The time duration for completion of the backfilling operations shall not exceed
five (5) days from the time the concrete was placed.
"Root Sawing" shall be measured and paid for at the unit price bid per lineal foot of actual root sawing at each tree
location.
(c) TREE PROTECTION.
Effective planning before and during an excavation or construction project can often prevent damage to or loss of
trees. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect trees at the work site. Where a contractor
perceives, that even with reasonable care, damage may occur during construction, the Forestry Division shall be
contacted at (414) 302-8811 to request a preconstruction meeting on site.
(1) ROOT PROTECTION ZONE.
Root foundations must remain adequate to withstand heavy windstorms.
To protect the immediate portion of the tree roots, a Root Protection Zone will be
maintained. This Zone area is five feet (5’) on each side of the centerline of the tree
trunk parallel with the street and from the backside of the curb to the backside of the walk. No construction
equipment or materials, sand, soil, gravel, block or pipe shall be placed, parked or stored within this area. No
chemicals, rinsates or petroleum products shall be deposited within this area. (See Figure 14.)
All cutting for the removal of sod and soil in order to establish a finished grade within this Zone must be done
manually.
No excavation shall occur within this Zone.
Tree roots interfering with the work shall be completely severed with a clean sharp tool; i.e., axe, pulaski, chain saw,
etc., and removed with an approved machine or other approved methods. An approved mechanical root cutter shall
be used to saw the roots which interfere with the proposed sidewalk construction, except in those situations where
hand implement usage is specified.
When tree roots are cut, the following provisions shall apply:
30
[a] CONCRETE WALK. The root system on the walk side of the tree shall not be cut by means of mechanical root
cutting machines. If root removal is essential to concrete walk replacement, interfering roots shall be manually cut
with hand implements.
Roots below the proposed walk shall be removed only to a depth of nine (9) inches below the proposed elevation of
the new five-inch (5") concrete walk.
When replacement walk is two feet (2’) or less from the surface of a City tree trunk, the walk will be narrowed one
foot (1’). All old walk should be removed prior to any root cutting in narrowed area. If the root system is to be cut,
the cut must be within two inches (2”) of the edge of the proposed new walk and not more than nine inches (9”)
below the proposed elevation of the new walk. (See Figure 14.)
2. [b] CARRIAGE WALK. The edge of the new walk closest to a City tree shall be at least six feet (6') from
the centerline of the tree. (See Figure 14.) All old walk should be removed prior to any root cutting. Roots
shall not be cut by means of mechanical root cutting machines. If root removal is essential to carriage walk
replacement, interfering roots shall be manually cut with hand implements. If the root system is to be cut,
the cut must be within two inches (2”) of the edge of the proposed new walk and not more than nine inches
(9”) below the proposed elevation of the new walk. (See Figure 14.)
3. [c] DRIVEWAYS. All old concrete should be removed prior to any root cutting. Roots shall not be cut by
means of mechanical root cutting machines. If root removal is essential to driveway replacement,
interfering roots shall be manually cut with hand implements. If the root system is to be cut, the cut must be
within two inches (2”) of the edge of the proposed new concrete and not more than nine inches (9”) below
the proposed elevation of the new concrete. (See Figure 14.)
Caution shall be used during root cutting operations, so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the tree or its root
system.
All debris from the root sawing operations shall be removed from the sidewalk area and root sawing trenches must
be filled with approved topsoil before the end of the workday.
Root foundations for all trees must remain adequate to withstand heavy windstorms.
All exposed and severed tree roots shall be immediately covered with a mulch and watered to prevent drying until
such time that the concrete work is complete, the form removed and the area between the tree and concrete work
backfilled with approved topsoil. The time duration for completion of the backfilling operations shall not exceed
twenty-four (24) hours from the time the concrete was placed.
(2) CREDITS AND CHARGES FOR DAMAGE.
Damage to trees caused by construction work ranges both above and below ground. Root systems can suffer both
mechanical and chemical damage. Tree trunks and crowns are subject to various degrees of mechanical damage.
Through their short-term and long-term effects on tree health, these types of damage can be quite serious.
The most serious construction damage to a tree is usually done to the unseen portion of that tree. Overlooked and
misunderstood, tree roots often suffer extensive, if unintended, injury and loss as a result of construction work
happening around them.
Mechanical destruction of roots or chemical contamination of soil in the root zone is the main cause of construction
damage below ground.
The soil at a construction site can suffer compaction damage by general construction , traffic, operation of heavy
equipment and by the storage of construction materials. Compaction of the soil changes soil structure and increases
bulk density. This leads to either drying or water-logging of soils surrounding tree roots.
31
Excessive root loss may also occur when no concern is given to root systems during trenching and excavating
activities by trenching machines, backhoes and bulldozers.
Roots can be severed, torn away or crushed causing serious wounding and oftentimes loss of normal structural
stability. This can lead to direct tree mortality and/or uprooting.
Leaking fuel, lubricants or hydraulic oils and spills or dumping of masonry rinsates, paints, acids, solvents, etc. may
kill roots or impede their functions. This can adversely affect the tree health or cause direct tree mortality.
Many construction activities cause aboveground damage to street trees. This damage includes broken, split and
scarred branches and/or tree trunks. Small broken branch-ends may be unavoidable and of little consequence to
overall tree health. However, when large branches are torn away, damage is substantial. Total leaf area is also
reduced by leaf scorch and twig death caused by hot exhaust gases venting from construction equipment operating
beneath tree crowns.
Trunk wounding can range from minor outer bark damage to total structural failure of the main stem. These wounds
provide entrance for decay fungi. The spread of decay in the main trunk may become so extensive as to compromise
structural stability. Severe impacts can crack or split the main stem. Structural damage this extensive is usually
obvious. The danger of such trees to people and property requires immediate action.
Effective planning before and during an excavation or construction project can often avert the damage to, or loss of
trees. Sometimes trees must be removed to accommodate construction. Charges for any or all of the following may
be levied: the appraised value of the tree, cost of removal and the cost of replacement planting.
Caution should be used during the construction process to avoid damage to the roots, trunk and branches of all street
trees. Damage caused to any street tree will be repaired only by the City Forestry Division. The costs of repair,
rejuvenation and/or value lost will be billed to the contractor or credited against the contract, at the option of the
City.
At locations where the contractor has not complied with the City of West Allis Standard Specifications for Street
Construction, and the minimum clearance was not maintained, a minimum credit to the City of fifty dollars ($50.00)
per location will be taken. The credit will increase in proportion to the variance beyond the allowable minimum. The
credit will be fifty dollars ($50.00) for each two-inch (2”) increment or part thereof in excess of the allowable
minimum. If, in the opinion of the Forestry Division, the tree has been damaged to the point that it warrants
removal, the credit that will be taken will be equal to one hundred dollars ($100.00) per inch diameter of the tree. A
field measurement will be taken at four and one-half feet (4.5’) above ground to determine the tree diameter.
If required, Forestry personnel can perform clearance pruning to raise the crowns of the trees on the site. This
pruning eliminates overhead conflicts without overpruning or deforming the trees.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the trees on your construction site, please contact the Forestry
Division of the City of West Allis at (414) 302-8811.
(c) ROOT CUTTING.
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect trees at the work site which are not to be removed.
Tree roots interfering with the work shall be completely severed with a clean sharp tool; i.e., axe, pulaski, chain saw,
etc., and removed with an approved machine or other approved methods so that no portion of the root is within two
(2) inches of new concrete. An approved mechanical root cutter shall be used to saw the roots which interfere with
the proposed sidewalk construction, except in those situations where hand implement usage is specified.
When tree roots are cut, the following provisions shall apply:
32
1. (1) CONCRETE WALK. The root system on the walk side of the tree shall not be cut deeper than nine (9)
inches below the proposed elevation of the new five inch (5") concrete walk and not more than five inches
(5") from the edge of the proposed walk.
Roots below the proposed walk shall be removed only to a depth of nine (9) inches below the proposed
elevation of the new five inch (5") concrete walk.
2. (2) CARRIAGE WALK. Roots shall not be cut by means of mechanical root cutting machines. If root
removal is essential to carriage walk replacement, interfering roots shall be manually cut with hand
implements.
3. (3) CURB AND GUTTER. The root system on the curb side of the tree shall not be cut deeper than
eighteen inches (18") below the proposed elevation of the new curb and not more than eight inches (8")
from the back of the proposed curb.
4. (4) DRIVEWAYS. Roots shall not be cut by means of mechanical root cutting machines. If root removal is
essential to driveway replacement, interfering roots shall be manually cut with hand implements.
Caution shall be used during root cutting operations, so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the tree or its root
system.
All debris from the root sawing operations shall be removed from the sidewalk area and root sawing trenches must
be filled with approved topsoil before the end of the work day.
Root foundations for all trees must remain adequate to withstand heavy windstorms.
All exposed and severed tree roots shall be immediately covered with a mulch and watered to prevent drying until
such time that the concrete work is complete, the form removed and the area between the tree and concrete work
backfilled with approved topsoil. The time duration for completion of the backfilling operations shall not exceed
twenty-four (24) hours from the time the concrete was placed.
6. 2.2.6 CULVERTS.
New culverts shall be placed at such locations and elevations as shown on the Plans or as directed in the
field. Culverts shall be supported their entire length by a well compacted subgrade.
The Contractor must use reasonable caution in removing existing culverts within the right-of-way. The cost
of this removal is to be included in the price bid for "Excavation." The culverts thus removed shall be
deposited on the right-of-way for removal by City crews. When, in the opinion of the Inspector, the
culverts have no salvage value for the City, said culverts shall become the property of the Contractor and
are to be disposed of at his discretion.
7. 2.2.7 CONCRETE SAWING.
33
Appendix C
Email from Engineering Division Regarding Potential Ordinance
“I have heard back from the Forestry Division of Parks as well as several Divisions within the
Department of Public Works (DPW).
The City of Oshkosh sees the benefit to maintaining as many large trees as possible. As I am sure you
know, larger trees provide more benefits than young/newly planted tress.
Every situation may be different, but to put this type of ordinance in practice would be difficult for
several reasons.
1. The public Right of Way has existing utilities already installed which are required to maintained
by their respective owners (public and private).
a. Public infrastructure already installed in the Right of Way. All public utility owners have
the responsibility to protect the public health and safety of the citizens they
serve. Meaning that anything (streets, sidewalks, terraces, trees, etc…) in the wa y of
maintaining their facilities are at risk of being removed or replaced.
i. Maintained by the City of Oshkosh.
1. Storm
2. Sanitary
3. Water
4. Electric
5. Streets (concrete or asphalt, curb and gutter sections, etc…)
ii. Maintained by other public entities (i.e. WPS, Spectrum,
AT&T)
1. Gas
2. Electric
3. Telecommunications facilities
4. Fiberoptic facilities
b. Private infrastructure that may be installed in the Right of Way
i. Storm laterals
ii. Sanitary laterals
iii. Water laterals
iv. Sidewalks
34
v. Telecommunications infrastructure
1. It can be very difficult/impossible to police all construction (public and private) to ensure that the
work avoids the critical root zone.
2. Would this be for just work in the Public Right of Way or would it include all lands public and
private?
3. Outside of the policing of this ordinance, what type of fines/penalties would be enforced for not
following the ordinance.
In general, DPW does not support creating an ordinance prohibiting any construction within the
protection zone of a tree. As stated above, it would be almost impossible to police as well as will be
difficult to follow the ordinance to construct/maintain the facilities that already installed within the Public
Right of Way. However, DPW does look at each project and tries to save as many trees as possible
within our construction limits.
35
Appendix D
Stevens Point Municipal Code and Specifications
Chapter 11 – City Forester and Forestry:
https://stevenspoint.com/DocumentCenter/View/93/Chapter-11---Forestry
Forestry Specifications for Construction on Public Lands:
https://stevenspoint.com/DocumentCenter/View/728/Forestry---Construction-on-Public-
Lands?bidId=
36
Appendix E
McFarland Municipal Code
59-29 Removal Of Trees And Stumps
1. Dangerous, obstructive and infected trees. In the normal course of business, it is not the
duty of the Village Forester to routinely inspect or be responsible for trees on private
property. Any tree or part thereof, whether alive or dead, which the Village Forester shall
find to be infected, hazardous or a nuisance so as to endanger the public or other trees,
plants or shrubs growing within the Village, or to be injurious to sewers, sidewalks or other
public improvements whether growing upon public or private premises, shall be removed,
trimmed or treated by the owner of the property upon or adjacent to which such tree or part
thereof is located. The Village Forester shall give written notice to said owner to remedy
the situation, which shall be served personally or posted upon the affected tree. Su ch notice
shall specify a reasonable period of time within which the action must be taken as
determined by the Village Forester on the basis of the seriousness of the condition of the
tree or danger to the public. If the owner shall fail to remove, treat or trim said tree within
the time limit, the Village Forester shall cause the tree to be removed, treated or trimmed
and shall thereupon enter such cost as a special charge against the property pursuant to
Wis. Stats. § 66.0627.
2. Removal standards. In cutting down trees located in public and terrace areas, the tree must
be removed with the stump and emergent roots grubbed out, or ground out to a depth of at
least nine inches below grade measured in a straight line with the normal grade of sidewalk
to top of nine inches below grade measured as a straight line, normal grade of sidewalk to
top of curb. All wood and debris must be removed from the street prior to the end of each
working day and all holes shall be filled to normal grade level with topsoil . Backfilling
should be done by the end of the workday in which the stump is removed. If it is not
possible to fill in the hole by the end of the workday, the hole should be staked -off and
marked with high visibility paint or flagging to avert accidents.
3. Private removal. No person, firm, organization or corporation shall plant, injure, trim,
remove or destroy any tree or shrub located in or upon any public place, until a permit shall
have been issued by the Village Forester. Such permit shall be issued only when the
removal, trimming or cutting of the tree or shrub is necessary, as determined by the Village
Forester, because of a public nuisance and/or location, or its location is such that substantial
detriment is done to the property upon which the tree or shrub stands, or property abutting
the same. Such permit shall expressly state the premises upon which the tree or shrub stands
and the location of the tree thereon. The Village Forester may require submission of
professional credentials and evidence of adequate liability insurance coverage.
4. Tree preservation. In the development of commercial property involving previously
undeveloped land, the developer will, as part of its development plan identify which trees
are to be removed to install the infrastructure for the development. The developer will also
provide a plan specifying methods of protecting trees not approved for removal. The
developer must ensure that protective structures shall remain in place until on -site
construction is complete. The Village Forester, shall review and recommend a tree
preservation plan to the Plan Commission. In the development of a new Subdivision
involving previously undeveloped land, the developer, as part of the Preliminary Plat, will
37
identify which trees are to be removed to install infrastructure for the development. The
developer will also provide a plan specifying methods of protecting trees not approved for
removal. The developer must ensure that protective structures shall remain in place until
on-site construction is complete. The Committee, after consultation with the Village
Forester, shall review and approve a Preliminary Plat tree preservation plan to the Plan
Commission.
(Code 1998, § 6-4-11; Ord. No. 2007-09, § 1(6-4-11), 10-22-2007)
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-02 § 59 on 2/28/2022
59-30 Prohibited Acts
1. Damage to municipal trees. No person shall, without written permits from Village Forester
in the case of a terrace-area tree, public tree or shrub, perform or cause to be performed by
others any of the following acts:
1. Secure, fasten or run any rope, wire sign, electrical installation or other device or
material to, around or through a tree or shrub.
2. Break, injure, mutilate, deface, kill or destroy any tree or shrub or permit any fire
to burn where it will injure any tree or shrub.
3. Damage tree roots, through compaction or excavation of the soil, so extensively so
as destabilize, make hazardous, damage the health of or necessitate the removal of
such a tree.
4. Permit any toxic chemical, gas, smoke, oil or other injurious substance to seep,
drain or be emptied upon or about any tree or shrub.
5. Deposit, place or store upon any public place of the Village any stone, brick, dirt,
soil, concrete or other materials that may impede the free passage of water, air or
nutrients to the roots of any tree on said property, except by written permit by the
Village Forester.
6. Remove any guard, stake or other device or material intended for the protection of
a public tree or shrub, or close or obstruct any open space about the base of a public
tree or shrub designed to permit access of air, water and fertilizer.
7. Attach any sign, poster, notice or other object on any tree, or fasten any guy wire,
cable, rope, nails, screws or other device to any tree; except that the Village may
tie temporary "no parking" signs to trees when necessary in conjunction with street
improvement work, tree maintenance work or parades.
8. Erect, alter, repair or demolish any building or structure without placing suitable
guards around all nearby public trees or shrubs that may be injured by such
operations.
2. Excavations and operation of heavy equipment near public trees. No person shall excavate
any ditches, tunnels or trenches, drive vehicles, or install pavement within a radius of 15
feet of the outer limit of the canopy of any public tree without a permit from the Village
Forester. All trees on any parkway or other publicly owned property near any excavation
or construction of any building structure or street work shall be sufficiently guarded and
38
protected by those responsible for such work as to prevent any injury to said trees. No
person shall excavate any ditches, tunnels or trenches, or install pavement within a radius
of 15 feet from any public tree without a permit from the Village Forester. Any publicly
owned trees near any excavation site or site of construction of any building, structure, or
street work, shall be guarded with a substantial fence not less than four feet high and eight
feet square with the protected tree sited in the center o f said fence; or at a distance in feet
from the tree equal to the diameter of the trunk in inches at breast height, whichever is
greater.
1. The Village Forester may grant an exemption to any public utility corporation to
augur under a public tree or shrub and excavate within five feet of any public tree
or shrub, but such public utility shall be liable for any injury or damage caused to
any public tree or shrub, and if any public tree or shrub is permanently damaged
due to the acts of a public utility corporation, it shall be removed, including the
stump, and shall be replaced by a tree at least ten feet tall, or as otherwise approved
by the Village Forester, all at the expense of the utility.
2. The Village Forester may grant an exemption to municipal employees performing
their assigned duties and using all due diligence. Utility companies may apply for
a written exemption after the fact in the event of responding to an emergency.
(Code 1998, § 6-4-12; Ord. No. 2007-09, § 1(6-4-12), 10-22-2007)
39
Appendix F
Sun Prairie Municipal Code
Chapter 12.40 – Trees and Shrubs:
https://library.municode.com/wi/sun_prairie/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.
40TRSH
12.40.120 Prohibited acts.
A. Damage to Public Trees. No person shall, without written permits from the city forester in the case of a
terrace tree or public tree cause to be done by others any of the following acts:
1. Secure, fasten or run any rope, wire sign, unprotected electrical installation or other device or
material to, around, or through a tree or shrub;
2. Break, injure, mutilate, deface, kill, remove or destroy any tree or shrub or permit any fire to
burn where it will injure any tree or shrub;
3. Permit any toxic chemical, gas, smoke, oil or other injurious substance to seep, drain, or be
emptied upon or about any tree or shrub, or place cement or other solid substance around the
base of the same;
4. Remove any guard, stake or other device or material intended for the protection of a public tree
or shrub, or close or obstruct any open space about the base of a public tree or shrub designed
to permit access of air, water and fertilizer.
B. Excavations and Construction Tree Protection. All trees on any terrace or public property near any
excavation or construction of any building structure or street work, when work will be performed
within the dripline of a tree, shall be sufficiently guarded and protected by those responsible for such
work as to prevent any injury to such trees. Such barricades shall be installed at the dripline
perimeter around the tree at the contractor's expense. No person shall excavate any ditches, tunnels
or trenches, or install pavement within a radius of ten (10) feet from any public tree without a permit
from the city forester.
C. Replacement. The penalty for damaging a tree through a prohibited act described in this section shall
be to replace the damaged tree with a tree of equal caliper or a number of trees which together equal
the caliper total of the diameter of the tree damaged. The forester shall determine which replacement
alternative shall be required. Failure to replace the damaged trees shall result in the city replacing
the tree and billing the expense to the person who damaged the tree.
D. Interference with Forester.
1. It is unlawful to interfere with or prevent any act of the forester or his or her agents or
employees while they are engaged in the performance of duties imposed by this section.
2. No person shall refuse to permit the forester or his or her duly authorized representative to
enter upon his or her premises at reasonable times to exercise the duties imposed by this
chapter.
E. Refusal to Abate Nuisance. A property owner shall not permit any public nuisance to remain on any
premises owned or controlled by him or her when ordered by the forester to abate such nuisance.
(Ord. No. 825 , § 1, 9-15-2020; Ord. 264 § 1 (part), 1993; prior code § 6-4-12)
40
Appendix G
Minneapolis Urban Forest Policy
https://www.minneapolisparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Urban-Forest-Policy.pdf
Standard Specifications Forestry 2022 MPRB Forestry
Standard Specifications Forestry 2022_MPRB_Forestry.pdf