1. Management Plan For
Restoration and Improvement of Oakwood Cemetery: Tree Risk
Assessment and Invasive Species Management
March 28th
, 2016
Katelinn Carrier,
Elizabeth Mummert,
Chris Raber,
Cole Slevinski
2. 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
Site Description:.............................................................................................................................6
Methods: Inventory.........................................................................................................................6
Tree risk assessment....................................................................................................................6
Branch Pruning Methods: ............................................................................................................8
Risk Category Assignment:..........................................................................................................8
Buffer creation:...........................................................................................................................9
Invasive ground cover..................................................................................................................9
Current conditions: .......................................................................................................................10
Management Recommendations................................................................................................ 13
Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................14
$0 alternative: ...........................................................................................................................14
$10,000 alternative ....................................................................................................................14
$20,000 alternative:...................................................................................................................15
$50,000 alternative:...................................................................................................................16
$75,000 alternative:...................................................................................................................18
$100,000 alternative:.................................................................................................................19
Standards and Guidelines .......................................................................................................... 20
Relevant Laws and regulations.......................................................................................................20
Standards of Practice.................................................................................................................. 22
Standard Operating Procedures................................................................................................ 23
Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 23
Risk trees .....................................................................................................................................23
Invasive species............................................................................................................................24
Works Cited................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix 1................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix 2................................................................................................................................... 28
3. 3
List of Illustrations
Tables
Table 1. Scoring guide for Tree Risk Assessment 7
Table 2. Least cost alternative 14
Table 3. $20,000 Management Alternative 15
Table 4a. $50,000 Management Alternative 16
Table 4b. $50,000 Management Alternative 16
Table 4c. $50,000 Management Alternative 17
Table 4d. $50,000 Management Alternative 17
Table 5. $75,000 Management Alternative 16
Table 6, $100,000 Management Alternative 17
Figures
Figure 1. Regional map of Syracuse NY showing land cover distribution
(Nowak & comps, 2001) 5
Figure 2. Oakwood Cemetery Tree Species Count 10
Figure 3. Number Trees per Risk Ranking w/o Distance 11
Figure 4. Number trees per Risk Ranking Accounting for distance
from trail 12
Figure 5. Risk ranking method that accounts for the number of trees within
buffer zones from the trails. 12
Maps
Map 1. GIS Map utilized for initial scoping 6
Map 2. GIS map of uploaded waypoints from the GPS unit 7
Map 3. GIS map with the roads traced within the compartment 9
Map 1. GIS map analyzing the criticality of the plots 13
4. 4
Executive Summary
Our study area consists of a 35 acre parcel of land called Oakwood cemetery, located
within the center of the city of Syracuse New York, Adjacent and south of Syracuse University
and the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. This property is located within
Bailey’s Ecoregion 212F (McNab & Avers, 1994) sub region Northern Glaciated Allegheny
Plateau. Our management objectives are to promote safe recreational activity by reducing the
potential for injury from damaged and unhealthy trees and restoring the site to its natural species
composition. Our plan will be implemented over a ten year period. The property was inventoried
using USFS tree risk assessment guides that we adapted to use over a large area. 83 plots were
sampled using this method. Invasive species number and frequency was sampled using the line
transect method. Branch assessment for pruning was done using a subsample of the 83 risk
assessment plots.
We developed several alternatives based on financial input for the landowner to choose
from. There is a do nothing alternative that states what will happen if the landowner chooses to
do nothing, a $10,000 alternative that focuses on the removal of all unsafe trees with their
replacement, and a $20,000 alternative that includes tree removal, some tree pruning and
herbicide treatment of invasive. 4 alternatives were created at $50,000 budget, the most
recommended financial input needed to reach the landowners objectives. The 4 alternatives at the
$50,000 budget show that there is room to pick and choose treatment options for tree care and
invasive management. A $75,000 and $100,000 budgets were also created. A system for
implementing the selected alternative was developed with local, regional, and national laws and
regulations in mind for a ten year period. A simple matrix of questions was developed for the
monitoring of the effectiveness of the alternatives.
Introduction
Our team has been asked to develop a management plan for an area consisting of a 35
acre parcel of land called Oakwood cemetery. There are many large oak trees that need to be
managed for potential risk to any potential users of the property. Invasive species are also present
within the system. The landowner would like us to reduce the risk from falling trees and limbs
across the property. The landowner also wanted us to focus on removing any invasive species
across the property. Based on the landowners request we developed a set of management
alternatives that focus on the removal and maintenance of potentially hazardous trees along the
trails. We also identified the invasive species and methods that can be used to remove them with
the associated costs. Based on the landowners’ request, the preservation and restoration of the
area as an important part of the natural landscape of the area is also important. Our management
alternatives were constructed with this in mind.
This property plays an important role in the local community, so our management plan
was developed based on typical city Urban forest management plans. Cities across the country
have developed ways to do exactly what it is we are trying to do and helped us know what
problems and limitations we many have when managing the property. Large forested spaces like
parks and tracts of private land play in important role in the overall urban forest within a city.
Within the city of Syracuse a large portion of the trees exist within green spaces like parks,
private properties, vacant lots, and cemeteries. There are around 230,000 trees per hectare in
5. 5
green spaces within Syracuse, a large portion of the total tree cover (Nowak & comps, 2001).
Below is a land cover map that was produced for the city of Syracuse (Nowak & comps, 2001)
that shows the distribution of trees throughout Syracuse. Other cities have also identified the
importance of these spaces, the city of Santa Barbara in California made it part of their goals and
management plan to improve and enhance areas where native species dominate, this helps
preserve wildlife habitat within the city (City Parks and Recreation Department, 2014). These
plans also emphasize the importance of regular pruning of park and greenspace trees for safety
and improve the health and longevity of these large trees.
The desired condition of the property is to restore it to safe conditions, while preserving
the unique habitat found on the property. Our recommended management activities will reduce
the risk by removing potentially hazardous limbs and large dead standing trees. By doing this the
property will become safer for recreation. By planting new trees to replace the ones that are
removed, the species number and composition will remain stable and not change over time. By
removing the invasive species we hope to further improve the species composition of the
property, returning it to a natural state. We hope to have the property be a good representative of
an Appalachian oak forest so that recreational users of the property have opportunities to see
native wildlife species.
Goals and Objectives
Goal: Promote safe recreational activity by reducing the potential for injury from damaged and
unhealthy trees and restoring the site to its natural species composition.
Figure 1. Regional map of Syracuse NY showing land cover
distribution (Nowak & comps, 2001)
6. 6
Objective: Maintain a high priority of focus on the assessment, pruning and removal of
high hazard trees within each buffer class over a ten year period.
Sub objective: Place priority on identifying trees along the community trail and
focusing all pruning and removal management activities on those trees first..
Goal: Preserve the ecological stability of the Property by removing any non-native species over a
ten year period
Objective: Keep as many of the large native trees as possible by preserving them through
pruning every 5 years over a ten year period.
Sub Objective: Replace any that are removed in the following season
Objective: Remove all non-native and invasive herbaceous species using either
herbicides or hand cutting methods, treating in 5 year increments for a total of 3 treatments over
ten years.
Planning methods
Site Description: Our study area consists of a 35 acre parcel of land called Oakwood cemetery,
located within the center of the city of Syracuse New York, Adjacent and south of Syracuse
University and the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. This property is
located within Bailey’s Ecoregion 212F (McNab & Avers, 1994) sub region Northern Glaciated
Allegheny Plateau. This region is known for its north south orientated rolling hills, drumlins, and
valleys. The typical forest cover type for this sub region is North hardwoods and Appalachian
oak forests. Our study area consists of Appalachian oak forest. A community trail system exists
on the property that is used by people other than the landowner.
Methods:Inventory
Tree risk assessment
Tools: Loggers tape, clinometer, Jacob's staff, compass, plot map, GPS unit, risk assessment
guidelines (Table 1), Data Sheets (Appendix 1)
Plot design: 85 Systematic 1/20th acre plots were mapped out using ArcMap (Map 1). Map 2
represents the actual GPS plot locations that were taken during inventorying. ArcMap was used
to develop the number and location of each plot. Plots were laid out in a grid fashion spaced
equally 2 chains apart from plot center. The grid used was oriented directly north and south.
Compass and pacing was used to move from plot to plot.
7. 7
Map 1. GIS Map utilized for initial scoping. It is a 2-chain grid (132ft)
Map 2. GIS map of uploaded waypoints from the GPS unit. Each plot is 1/20 acre. One plot is
missing due to sampling error.
8. 8
Methods: There are no existing systems for tree risk assessment that cover a large area. We
developed a simplified version of the USDA Forest Service tree risk assessment guide
(Pokorny). A basic visual assessment (Urban Forestry LLC, 2013) was used to measure trees
within each plot to evaluate them for decay, structural cracks, visible root problems, branch
condition and form, overall form, and the presence of cankers. There are limitations when using
this basic visual assessment technique. Many internal defects cannot be identified with this
method; the same is true for major root problems. Though the scope of this method is limited it is
an efficient way to identify visible hazards that are a major threat to tree failure. Scores were
developed from 1-4 for the 7 indicator of decay. Each tree was evaluated using this simplified
scale, 1 being minimal risk and 4 being immediate risk (See table 1).
Each tree was also measured for DBH and Height. The distance to target, in our case road or
trails was also measured. Each tree species was also identified. All measurements are to be used
to develop a map that identifies trees within risk zones that are a threat so that management can
be focused on these areas.
Branch Pruning Methods: To determine costs for the pruning and disposal of individual
branches amongst the 4 tree risk classes we went out into the field for more data collection..
While out in the field we walked our second transect starting from the east side of our
compartment. We gathered data on the amount of small (1-5), medium (6-11), and large (11+)
branches that needed to be cut. This step was repeated for four trees in each risk class to
calculate an average pruning cost for a tree that may fall within each risk class. After calculating
the average pruning cost per tree in every risk class we can calculate the total cost to prune every
tree in each risk class by multiplying the total number of trees in each risk class by the pruning
cost per tree. From there we added the total individual pruning costs per each class to get an
overall cost to prune the entire 35 acres.
Risk Category Assignment: The data from the field tally sheets for each tree was entered into
an excel file. The distance from road/ trail and tree heights was summarized. The averages,
minimum, median, and maximum were determined for the height and distance from road/ trail.
The risk per tree was determined in three management categories; Risk based on the 6 categories
from table 1 only, risk based on the 6 categories averaged against a distance from road/ trail risk
Table 1. Scoring Guide for Tree Risk Assesment
Score 1 2 3 4
Decay None Minor
Visible (1 in thickness live
wood)
Hollow, greater than 60%
circumference of tree decayed
Cracks None sealed cracks inrolled, ribbed Shear, inrolled, Horizontal
Roots no visible problems
< 40 damaged, decayed or
dead within CRR Restricted, visible decay
Girdling, fungus visible, >40%
damage w/in CRR
Branches
good form, no decay or
cracks included bark
Epicormic branching,
included bark, holes
Dead limbs, cracks, hanging
branch
Form no lean Harp Tree
Tension & buckling
symptoms
Harp Tree w/ cracks, horizontal
cracks, lean greater than 40 deg
angle
Cankers None <40% cir & 25% Decay 40% cir & 25% Decay 40%+ of trees circumference
Rules: Decay is always associated with inrolled cracks Each symptom is cumulative starting at 2
Always min score of 1 for each category per tree Dead trees are automatically a 4
9. 9
rating; and lastly pruning priority based on risk with distance weighted against the branches and
form risk category score.
Buffer creation: The distance risk categories were formed by taking the minimum, median, and
maximum tree height and multiplying each by 1.5. That value was then divided by the
corresponding minimum, median, and maximum distance from road/ trail value divided by 100.
These numbers were then turned into a range to correspond to a buffer distance from road/ trail.
This formed 3 risk ratings and a buffer distance for each. Each tree was then given a ranking
based on what range their distance from road/ trail was. Map 3 shows the buffers plotted out on
the property.
Map 3. GIS map with the roads traced within the compartment. There are two buffers from the
road (28ft and 61ft).
Invasive ground cover
Tools: Loggers tape, compass, plot map, Data Sheets (Appendix 2)
Plot method: Line transects were used to account for invasive and shrub species composition
and percent ground cover. For ease of sampling and time constraints, the line transect was the
line traveled between risk plots, totaling 10 transects with a total length of 11443.55 ft.
Method: As we walked along the parcel taking care to stay on a straight line we recorded the
species of any shrub, forb, or other (vines) we encountered. The distance (inches) that a plant
crossed the transect line and number of stems per plant was recorded. These numbers are to be
used to extrapolate a total percent ground cover and a total invasive ground cover percent.
10. 10
Data Analysis: Data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet by species. For each transect, the
average length of each species encountered was divided by the total length of the transect and
multiplied by 100 to find the percent ground cover for each species per transect. A weighted
average was calculated to find the percent ground cover for each species and total percent ground
cover over the 35-acre plot.
Current conditions:
There are a number of large trees that require some form of attention, whether it’s their
removal or pruning to correct any potential hazards. Several alternatives have been developed
based on different levels of financial investment on the part of the landowner. There are no
seedlings or advanced regeneration of existing species. The property consists of a relatively
even-aged plantation of red, white, and swamp white oak with various other species mixed in
(Figure 2). The large amount of grass present due to the openness of the stand prevents new trees
from growing. Invasive were found to mainly grow under the canopy of large trees that shade the
ground preventing the establishment of grass. The estimated total number of trees across the 35-
acre plot of land is 445 trees.
There is also a notable presence of invasive species throughout out the property that will
continue to spread if left uncared for. These populations exist in small patches spread across the
property. The estimated average percentage of total ground cover across the 35-acre plot of land
is 1.8%. Of the total ground cover, 24% was considered as invasive (including Buckthron,
Euonymous, and Rose Bush).
Figure 2.
11. 11
The three risk categories that were created showed several alternative methods for
management focus. For all categories, scores of 1 require the most immediate attention and
scores above 4 require the least attention as they are either too far away from the trail or have
minimal defects. Method 1 and 3 were used for making management decisions. Method 1 shows
the overall risk estimation (Figure 3). No account for distance from trail or tree height was taken
into account. This shows that overall the number of trees that are an immediate risk are very few,
only 4 in total across the property. The majority of trees are risk 3 and 4 trees, making up 82% of
the total population. The majority of trees need pruning. The second set of risk scores accounted
from distance from trail which significantly increased the number of risk two trees as seen in
figure 4. By accounting for the distance from trail, the number of trees that are risk 2 jumps ups,
Increasing the number of trees that “require” more immediate management from 18% to 37%.
Figure 3. The overall number of trees per risk ranking without accounting for the distance from
trail or road.
4
12
41
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4+
#ofTrees
Risk Ranking
Number Trees per Risk Ranking w/o
Distance
Example of the parklike setting of the property The top of a tree that broke off during a storm
12. 12
Figure 4. Overall number of trees per risk ranking, accounting for the distance from the trail
Figure 5. Risk ranking method that accounts for the number of trees within 3 buffer zones from
the trails.
Map 4 bellow shows where our plots fell along the trails and roads. It generally shows that the
trees on the property fit within 3 categories; Non-critical because they do they are not close to a
road or trail, Road side because the trees fall along a major road, and on-trail because they are
located along the community trail that runs through the property.
4
29
18
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4+
#ofTrees
Risk Ranking
Number Trees per Risk Ranking Accounting
for Distance From Trail
29
26
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 = (0-28) 2 = (29-61) 3 = (61+)
#ofTrees
Distance risk Category
#Trees per Distance Risk Class
13. 13
Map 2. GIS map analyzing the criticality of the plots. Criticality was based off of the 28ft buffer
primarily.
ManagementRecommendations
The data that we collected gives us a rough estimate of the number of trees on the
property within a threshold risk rating that helped us establish the intensity of management
needed across the property. Further monitoring and evaluation will be needed at the time of the
management activities to accurately estimate the true cost of tree removal, pruning, and invasive
tree management. The main objective of all the management activities presented below is to
provide a safe area for recreation that is also representative of a natural area in New York State.
Our risk and ranking systems were developed as a tool used to quantify the current conditions of
the property and may not fully represent the conditions of the stand.
A significant amount of drainage issues exist throughout the property due to the steepness
of the terrain. This can pose a risk to hikers using the properties as most of the drainage issues
exist along the roads and trails. Large and deep channels exist that often get filled with leaves
hiding the danger until someone steps in one. Re-grading the worst of the roads and the addition
of water bars can decrease the erosion problems. There are several methods available to reduce
the erosion, some simple and less costly and some very costly. It would be up to the landowner
to determine how important this issue is to them. That would dictate the level of intensity and
ultimate cost to mitigate the problem. Further evaluation would also need to be done to
determine the extent and severity of the problem if the landowner deems this to be important to
their objectives. It was not within the scope of our activities to measure this but it seemed
important enough to note that it exists.
14. 14
Several alternatives were established in order to provide many levels of intensity. The
landowner can choose from this list of recommended alternatives based on financial input and
objectives. The land owner also has the right to choose to do nothing. Each alternative has
different levels of social acceptability because of their level of intensity.
Alternatives
$0 alternative: The landowner can choose to leave the area in its current state and take no
actions to correct any issues one the property, if the land owner chooses to do nothing the stand
will likely become less safe.
The invasive species will continue to spread and choke up trails.
The large dead standing trees will fall eventually and potentially fall on someone which is a
liability.
The declining, hollow, and damaged existing trees will eventually fall over, loose large
limbs, and die also providing potential liability and risk to the landowner and others that use
the property.
Falling limbs from trees also present a risk.
Eventually the system will fail if new trees are not planted. There are no seedlings or saplings
present.
$10,000 alternative: All costs for each recommended management activity are seen in table 2.
This alternative will have a minimal effect on the visual qualities of the stand, but will improve it
to some degree. The lack of invasive control may not be socially acceptable but financial
limitations with this budget prevent its use.
Focusing all efforts on just removing large hollow and dead standing trees is recommended.
The cost of removing the trees would take up most if not all of the budget making the
management of invasive species unlikely.
The trees of the greatest priority exist along the community nature trail. All efforts should be
put in this area. The pruning of these trees is highly recommended
It is recommended that all trees that were removed be replanted with 20 year old hardwood
seedlings. Maintenance of these seedlings may be necessary as deer are a problem.
15. 15
$20,000 alternative: All costs for each recommended management activity are seen in table 3.
A second alternative of management for the property would focus on risk 1 and 2 trees.
In order to reduce any immediate risks to all potential users of the property, it is
recommended that the 4 trees that were identified as an immediate risk be removed at an
estimated cost of $2,408. Our survey of the property may not have identified all trees that
pose an immediate risk so a more specific quick walkthrough may be needed across the
property or along trails to ensure at all trees of immediate risk are removed in a timely
manner.
All risk 2 trees should be managed through pruning or through removal. Pruning is more
costly than removing trees. This budget recommendation would be mostly for the removal of
the worst of the risk 2 trees, such as trees with girdling roots that will eventually die. Only
one or two of the risk two trees would be able to be pruned. These trees would need to be
along the community trail to ensure safety.
Patches of invasive species like buckthorn and honeysuckle exist on the property. Targeting
these patches with herbicides will reduce their numbers. A one-time treatment may not be
sufficient to completely remove these patches so a follow up treatment may be necessary
after a year.
It is recommended that all trees that were removed be replanted with 20 year old hardwood
seedlings. Maintenance of these seedlings may be necessary as deer are a problem.
End Solution-for Alt 2 (Budget=$10,000)
Table 2. Least cost Managemt Alternative 0 5 10
Cut all four dead standing/hollow 2,408.00$
Prune trail trees 2,456.25$ 2,456.25$
Prune priority trees with good tree risk 375.00$ 375.00$
Replant cut locations
containerized seedlings (6 20yro hard) 720.00$
Cut high risk rank trees (6) 3,612.00$
Labor 250.00$
Invasive control (herbicides) -$ 0 0
Total 9,821.25$ 0 2831.25
16. 16
$50,000 alternative: All costs for each recommended management activity are seen in table 4.
Trees with a risk ranking of 1 and 2 will be targeted for control.
Alternative A & B
All risk 1 trees will be removed based on our risk score system developed using a buffer
system for roads.
Any risk 2 trees that cannot be corrected with pruning will be removed. Risk 2 trees will need
to be evaluated for any trees that pruning will not improve the condition of, because of
girdling roots or existing rot. These trees should be identified and a plan should be made to
address such problems. Depending on the severity of the rot or girdling roots, the trees may
pose no immediate risk and can be left for another 5 years and be re-evaluated to determine if
they still pose no immediate risk or require some form of management after the 5 years.
Trees found along the community trail will require the most extensive pruning. It is
recommended that these trees be pruned first then the remaining pruning budget be used to
prune trees along the other trails.
It is recommended that all trees that were removed be replanted with 20 year old hardwood
seedlings. Maintenance of these seedlings may be necessary as deer are a problem.
Alternative A (Table 4a)
o Invasive species will be removed using foliar herbicide.
Alternative B (Table 4b)
o Invasive species controlled with Hand cutting, only a select 6 acres can be budgeted
to manage with this alternative.
Alternative C. (Table 4c)
o All of the trees will be pruned over a ten year period; the land owner may choose to
prune the entire compartment depending on what is desired as looks and conditions of
the trees. The downside of pruning only would be leaving trees that have decay,
girdling roots, and defects in their form that may be better of being removed.
o Invasive species controlled with herbicides. Can only cut 6 acres with no annual
maintenance.
o No tree removal means that no trees need to be planted.
5-yr 10-yr
Cut all four dead standing/hollow 2,408.00$
Prune better trail trees (5) $ 2,456.25
Prune remaining trees in order of importance 6,412.50$
Replant cut locations
containerized seedlings (12 20yro hard) 1,440.00$
Labor (to cut trees) 250.00$
Invasive control herbicides maintenance 300.00$
per acre for first year only (1 acre) 75.00$ 91.25$ 111.02$
cut worse condition trees
Risk rank 2 trees (total: 11) 6,622.00$
19,963.75$ 24,288.95$ 29,551.23$Total
End Solution-for Alt 3 (Budget=$20,000)
Table 3. $20,000 Management Alternative Net Present Value
17. 17
Alternative D. (Table 4d)
o All of the trees across the property can be pruned over the 10 year period.
o Invasive species controlled with mowing, this can only cover 16 of the 35 acres.
o No tree removal means that no trees need to be planted.
5-yr 10-yr
Cut all four dead standing/hollow 2,408.00$
Prune
trail trees (5) 2,456.25$ 2,988.40$ 3,635.85$
Prune remaining trees in order of importance 33,562.50$ 40,833.91$ 49,680.70$
Replant cut locations
containerized seedlings (12 20yro hard) 1,440.00$
Labor (per visit for trees) 250.00$
Herbicides cost 300.00$
per acre (1) 75.00$ 91.25$ 111.02$
Cut risk rank 2 trees (12) 7,224.00$
47,715.75$ 58,053.51$ 70,630.97$
End Solution-Alt 4 (Budget=$50,000)
Table 4a. $50,000 Management Alternative Net Present Value
Total
5-yr 10-yr
Cut all four dead standing/hollow 2,408.00$
Prune
trail trees (5) 2,456.25$ 2,988.40$ 3,635.85$
Prune remaining trees in order of importance 33,562.50$ 40,833.91$ 49,680.70$
Replant cut locations
containerized seedlings (12 20yro hard) 1,440.00$
Labor (per visit for trees) 250.00$
Invasives control: Handcut 500.00$
per acre (1) 400.00$ 486.66$ 592.10$
Cut risk rank 2 trees (12) 7,224.00$
48,240.75$ 58,692.25$ 71,408.09$
Net Present Value
Total
End Solution-Alt 4 (Budget=$50,000)
Table 4c. $50,000 Management Alternative
18. 18
$75,000 alternative: All costs for each recommended management activity are seen in table 5.
This alternative recommends intensive management of the property in a manner that preserves as
many of the existing trees as possible.
All risk 1 and dead standing trees should be removed.
The high priority risk trees along the community trail should be pruned to preserve them.
Any removed trees should be re planted.
All invasive species should be treated by foliar herbicides. A second treatment should be
done the following year to insure that they are removed completely.
Any tree that has a pruning priority of 2 should be pruned.
Any decay risk 2 trees that pruning will not help should be removed
5-yr 10-yr
Prune all trees 42,825.00$ 52,103.16$ 63,391.46$
Labor 250.00$
Invasive control (herbicides) 300.00$
per acre treatment (1) 75.00$ 91.25$ 111.02$
43,450.00$ 52,863.57$ 64,316.61$
Net Present Value
End Solution-Alt 4 (Budget=$50,000)
Table 4b. $50,000 Management Alternative
Total
5-yr 10-yr
Prune all trees 42,825.00$ 52,103.16$ 63,391.46$
Labor 250.00$
Invasive control (cut-mowing) 500.00$
per acre ($400)(1 acres) 400.00$ 486.66$ 592.10$
43,975.00$ 53,502.31$ 65,093.74$
Net Present ValueTable 4d. $50,000 Management Alternative
Total
End Solution-Alt 4 (Budget=$50,000)
19. 19
$100,000 alternative: In order to produce the safest and most natural system for this property
the following management activities are recommended. A large investment to reach the
conditions presented would be required.
All risk one trees shall be removed at an estimated cost of $2,658. There are 4 risk one trees.
All remaining trees with a pruning rating of 2 & 3 will be pruned at an estimated cost of
$33,562.50. It is recommended that pruning be done on trees within a specified distance from
the roads and trails. A buffer system was created during our analysis that takes into
consideration tree height and distance from the road.
All waste produced from tree removal and pruning will be chipped and used on site as mulch.
A wood chipper will need to be rented or a tree service that has one be hired to do the
removal and pruning work.
All invasive shrub and tree species will be removed. The use of herbicides will be necessary
over two implementation periods for buckthorn, honeysuckle, red stemmed dogwood. The
initial treatment will be used to kill existing plants; a second treatment will be used after one
year to kill regrowth. Continued monitoring will be necessary to ensure that these plants do
not re-colonize the site. Retreatment of each location every 5 years after than may be
necessary to keep these species off of the property.
For every tree that is removed a native species tree should be planted in its place. These small
saplings will need protection from deer and will require yearly maintenance. Fencing off the
whole property is the most ideal way to protect the trees from deer.
5-yr 10-yr
Cut all four dead standing/hollow 2,408.00$
Prune
trail trees (5) 2,456.25$ 2,988.40$ 4,423.57$
Prune remaining trees in order of importance 33,562.50$ 40,833.91$ 60,444.17$
Replant cut locations
Saplings (balled and burlap) 8,100.00$
Labor (per visit for trees) 250.00$
Tree protection per tree ($ per tree) 60.00$ 73.00$ 108.06$
Yearly maintenance costs (per year) 300.00$
labor costs for maintenance (per visit) 4,375.00$
Initial Fencing Costs (Installation) 8,750.00$
Invasive control 300.00$
per acre (1 acre) 75.00$ 91.25$ 135.07$
Cut risk rank 3 trees (12) 7,224.00$
67,860.75$ 82,562.98$ 122,213.38$
End Solution-for Alt 5 (Budget=$75,000)
Total
Table 5. $75,000 Management Alternative Net Present Value
20. 20
Trees and shrubs should be planted in order to increase the species diversity and restore the
site to more natural conditions. After 3 years from the initial herbicide treatment of invasive
species, native shrub species should be planted, many of these are beneficial for wildlife and
also pleasant to look at which increases the recreational opportunities across the property.
Species like Flowering dogwood, American witch hazel, early lowbush blueberry, beaked
hazelnut, and maple leaf viburnum are some of the species native to the area based on Balie’s
ecoregions.
Standards and Guidelines
Relevant Laws and regulations
The following ordinances for the city of Syracuse are pertinent for the maintenance of the
property.
Sec. 27-71. - General requirements.
All premises within the city of Syracuse shall be maintained in conformity with the
provisions of this Code so as to assure the desirable character of the property. (Gen. Ord. No.
30-1993, 6-28-93)
Sec. 27-72. - Open areas.
5-yr 10-yr
Cut all four dead standing/hollow 2,408.00$
Prune
trail trees (5) 2,456.25$ 2,988.40$ 4,423.57$
Prune remaining trees in order of importance 33,562.50$ 40,833.91$ 60,444.17$
Replant cut locations
Saplings (balled and burlap) 8,100.00$
Labor (per visit for trees) 250.00$
Yearly maintenance costs 300.00$
labor for maintenance (per visit) 4,375.00$
Initial Fencing Costs (Installation) 8,750.00$
Handcutting (mowing) 500.00$
per acre (35 acres) 14,000.00$ 17,033.14$ 25,213.21$
Cut risk rank 2 trees (12) 7,224.00$
Tree protection per tree ($ per tree) 60.00$ 73.00$ 108.06$
81,925.75$ 99,675.20$ 147,543.65$
End Solution-for Alt 6 (Budget=$100,000)
Table 6. $100,000 Management Alternative Net Present Value
Total
21. 21
(b) Surface and subsurface water shall be appropriately drained to protect buildings and
structures and to prevent development of stagnant ponds. Gutters, culverts, catch basins, drain
inlets, storm water sewers, approved combined storm and sanitary sewers or other satisfactory
drainage systems shall be utilized where deemed necessary.
d) Steps, sidewalks, driveways, parking spaces and similar areas shall be kept in a proper state of
repair and maintained so as to afford safe passage under normal use and weather conditions.
e) Yards, courts and vacant lots shall be kept free of physical hazards, accumulations of loose,
illegally stored or illegally containerized trash and debris, garbage and other material which
would cause a fire hazard or act for a breeding place for vermin or insects. They shall be
maintained in a manner that will prevent dust or other materials from being blown about the
neighborhood.
(f) All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or grasses in excess of
eight (8) inches. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited.
(g) Heavy undergrowth and accumulations of plant growth noxious or detrimental to health shall
be eliminated.
(h) Exterior property areas shall be free from conditions which might create a health, accident or
fire hazard.
(i) Exterior property areas shall be reasonably free from holes and excavations, sharp
protrusions, and other objects or conditions which might cause personal injury. Walks, steps and
driveways that contain holes or tripping hazards shall be filled, repaired or replaced as the need
indicates. Open wells, cesspools or cisterns shall be securely closed. Trees or limbs of trees that
constitute a hazard shall be removed.
(Gen. Ord. No. 30-1993, 6-28-93)
Sec. 40-15. – Power equipment and tools
No person shall operate or permit to be operated any domestic power tool including but not
limited to mechanically powered saws, sanders, grinders and, lawn and garden tools used
outdoors in residential areas between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day
so as to create unnecessary noise across a residential real property boundary.
(Gen. Ord. No. 35-1977, 8-1-77)
Sec. 17-18. - Commercial vehicles.
No person shall operate or cause to be operated upon or within any park or playground motor
trucks or any other vehicle used for the hauling or distribution of merchandise, freight or
material; provided, that such truck or vehicle may be operated upon or within said parks or
playgrounds for the shortest possible distance when necessary to serve any property located
within or upon said park or playground.
22. 22
Sec. 24-30. - Cleaning and maintenance of sidewalks; duty of abutting occupant and owner.
No owner of any land within the city limits shall allow any sidewalk adjoining said land to be at
any time other than in good repair and in a good and safe condition. The occupant of each and
every tenement or building in the city fronting upon any park, street or alley, or the owner or the
agent of the owner of any vacant lot fronting as aforesaid, shall at all times keep the sidewalk
along the said premises clean and free from all obstructions of any kind and shall keep closely
cut all grass or weeds along said sidewalk.
No owner of any land within the city limits fronting upon any street shall permit weeds, flowers,
bushes, shrubs or grass along said street to grow to such a height as shall constitute, in the
opinion of the commissioner of transportation or his designated representative, a visual
obstruction to persons operating motor vehicles upon said street and in such event, the
commissioner of transportation or the director of the division of home improvement may order
the owner to cut said weeds, flowers, bushes, shrubs or grass to a height of two (2) feet above the
ground level.
(Ord. of 8-1-66; Gen. Ord. No. 26-1974, 6-17-74)
Standards of Practice
All management activities should be done in a timely and efficient manner. All trees that
have received pruning should have their risk scores updated so that there is a record of
maintenance activity. Before any work is done on the property a scope of work and written
agreement is made between the landowner and the contractor. Whoever does the work should
provide full written details of what they did, the cost of treatment, and the length of time it took
to complete their work. It is crucial that the landowner monitors all work that is done on the
property.
The use of Forestry BMPs is important on this property and should be included in the
scope of work and contract. The steep terrain means that there is the potential for increased
erosion unless these practices are included. It is recommended that the NYS Best management
practices for Water Quality BMP field guide (New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 2011) be used as a basis when moving vehicles on and off the property because of
the steep terrain and poor drainage conditions.
Standards of practice for pruning trees should be followed. We recommend that the US
Forest Service How to prune trees guide (Bedker, O'Brien, & Mielke, 2012) be used as a
reference for all pruning practices conducted on the property. This guide follows all of the
relevant ANSI guidelines for management that are relevant to the management of trees.
With the use of herbicides on the property, care should be taken to make sure that the
NYS Environmental Conservation law be followed; articles 9, 10, 27, 33 and 49 are relevant to
management activities on the property. A permit for the application of herbicides should be
obtained before any spraying is done. Written notification to the neighboring landowners,
business and universities should be done prior to the application of herbicides. A guideline for
pesticide notification (Office of the New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, 2000) is
23. 23
available to help the landowner make these notifications. The property should also be posted to
inform anyone entering the property that herbicides have been used.
The presence of endangered species should be identified and the proper procedures be
taken to protect these species under the Endangered Species Act.
Standard Operating Procedures
All management activities should be done in such a way that the impact is as minimal as
possible to the property. BMPs should be followed and the standards of practice mentioned
above should be strictly adhered to.
Implementation
The time frame we recommend is ten years, with management activities at 0, 5, and ten
years. Any immediate needs should be taken care of in year 0, such as dead standing trees and
invasive plants. In year 5 follow up activities should be done for invasive ground cover, no
pruning or tree removal will occur at that time unless storm damage has taken down or damaged
any of the trees. In year ten another round of pruning should be done. All of the dead standing
trees should have been removed in year 0 so in the span of ten years it is unlikely that any trees
will need to be cut down. An inventory should be done in year 9 or at the start of year ten so that
a plan for pruning and the direct needs can be identified. Depending on the amount of pruning
done in year 0, the cost in year ten should be half of the cost at year 0.
Monitoring
Risk trees
Risk 1: Have all of the risk one trees within 60ft of the roads and trail been identified and
dealt with?
Risk 2: Have all of the risk two trees been identified within 60ft of the road and been
managed in some way?
Risk 3: Have all of the risk three trees been identified and managed in some way?
Risk 4: Have all of the risk four trees been identified and managed in some way?
Have the trees along the community trail been appropriately managed?
A re-inventory of the property is necessary once all management activities have
concluded identifying the new number of trees per risk category present.
o This re-inventory should be done within 1 year of initial treatment
After 5 years from the second inventory the property should be inventoried again
and a management plan be created based on the condition of the property at that
time.
24. 24
o This re-inventory should be done within 1 year of initial treatment
o Tree’s that have become a concern should be pruned or removed
o Any trees that were identified in the previous inventory should be
monitored. Trees that had decay that were not removed, had girdling roots,
or other concerns should be the main focus for management.
Did the contractor use the appropriate BMPs when cutting down and pruning trees?
The landowner should make sure to evaluate the condition of the roads and trails.
Any mismanagement should be accounted for and brought to the attention of the
contractor.
Invasive species
Have all of the invasive species on the property been identified and removed?
1 year after the initial herbicide treatment, a follow up spraying should be done
for buckthorn and honeysuckle.
During the re-inventory of the property after 5 years another sweep of the
property should be done to make sure no invasive species have recolonized. If
they have they’re removal should be added to the updated management plan for
the property.
25. 25
Works Cited
Bedker,P.,O'Brien,J.,&Mielke,M. (2012, August).How toPrune Trees.NewtonSquare, PA,
NortheasternArea:USDA ForestService.RetrievedApril4,2016, fromUSDA ForestService:
http://na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/howtos/ht_prune/htprune-rev-2012-screen.pdf
CityParks andRecreationDepartment.(2014,April 8).City of Santa Barbara Urban ForestManagement
Plan:PreservingandProtectingourCommunityTrees.SantaBarbara,Ca.
McNab, W. H., & Avers,P.E. (1994, July). EcologicalSubregionsof theUnited States. RetrievedFebuary
26, 2016, fromForestService Departmentof Agriculture:
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch14.html#212F
NewYork State Departmentof Environmental Conservation.(2011). New York StateForestry Best
ManagementPracticesForWaterQuality.
Nowak,D.J., & comps.(2001). Syracuse urbanforest masterplan:guidingthe city'sforestresource into
the 21st century.50. NewtonSquare,PA,Unitedstates:Departmentof Agriculture,Forest
Service NortheasternResearchStation.
Office of the NewYorkState AttorneyGeneral EliotSpitzer.(2000). CitizensGuide to Pesticide
Notification Lawsin NewYork State. Syracuse.
Pokorny,J.D. (n.d.). Urban TreeRisk Management:A community Guideto ProgramDesign and
Implementation. St.Paul:USDA ForestService.
Urban ForestryLLC. (2013). BasicTree Risk Assessment:A ProcessforEvaluatingDecay.International
Societyof Arboriculture (ISA).
Urban ForestyCouncil;Departmentof the Environment.(2006,april).UrbanForestPlan:Cityand
Countyof San Francisco.San Francisco,California,UnitedStates.
