Municipal Tree Programs in Pennsylvania

Programs, Policies and Plans

Nearly half of respondents did not have a STC (Table 4). This illustrates that STCs are only one method of organization that communities use to care for trees. The high percentage (73%) of respondents with ordinances is encouraging, as ordinances serve the important purpose of formalizing responsibilities, setting standards, and providing a legal basis for the program. The low number (28%) of inventories is troublesome. An inventory is an important tool for maintaining street trees, scheduling work, and developing long-term plans. Computer inventories are especially useful in larger communities, and can actually save money by increasing the efficiency of the tree program.

Ninety-two municipalities reported a STC. Of these, 87% met once or more yearly, and 67% met twice or more yearly. This shows a high degree of activity among communities with STCs.

Development of long range plans and policies was reported by 137 of 154 municipalities (88%). This was done principally by elected officials or municipal tree commissions. This high level of planning and policy activity is encouraging.

Property owners were offered a method of input into plans and policies in 74% of responding communities. However, input was obtained principally through complaints according to 66% of the respondents. Only 20% of the planning bodies regularly sought property owner input. Public support for a tree care program can be built by seeking landowner input instead of waiting for complaints. Tree care programs can be improved by soliciting the ideas and input of the public.

Tree Planting

Almost half of responding communities have a high degree of street tree cover (over 59% of street mileage lined with trees) in their communities (Table 5). More aggressive planting programs can help other communities to reach this high level of tree cover. The very large number of spaces along streets where trees could be planted represents a tremendous opportunity for the nursery industry. It could also lead to serious problems for utilities, if trees incompatible with electric lines were planted. Technical advice on species selection can help to ensure that mature tree size will be appropriate forthe planting space.

Many Pennsylvania communities are faced with declining numbers of street trees (Table 6). The low percentage of programs with increases shows a need to educate communities about the benefits of new plantings, and possibly a need for planting funds.

Many communities do not conduct yearly plantings to replace removed trees and fill empty tree spaces (Table 7). Yearly plantings are important for maintaining the tree population. Programs which fail to conduct regular planting face a declining number of street trees, as removals fail to be replaced by new trees. Yearly plantings also help maintain a range of tree ages.

Numbers of trees planted over a five year period ranged from 0 (7% of respondents) to greater than 500 (7%), with the largest proportion of communities (48%) planting less than 50. No statistically significant correlation could be established between number of trees planted and population, nor between number of trees planted and number of street miles.

Fully 72% of the responding municipalities had a list of desired tree species for planting. Ideally, species lists contain those that will survive and flourish under the harsh conditions facing street trees. Such lists also may help ensure that selected trees will be suited to various types of planting spaces, if species are appropriately categorized.

STCs have roles in tree selection in only 43% of the communities (Table 8). As tree selection is an important aspect of long-range planning, it is important that expertise be developed and applied by those who select trees for various types of planting sites.

Most communities have defined who has authority to plant trees (Table 9). In many communities, more than one option exists. In situations where the community does not require a planting permit, there is little assurance that the tree planted will be appropriate for the planting space, opening up the possibility that the planted tree may someday grow into a liability. When communities allow landowners to plant street trees, the municipality should ensure in some way that the tree is appropriate in order to avoid costly problems such as interference with overhead wires and buckling sidewalks.

Maintenance Work

Most respondents (65%) believe that over half of their trees are in good or excellent condition (Table 10). Only 27% of respondents perceived nearly all (more than 75%) of a community’s trees to be in good or excellent condition. There is a need to help communities increase maintenance to improve the quality of their urban forests. Additionally, it is interesting to see that over half the respondents felt qualified to judge the health of their street trees without an inventory.

Many communities allow several parties to prune street trees (Table 11). It is important that those trimming street trees possess adequate training in pruning and safety techniques. Improper pruning can damage trees. When landowners or contractors are allowed to trim street trees, the municipality should ensure that they have training.

There is significant room for improvement in pruning practices among communities with street tree care programs (Table 12). A five year pruning cycle is a common goal for street trees. Only 12% of respondents approach this level.

The high number of respondents reporting no regular maintenance work (Tables 12 & 13) shows an opportunity to increase the frequency of tree care activities conducted by Pennsylvania communities.

Systematic checks for trees that need to be removed were conducted annually by 40% of the respondents. However, 43% responded that systematic checks occurred only in emergency situations. This raises the issue of safety in Pennsylvania communities. With such a large percentage of active street tree care programs failing to check regularly for hazardous trees, the situation state-wide seems serious.

Table 14 shows that many communities allow several options for removing street trees. It is important that those performing this task take adequate safety precautions and be experienced with removal techniques. Landowners who remove trees are especially in need of such training. The small number of communities who have not defined removal responsibility would be well advised to do so.

Availability of Expertise

Only 24% of the municipalities had contracted or employed a professionally educated forester or arborist to manage their trees. Only 6% had at least one full-time person with such training. This result is consistent with the Illinois study which found that most communities lacked trained arborists to care for their street trees. Of the communities with trained parttime arborists, 7 had less than 2,500 residents. Obviously these communities have a strong commitment to their street trees. The smallest Pennsylvania community with a full-time arborist has between 10,000 and 24,999 residents.

Thirty-six percent of respondents had at least one employee (trained or untrained) assigned to the community’s trees. Of respondents with municipal tree employees, 72% had either 1 or 2 workers.

Thirty-eight percent of responding municipalities reported at least one trained person active in the maintenance of the community’s street trees. These individuals could be employees or volunteers. Of respondents with at least one trained person, 82% had one or two. The similarity of the results for numbers of workers and numbers of trained persons suggests that a high proportion of workers have received some training.

Few communities reported involvement of volunteers in street tree care. Volunteers were most often involved with tree planting.

Education Needs

When asked what kinds of information would be helpful to those involved in tree programs, 52% responded that information on starting a street tree program would be “very helpful” (Table 15). This is interesting when one remembers that all of those sent the survey had some form of existing tree program. Our interpretation of this finding is that many communities are interested in expanding or reinvigorating the program they have and that they are eager for advice as to how to proceed.

When asked about pruning techniques and species selection, 60% and 63%, respectively, responded that this kind of information would be “very helpful”. High interest was shown in various types of arboricultural information among communities with tree programs. Cost-sharing programs sparked the keenest interest. It is noteworthy that more communities were interested in cost-sharing than fund-raising. Fully 75% of respondents stated that information on this subject would be very helpful. This response may indicate that many communities find money to be a limiting factor in their tree care program, a finding consistent with the national survey. Written comments by respondents support this idea. Many individuals wrote that their community was organized and eager to increase street tree care, but that lack of funding prevented greater action.