SMU Campus Tree Inventory & Ecosystem Services Report · Downtown Dallas, Inc. Tree Inventory & Ecosystem Services Report May, 2015 Page 7 Introduction Downtown Dallas, Inc. (DDI)

Downtown Dallas Tree Inventory &

Ecosystem Services Benefits Report

Prepared for: Downtown Dallas, Inc.

Submitted by: Texas Trees Foundation

Janette Monear, President/CEO

Matt Grubisich, Operations Director and Urban Forester

G. Tyler Wright, Urban and Community Forester

Downtown Dallas, Inc. Tree Inventory & Ecosystem Services Report

May, 2015 Page 2

Downtown Dallas Tree Inventory &

Ecosystem Services Benefits Report

May 2015


May, 2015 Page 3

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5

The Importance of Trees ............................................................................................................. 6

The Impact of Trees .................................................................................................................... 6

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 8

Downtown Dallas, Inc. Tree Inventory Results .............................................................................. 9

Tree Species ................................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 1: Species distribution of Top 10 tree species as represented by parts of the entire

downtown Dallas tree population. .......................................................................................... 9

Diameter Distribution ................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Relative diameter distribution of top 10 species based on overall percentage ..... 12

Condition................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4: Number of trees for each condition rating at the time of the inventory ............... 13

Maintenance Recommendations ............................................................................................... 14

Root Collar Excavation ......................................................................................................... 14

Pruning .................................................................................................................................. 14

Oak Wilt Treatment .............................................................................................................. 14

............................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Number of trees by maintenance need. Note there can be multiple

recommendations for one tree and are not represented on this graph. .................................. 15

Ecosystem Service Benefits .......................................................................................................... 15

Carbon Sequestration and Storage ............................................................................................ 15

Energy Savings ..................................................................................................................... 16

Annual Rainfall Interception................................................................................................. 16

Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 17

Structural and Functional Value ........................................................................................... 17

Structural values........................................................................................................................ 18

Annual functional values .......................................................................................................... 18


May, 2015 Page 4

Summary Observations ................................................................................................................. 19

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix A: i-Tree and Appraised Value ................................................................................... 20

Appendix B: Glossary of Key Terms ........................................................................................... 21

Appendix C: Data Collection Designation and Specifications for Tree Attributes ..................... 22

Appendix D: Population Summary of All Trees Inventoried ...................................................... 24

Appendix E: Relative Age Distribution for Top 10 Species of Downtown Dallas ..................... 27

Appendix F: Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species ................................................. 28

Appendix G: Annual Benefits of All Inventoried Trees .............................................................. 30

Appendix H: Replacement Value/Structural Value of All Inventoried Trees ............................. 31

Appendix I: Carbon Dioxide Annual Sequestration and Storage Benefits for All Inventoried

Trees .............................................................................................................................................. 33

Appendix J: Annual Energy Savings for All Inventoried Trees .................................................. 35

Appendix K: Annual Stormwater Mitigation Benefits for All Inventoried Trees ....................... 37

Appendix L: Annual Aesthetics Values for All Inventoried Trees .............................................. 39

About Texas Trees Foundation ..................................................................................................... 41

MISSION .................................................................................................................................. 41

VISION ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Contact Information .................................................................................................................. 41

Texas Trees Foundation ................................................................................................................ 42

Board of Trustees - 2015............................................................................................................... 42

Texas Trees Foundation Staff……………………………………………………………………42


May, 2015 Page 5

Executive Summary

Downtown Dallas, Inc. works with the City of Dallas to help maintain city streetscapes and to

keep the area lively and beautiful. To better understand the impact and role trees play for people

and businesses in the downtown area, Downtown Dallas, Inc. and the Texas Trees Foundation

formed a partnership to inventory and study the shade and ornamental tree species in the

downtown core.

Surrounded by concrete, large buildings, and major transportation corridors, downtown Dallas is

a mixture of both gray and green infrastructure that is home to 6,218 trees. One visit to

downtown and you can see how trees add significantly to the beauty of the city center and enrich

the quality of life for visitors, businesses, and residents. The purpose of the study is to:

1. Determine the size and scope of the urban forest in downtown Dallas

2. Catalog each public tree, and a selection of private trees, based on species, size and

location

3. Assess the current health and management needs of the trees

4. Determine the ecosystem service benefits and replacement value which the trees provide

to the downtown Dallas community

Using state-of-the art technology, Texas Trees Foundation assessed trees in the city center from

late 2014 through early 2015. Tree species, total tree height, condition, and other attributes were

assessed and catalogued using a data storage and management system designed for tree

inventories. This software program enables Downtown Dallas, Inc. and municipal departments

to accurately place trees on aerial imagery, record and display critical tree characteristics, and set

budgets for future maintenances such as public safety and/or tree health.

After the trees were assessed and inventoried, data was uploaded to a program called i-Tree,

developed by the USDA Forest Service and Davey Resource Group. This program allows users

to economically and ecologically monetize the benefits of trees for carbon sequestration, energy

savings, stromwater mitigation, and other factors that are important to our community. From this

program we are able to quantify and report the economic and environmental value trees provide

to the downtown community. By utilizing this information, Downtown Dallas, Inc. is in a

position to better manage this urban oasis and ensure a sustainable, healthy, well-treed city center

for decades to come.

This report details the work that was done to assess the current condition and value of the trees in

downtown Dallas. It provides the results of the inventory and offers recommendations for the

care and maintenance of the downtown urban forest and landscape through the use of Green

Infrastructure Best Management Practices.


May, 2015 Page 6

The Importance of Trees Trees are essential to our city, region, and state. Trees offer a wide range of benefits to our

environment. These include: pollution reduction, energy savings, heat island mitigation, storm

water management, erosion control, wildlife habitat, and an enhanced sense of self and place.

Trees are one of the most effective ways to bring about widespread improvement in the

environment and the quality of life of an area. Even in a vast metropolitan city like Dallas, where

gray infrastructure far outweighs the green, trees play a significant role in regulating

temperature, improving air and water quality, and increasing energy savings.

The Impact of Trees By understanding the structure, function, and value of an urban forest, Downtown Dallas, Inc.

and the City of Dallas can promote better management decisions that will extend the life of trees

and improve the overall health and safety of urban trees. By promoting better management

decision, stakeholders can share with the public the knowledge that trees are a capital asset to

the community. With sound planning and good decision making, newly planted and existing

trees will continue to grow, thrive and lessen the probability of causing future problems or

conflicts. Moving away from a reactive-based management program to a pro-active approach

will ensure a healthier and safer environment and reduce management and maintenance costs.

Key Findings

Number of trees: 6,218

7.4% Canopy Cover

Most common species: Live oak, Cedar elm, Shumard red oak

Over 60% of the trees are between 4-12 inches in DBH (Diameter Breast Height)

Of the 6,218 trees, 5,781 are in fair to excellent condition (92.9%)

Carbon Sequestration: 1,823,288 pounds per year (value: $13,675/year)

Carbon Storage: 14,149,377 total pounds stored (value: $106,120)

Energy Savings: $44,514 each year

Annual Rainfall Interception: 11.4 million cubic feet per year (value: $113,166/year)

Structural value: $17.8 million

Ecosystem service benefits were analyzed using the i-Tree Streets model (formerly known as

STRATUM) developed by the USDA. Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

For more information about i-Tree methodology, see Appendix A.


May, 2015 Page 7

Introduction Downtown Dallas, Inc. (DDI) is the principle advocate, champion, and steward for the

downtown Dallas area. DDI is a private non-profit organization that is effecting change by

developing strategies, setting targets, and mobilizing resources which will improve

infrastructure, enhance economic prowess, and position the area as a global tourist destination.

Downtown Dallas is comprised of 15 distinct districts, an exciting and diverse collection of

environments, experiences, and neighborhoods, each with its own character, personality, and

purpose. The study area was limited to the area within the freeway loop (Interstates 30, 35, 45

and Spur 366) and is approximately 1.6 square miles in size with 8,500 full time residents.

Texas Trees Foundation began the inventory and assessment of the downtown Dallas area in

August, 2014 and concluded in March, 2015. The following tree characteristics were assessed in

the field or obtained through the tree inventory software:

Latitude

Longitude

Species

Diameter Breast Height (inches)

Height (feet)

Notes associated with tree

Planting Location

Defects Present

Condition Rating

Recommended Maintenance

Location

Over the past decade, there has been an increase in both the knowledge of ecosystem services

and social benefits of urban forests as well as the availability of quantitative tools, such as i-Tree,

for the measurement and dispersal of reputable information regarding the importance of trees in

the urban forest (Dwyer et. al 1992). Since the introduction of these new quantitative tools for

measuring tree benefits, nearly 827 international and 773 national assessments have been

produced (as of January, 2012). DDI’s recognition of the multitude of benefits urban forests

provide prompted the development of

this tree inventory. Commissioned in

part to quantify the monetary value

and quality of life values associated

with urban trees, this study highlights

the importance DDI leaders have

placed on this tree population. The

results will enable stakeholders and

leaders to continue enhancing the

urban forestry program at the city

center.


May, 2015 Page 8

Methodology Data was collected from August 2014 to March 2015, using a Motion CL900 tablet (Intel Atom

Z670 processor, 62 GB hard drive, Windows 7 Professional) and PlanIt Geo software (Colorado,

USA; www.planitgeo.com). PlanIt Geo software is a state of the art, robust tree inventory and

data storage system which has the ability to facilitate maintenance cost, scheduling, and tree

maintenance record management for the inventoried trees. It has the capability to integrate aerial

imagery and other GIS based software (ArcMap, etc.) to accurately identify where trees are

located in the landscape through the use of latitude and longitude coordinates.

Once a tree is placed in the approximate location on the aerial imagery, latitude and longitude

coordinates were recorded so crews can be dispatched for geo-referencing or maintenance to be

performed. Each tree was then assessed for the current health of the tree, size of the trunk (DBH)

and canopy, location of tree (near buildings, parks, historic areas, etc.) as well as any defects

which were present at that time of the survey.

All shade trees, and most ornamental tree species on public property were included in the

inventory, along with a selection of shade trees on private property based on species, location,

and by request. Trees were also evaluated to determine what maintenance, if any, needed to be

scheduled. Below is a list of attributes and recommendations collected for each tree:

Species

Height (feet)

Diameter at breast height

(DBH) (inches)

Maintenance concerns

Overall health

Defects

Latitude and Longitude

Location

Pruning needs

Root collar maintenance

Fertilization

Removal

Dwyer, J., G. McPherson, H. Shroeder, and R. Rowntree. “Assessing the Benfits and Costs of the Urban Forest.”

Journal of Arboriculture. 18(5). pp. 227-234. 1992.


May, 2015 Page 9

Downtown Dallas, Inc. Tree Inventory Results

Tree Species

In downtown Dallas, Southern live oak (Quercus virginiana) accounts for 19% of the entire tree

population (Figure 1). The next two most common species are cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) and

Shumard red oak (Quercus shumardii). In all, over 32% of downtown Dallas’ tree population is

in the Quercus genera (oak family). This could potentially be a serious issue, especially with oak

wilt (see page 13), which is active in Dallas county.

The ideal tree population of any urban forest should consist of no more than 30% of the same

family (e.g. Fagacea; oak and beech family); 20% of the same genera (e.g. oak trees); and 10%

of the same species (e.g. Live oak). -Santamour

Figure 1: Species distribution of Top 10 tree species as represented by parts of the entire

downtown Dallas tree population.

Diameter Distribution

19.91

13.57

12.24 11.11

7.99

6.87 4.66

4.62 2.56 2.44

Live oak

Cedar elm

Shumard oak

Baldcypress

Common crapemyrtle

Chinese pistache

Chinese elm

Sweetgum

Southern magnolia

Callery pear

*Santamour, Frank S. Jr.1990. Trees for Urban Planting: Diversity, Uniformity, and Common Sense. Proc. 7 th

Conference Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA) 7:5765


May, 2015 Page 10

Tree diameter can often be used to determine the age distribution of a stand of trees. Healthy

urban forests are typically characterized by a mix of tree ages, with a large number of smaller

trees and a smaller population of large mature trees. This ensures that as trees age and perish

there is not a gap in the canopy.

Downtown Dallas’ tree canopy is mostly composed of one age class, (Figure 2) with very few

small trees (e.g. diameters less than 3 inches.) This can create management challenges, without

an established succession pattern, there may not be an adequate number of well-established

younger trees ready to assume the place of the older trees as they die. This often leads to a cycle

of having to plant larger trees to try and fill the canopy gaps. Larger trees cost more and require

more time and effort to maintain.

Figure 2: Relative diameter distribution of all trees represented by diameter classes by diameter

breast height (inches)

0

50

(%)

DBH Class

Relative Age Distribution of All Tree Species in Study Area (%)


May, 2015 Page 11

An element that needs to be addressed in the Relative Age Distribution (Figure 2) is the relative

soil area in which trees grow in a downtown, highly urbanized environment. Most tree pits are

constructed in a way that doesn’t provide adequate soil volume for proper root growth. Grabosky

and Gilman 2004, suggest that tree pits need at least 1,000 cubic feet of soil volume for trees to

reach full stature at maturity. With the lack of soil volume in high density urban areas, trees can

only become so large, given the lack of rooting space and availability of soil nutrients and

available water. This is one reason the relative age distribution is skewed toward these trees

being in the 6-12 inch range. If rooting spaces were larger, or connected using green

infrastructure advancements, these trees would have the potential of becoming larger and

producing more benefits.

Grabosky, J. and E. Gilman. ” MEASUREMENT AND PREDICTION OF TREE GROWTH REDUCTION FROM

TREE PLANTING SPACE DESIGN IN ESTABLISHED PARKING LOTS.” Journal of Arboriculture. 30(3).

2004. pp. 154-164.


May, 2015 Page 12

Figure 3: Relative diameter distribution of top 10 species based on overall percentage

Condition The condition of an individual tree can vary greatly over time. This study provides a “snapshot”

of each tree on the particular day in which the tree was assessed. Information regarding the

condition of the trees is important, but it is highly recommended that a process be established to

ensure the periodic assessment of all the trees and add newly planted trees to the inventory.

The rating system used for assessing tree health at Downtown Dallas, Inc. included:

Excellent/Good – No apparent problems or issues; no dead limbs or leaves and the tree is

growing extremely well with a well excised root flare in a good location with little to no

scars, wounds or decay.

Fair – Few apparent problems or issues; few dead limbs or twigs were present and leaves

may have been slightly chlorotic or scorched/wilted. Root collar may be buried but few

scars, wounds or decay present.

Poor – Many problems and issues were present, including but not limited to wounds and

decay; many scars, buried root collars and death or decline of large tree parts.

Live oak

Cedar elm

Shumard oak

Baldcypress

Common crapemyrtleChinese pistache

Chinese elmSweetgum

Southern magnoliaCallery pear

0

20

40

60

80

(%)

DBH Class

Relative Age Distribution of Top 10 All Tree Species in Study Area (%)


May, 2015 Page 13

Hazardous – In serious need of maintenance or tree death is imminent; risk to personal

safety and property is greater than any other condition above.

Dead – Life processes have ceased and the tree is now in a state of high risk if not

removed.

Figure 4: Number of trees for each condition rating at the time of the inventory

12

2,668

2,920

546

361

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Excellent Good Fair Poor Hazardous Dead


May, 2015 Page 14

Maintenance Recommendations A positive finding from the DDI inventory is that over 90% of the trees are in the “fair” or

“good” categories. While no individual tree is completely healthy and free of all defects, ratings

at this level are encouraging and positively reflects on the work being performed by both City of

Dallas staff and Downtown Dallas, Inc. crews.

Some of the major maintenance requirements are listed here. (A detailed breakdown with

definitions can be found in Appendix C.)

Root Collar Excavation

The root collar is an important area of the tree; it is the interface between trunk and roots. In this

area, the tissue grows about 1.5 times faster than the trunk. This is where the flare is created. It

helps retain support and structure for the tree during wind events and aids in gas exchange for

respiration. If buried, the tree could suffocate from gas interruptions or latent buds could be

activated and circling, potentially girdling roots could be formed at the base; weakening the

entire structure of the tree. To ensure long term tree survival measures should be taken to keep

the root collar clear of excess soil, grass, mulch, or other obstacles. If the root collar is already

buried an air spade can be used to remove the excess material without causing damage to the

existing root system.

Pruning

Several different types of tree pruning need to occur throughout downtown. The majority of

pruning needed is for clearance of the roadways and sidewalks. Due to the large number of live

oaks and their natural growth habit, clearance pruning needs to be an ongoing practice. The other

major pruning that is needed is young tree pruning. Many defects, such as double leaders or co-

dominant stems, can be corrected at an early age and should be done after the first growing

season following the planting of the new tree.

Oak Wilt Treatment

Oak wilt is a devastating disease pathogen that affects oak trees in the red oak family (shumard

red oak and live oak). Oak wilt is extremely difficult to manage and eradicate. Thus,

management options are limited. Pruning of live oaks and red oaks SHOULD NOT be

performed between February and June. In addition, tools should be sterilized in between trees

when pruning in areas where oak wilt is known to occur. Even though there are no current Oak

Wilt centers located in downtown, it is highly recommended when pruning live oaks and red

oaks to always paint the cuts to help limit the spread of the pathogen.

For more information about Oak Wilt please visit texasoakwilt.org.


May, 2015 Page 15

Figure 5: Number of trees by maintenance need. Note there can be multiple

recommendations for one tree and are not represented on this graph.

Ecosystem Service Benefits

Carbon Sequestration and Storage

Trees reduce the amount of carbon in

the atmosphere by sequestering carbon

in new growth every year. The amount

of carbon annually sequestered is

increased with the size and health of the

trees (Brack 2002). The gross

sequestration of carbon by trees in

Downtown a year is 1,823,288 pounds.

As trees grow they store carbon as wood

fibers. Carbon storage is a one-time

value which represents how much

carbon is being stored collectively at the

time of the inventory. Trees in downtown Dallas are currently storing about 14,149,377 pounds

(7,075 tons) of carbon.

2

2,076

1,712

218 154

2,047

350

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Cable Large TreeClean

None Removal Small TreeClean

Young TreePruning

FurtherInspectionRequired

C.L. Brack, “Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest,” Environmental

Pollution, 116(1),2002, pp.195-200


May, 2015 Page 16

Energy Savings Trees lower energy consumption by shading buildings, providing evaporative cooling and

blocking winter winds. Deciduous trees planted on the south and west facing sides of buildings

tend to reduce the consumption of energy during the

summer months.

Based on 2013 energy costs per kilowatt hour, trees in

downtown Dallas reduce energy-related costs by an

estimated $44,514 annually.

Annual Rainfall Interception Trees can aide in reducing storm water runoff during rain events by intercepting and storing

rainfall on leaves and branches and allowing water to infiltrate more slowly into the surrounding

soil. Reducing runoff volume during a rain event helps to minimize soil erosion. More

specifically, healthy urban trees play an important role in storm water management in three

ways:

1. Reducing the overall volume of water entering the storm system by leaf and branch

interception.

2. Increasing soil health and structure, thus aiding water infiltration into the soil and further

reducing peak flow levels.

3. Reducing rainfall velocity and soil impact helps reduce soil erosion, soil compaction, and

surface transport rates of water (stormwater runoff).

It is estimated that downtown Dallas’ trees mitigate 11,430,949 gallons of storm water each year,

resulting in an annual savings of $113,166. That represents, on average, nearly $18.20 for each

tree. This value is based on monthly storm water management fees that are assessed for moving,

storing, and cleaning storm water.

Figure 6: Secondary benefits from energy conservation are reduced water

consumption and reduced pollutant emissions by power plants (drawing by Mike

Thomas).


May, 2015 Page 17

Aesthetics

Trees provide a host of

aesthetic, social, economic, and

health benefits. One of the most

common reasons people plant

trees is for aesthetics. Trees

add color, texture, and a

dimension to the landscape that

help soften the hardness of a

man-made environment.

Research on the aesthetics

quality of trees has shown that

trees are the single strongest

positive influence on scenic

quality (Schroeder and Cannon

1983).

Schroeder, H.W.; Cannon, W.N. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. J.

Arboric. 9:237-243.

Structural and Functional Value

Urban trees have a structural/replacement value in addition to their functional/environmental

value. The structural value is based on the cost of replacing a tree with one of a similar size and

species, or the equivalent in the number of inches mitigated for tree loss.

However, the value of the tree population can decrease over time, especially if there is decline in

tree health. Ensuring proper tree management is essential to maximizing the value of trees and

the urban forest.

The following values represent the one-time structural values of the downtown Dallas tree

population and the annual functional benefits of all trees inventoried:


May, 2015 Page 18

Structural values

Replacement value: $17.8

million

Carbon Storage: $106,120

Landscape appraisal value:

$44.5 million

Annual functional values

Carbon Sequestration:

$13,675

Energy Savings: $44,514

Stormwater Mitigation:

$113,166

Aesthetic Value: $248,067

*Nowak, D., M. Noble, S. Sisinni, J. Dwyer. “People and Trees: Assessing the US Urban Forest Resource.” Journal

of Forestry. 99(1). 2001. pp. 37-42.

The Replacement Value is the value which it would cost to replant each tree lost and ensure

survival for three years. This also takes in consideration the annual ecosystem service benefits

which would be lost each year.

Carbon storage is the one-time value in which trees are trapping carbon from being absorbed into

the atmosphere and creating ozone action days in cities. This is a one-time value based on the

current size of the tree. As the tree continues to grow the amount of stored carbon increases.

The Landscape Appraisal Value is created using the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers

Guide. This value is determined using an equation to determine the value of the standing tree

(using coefficients for tree species, tree location, and condition of tree) and the value of replacing

that tree with a tree of the same size. In its essence, a large tree has more benefits than replanting

with a small tree. However, large trees are difficult to plant and maintain. By correcting this

factor, we can determine the value of the standing tree based on the tree species, tree location,

and tree condition.

*D. Nowak, R. Rowntree, E.G. McPherson, S. Sisinni, E. Kerkmann, J. Stevens, “Measuring and analyzing urban tree

cover”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 36(1), 1996, pp. 49-57

Schroeder, H.W.; Cannon, W.N. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. J.

Arboric. 9:237–243.


May, 2015 Page 19

Summary Observations

The downtown Dallas urban forest provides many benefits to residents, business, and tourists

and creates a sense of community while fostering an environment of economic prosperity. An

increase in the understanding of these benefits and their associated economic values can facilitate

more precise and better planning and management of the landscape services.

With a canopy cover of 7% downtown Dallas’ tree canopy needs to be expanded, and since a

majority of the trees are in the six to eight inch diameter range, canopy cover should grow

significantly, as long as proper urban tree management practices are in place. As trees are

planted, stakeholders and leaders must be cautious of which trees they choose to plant. With over

50% of the canopy composed of three species; and with two of them in the same family,

diversifying species selection in future planting initiatives is highly recommended in order to

enhance the quality and resiliency of the downtown tree population. .

The following are observations and recommendations observed during the inventory process:

Construction will continue to lead to conflicts between existing trees and new

development. All precautions should be taken to ensure proper tree protection is

established and maintained during the construction process.

Careful monitoring of newly planted trees and trees impacted by construction is highly

recommended. Fertilization and other arboriculture practice may be required to treat

stressed trees. Also, careful inspection and, where appropriate, rejection of poor quality

nursery stock upon delivery is essential.

Turf management practices around trees will continue to cause issues with tree health.

Reducing turf within the drip line of trees and maintaining a rigorous mulching program

will help in reducing these conflicts.

Lightning protection is recommended for high priority trees.

Exposed root flares often get buried in high maintenance landscapes and care should be

taken to ensure root flares remain exposed (and that trees stay at a proper depth.)

Alternatives to tree grates that can more easily be removed is recommended to reduce

tree girdling conflicts.

Tree species diversity is low; more tree plantings with a variety of species is

recommended.

A detailed tree planting plan utilizing Green Infrastructure Best Management Practices

needs to be developed to maximize storm water management and address the urban heat

island effect.


May, 2015 Page 20

Appendices

Appendix A: i-Tree and Appraised Value

i-Tree is a state of the art, peer reviewed tree evaluation tool which was created through the U.S.

Forest Service and Davey Resource Group. i-Tree Streets was used to determine the value of the

trees ecosystem service benefits it provides on both an annual basis and the overall economic

value for the one-time replacement cost. This software program does has its limitations and, for

DDI’s purposes, will underestimate the total value (this is due to the fact street trees grow in a

different orientation than open grown trees; which is more the situation for DDI).

Peer reviewed, journal manuscripts were the foundation for this software program. It has been an

industry wide known to be true program with merits from both the private and public institutions

and professional organizations. Stormwater data was collected using local stormwater

infrastructure from 20 municipalities to determine peak flow rates during rain events with

communities with and without a significant tree canopy cover. Energy abatement values are from

utility providers in the 20 main reference cities and were determined from power usage between

treed and non-treed neighborhoods.

Other such non-tangible evidence of tree benefits were given from anecdotal studies of tree lined

areas (hospitals, streets for crime prevention, schools, etc.) versus non-tree lined areas. Carbon

storage and sequestration are approximate values determined by studies involving the amount of

carbon which is interned within the cell walls of the plant material (mainly xylem).


May, 2015 Page 21

Appendix B: Glossary of Key Terms Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): A standard method of expressing the diameter of

the trunk or bole of a standing tree.

Ecosystem Services: Refers to benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Healthy forest

ecosystems are ecological life-support systems. Forests provide a full suite of goods and services

that are vital to human health and livelihood.

Girdling Roots: When a tree is planted incorrectly, or when rooting space is limited, there is the

potential for some of the roots to start growing around the trunk of the tree instead of fanning

outward. As the tree grows, the roots gradually get tighter and tighter around the trunk of the

tree, preventing the flow of water and nutrients absorbed by the roots to move up into the woody

and leafy parts of the tree. This girdles or chokes the tree, causing it to die.

Green Infrastructure: An approach communities can choose to maintain healthy

waters, providing multiple environmental benefits and supporting sustainable communities.

Unlike single-purpose gray storm water infrastructure, which uses pipes to dispose of rainwater,

green infrastructure uses vegetation and soil to manage rainwater where it falls. By weaving

natural processes into the built environment, green infrastructure provides not only storm water

management, but also flood mitigation, air quality management, and much more.

iTree: A state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite from the USDA Forest Service that

provides urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools. The i-Tree tools help

communities of all sizes to strengthen their urban forest management and advocacy efforts by

quantifying the structure of community trees and the environmental services that trees provide.

Root Collar: A tree’s root collar is the area where the roots join the main stem or trunk. This

area is typified by a flare leading to the major roots.

Transplant Shock: Refers to a number of stresses occurring in recently transplanted trees and

shrubs. It involves failure of the plant to root well; consequently the plant becomes poorly

established in the landscape. New transplants do not have extensive root systems, and they are

frequently stressed by lack of sufficient water. Plants suffering from water stress may be more

susceptible to injury from other causes such as the weather, insects, or disease. When several

stresses are being experienced, the plant may no longer be able to function properly.

Tree: A perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting leaves or branches.

Urban Forest: A forest or a collection of trees that grow within a city, town or a suburb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diameter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(botany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bole_(botany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(botany)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb


May, 2015 Page 22

Appendix C: Data Collection Designation and Specifications for Tree

Attributes

The following terms are defined as they are used in this report, as each term can be

misinterpreted by different professionals.

Wound, Scar and Decay

A wound is an active situation where an object, person or pest has damaged the cambium layer

of the tree part. However, the wound has not properly sealed completely and thus still active.

A scar is when a wound has occurred on the tree part and the tree has completely sealed the

wound with callous wood.

Decay is where a wound has happened and the phloem, cambium and xylem are in state of being

broken down where wood strength is compromised and the tree could prove to be at a higher risk

than a tree without strength compromise.

Root Collar Excavation

Root Collar Excavations (RCX) is a technique where the root collar is buried to some extent.

The varying degrees of how much the root collar is buried is not pertinent. If a RCX has been

recommended, the root collar of the tree has been buried, at the time of inspection, or decay or

some other defect may be present and examining the root plate, the transition are between roots

and trunk at the soil line, may be necessary to determine the risk the tree poses to life and

property.

Training Prune

By training a young tree to grow with a central main lead stem, the long term after care of the

tree can be greatly reduced and cause less defects to become obvious as the tree matures. In this

recommendation, trees which has co-dominant stems, both in size and/or height, should be

pruned to allow for central dominance. This should be repeated every 3 to 5 years until the tree

has been pruned at least 5 cycles.

Priority Pruning/Removal

Priority 1 and Priority 2 Pruning and Removal detail when the tree should be pruned or removed.

Priority 1 means the maintenance should be performed within the next 12 months. Priority 2

means the maintenance should be carried out within the 18 to 24 months.


May, 2015 Page 23

Raise/Clearance

Raise and Clearance can be used interchangeably to describe the maintenance needed for trees

which are over sidewalks and roadways. For DDI, we decided to create two separate

nomenclatures. Raise will mean to prune the tree limb which is over a sidewalk. Clearance will

refer to clearing tree limbs which are over a roadway.


May, 2015 Page 24

Appendix D: Population Summary of All Trees Inventoried

Population Summary

DBH Class (in)

Species 0-3 3-6 6-12

12-

18

18-

24

24-

30

30-

36

36-

42

>

42 Total SE

Broadleaf Deciduous Large (BDL)

Cedar elm 2 112 491 220 16 3 0 0 0 844 (±0)

Shumard oak 4 224 309 183 29 9 2 1 0 761 (±0)

Baldcypress 14 31 397 225 24 0 0 0 0 691 (±0)

Sweetgum 0 17 188 79 3 0 0 0 0 287 (±0)

Siberian elm 0 0 43 1 0 1 0 0 0 45 (±0)

Bur oak 2 17 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 42 (±0)

Post oak 0 0 1 1 11 15 12 0 0 40 (±0)

Silver maple 0 21 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 (±0)

White ash 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 (±0)

Honeylocust 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 (±0)

Hackberry 0 0 3 9 1 4 0 0 0 17 (±0)

Green ash 0 11 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 17 (±0)

Pecan 0 1 0 1 4 3 2 0 0 11 (±0)

Pond cypress 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 (±0)

American elm 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 8 (±0)

Red mulberry 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 6 (±0)

Eastern cottonwood 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 (±0)

Southern red oak 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 (±0)

Sugar maple 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 (±0)

Tree of heaven 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 (±0)

Total 47 463 1462 739 92 37 17 2 0 2859 (±0)

Broadleaf Deciduous Medium (BDM)

Chinese pistache 7 69 310 40 1 0 0 0 0 427 (±0)

Chinese elm 35 178 74 3 0 0 0 0 0 290 (±0)

Red maple 9 30 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 76 (±0)

Ginkgo 0 45 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 (±0)

River birch 1 10 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 (±0)

Chinkapin oak 7 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 (±0)

Common pear 1 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 22 (±0)

Fragrant ash 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 (±0)

Eastern hophornbeam 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (±0)

Boxelder 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 (±0)

Total 62 354 479 66 3 0 0 0 0 964 (±0)


May, 2015 Page 25

Broadleaf Deciduous Small (BDS)

Common crapemyrtle 51 187 184 63 12 0 0 0 0 497 (±0)

Callery pear 0 1 45 94 8 4 0 0 0 152 (±0)

Eastern redbud 33 46 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 (±0)

Trident maple 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 (±0)

Japanese maple 6 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 (±0)

Honey mesquite 0 1 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 (±0)

Mexican plum 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 (±0)

Chaste tree 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 (±0)

Desert willow 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 (±0)

Goldenrain tree 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 (±0)

Eve's necklace 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 (±0)

Soapberry 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 (±0)

Total 94 323 263 167 21 6 0 0 0 874 (±0)

Broadleaf Evergreen Large (BEL)

Live oak 6 60 357 442 240 84 42 7 0 1238 (±0)

Total 6 60 357 442 240 84 42 7 0 1238 (±0)

Broadleaf Evergreen Medium (BEM)

Southern magnolia 7 34 107 9 2 0 0 0 0 159 (±0)

Total 7 34 107 9 2 0 0 0 0 159 (±0)

Broadleaf Evergreen Small (BES)

Holly 2 31 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 (±0)

Texas mountain laurel 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 (±0)

Total 2 31 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 61 (±0)

Conifer Evergreen Large (CEL)

Loblolly pine 0 1 41 12 2 0 0 0 0 56 (±0)

Pine 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 (±0)

Afghan pine 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 (±0)

Total 0 1 41 13 2 0 1 0 0 58 (±0)

Conifer Evergreen Medium (CEM)

Eastern red cedar 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (±0)

Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (±0)

Palm Evergreen Medium (PEM)

Mexican fan palm 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 (±0)

Total 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 (±0)

Downtown Dallas Total 218 1266 2738 1440 360 127 60 9 0 6218 (±0)


May, 2015 Page 26

Species distribution of all trees tallied during the inventory process based on the percentage

represented throughout downtown Dallas.

Species Percent

Live oak 19.91

Cedar elm 13.57

Shumard oak 12.24

Baldcypress 11.11

Common crapemyrtle 7.99

Chinese pistache 6.87

Chinese elm 4.66

Sweetgum 4.62

Southern magnolia 2.56

Callery pear 2.44

Other Species 14.02


May, 2015 Page 27

Appendix E: Relative Age Distribution for Top 10 Species of Downtown

Dallas

Species 0 - 3 3 - 6 6 - 12 12 - 18 18 - 24 24 - 30 30 - 36 36 - 42 > 42

Live oak 0.48 4.85 28.84 35.70 19.39 6.79 3.39 0.57 0.00

Cedar elm 0.24 13.27 58.18 26.07 1.90 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00

Shumard oak 0.53 29.43 40.60 24.05 3.81 1.18 0.26 0.13 0.00

Baldcypress 2.03 4.49 57.45 32.56 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Common crapemyrtle 10.26 37.63 37.02 12.68 2.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Chinese pistache 1.64 16.16 72.60 9.37 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Chinese elm 12.07 61.38 25.52 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sweetgum 0.00 5.92 65.51 27.53 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southern magnolia 4.40 21.38 67.30 5.66 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Callery pear 0.00 0.66 29.61 61.84 5.26 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00

Citywide Total 3.51 20.36 44.03 23.16 5.79 2.04 0.96 0.14 0.00


May, 2015 Page 28

Appendix F: Average Annual Benefits of All Trees by Species

Species Energy CO2

Air

Quality Stormwater Aesthetic/Other Total

Standard

Error

Live oak 11.95 3.86 - 4.32 38.01 71.51 121.02 (N/A)

Cedar elm 6.46 2.14 - 1.48 15.27 42.88 65.27 (N/A)

Shumard oak 6.29 2.04 - 1.74 15.66 40.14 62.40 (N/A)

Baldcypress 7.20 2.38 - 1.83 17.44 46.42 71.61 (N/A)

Common crapemyrtle 3.51 0.57 1.30 4.48 7.12 16.97 (N/A)

Chinese pistache 7.39 2.41 2.81 13.08 29.77 55.46 (N/A)

Chinese elm 4.26 1.14 1.58 6.58 19.27 32.84 (N/A)

Sweetgum 5.69 1.31 - 2.64 12.82 39.53 56.71 (N/A)

Southern magnolia 3.91 0.59 1.31 9.75 15.37 30.94 (N/A)

Callery pear 9.14 2.45 4.02 17.05 26.45 59.11 (N/A)

Eastern redbud 1.69 0.36 0.66 2.04 3.91 8.66 (N/A)

Red maple 3.74 0.98 1.14 7.09 25.61 38.56 (N/A)

Ginkgo 4.63 1.23 1.72 7.06 20.62 35.26 (N/A)

Holly 1.90 0.45 1.20 2.54 1.93 8.02 (N/A)

Loblolly pine 4.97 1.42 - 1.31 12.44 22.72 40.25 (N/A)

Trident maple 2.01 0.49 0.80 2.50 4.60 10.40 (N/A)

Siberian elm 5.52 1.88 - 1.04 12.54 40.27 59.17 (N/A)

River birch 6.65 2.02 2.51 11.23 27.04 49.45 (N/A)

Bur oak 4.04 1.33 - 0.48 8.43 29.63 42.95 (N/A)

Post oak 22.93 6.85 - 18.92 90.10 95.14 196.09 (N/A)

Chinkapin oak 3.02 0.71 1.11 4.28 15.11 24.22 (N/A)

Silver maple 3.83 0.91 1.32 4.90 16.82 27.78 (N/A)

Japanese maple 2.15 0.52 0.85 2.71 4.62 10.84 (N/A)

Common pear 12.53 5.83 4.89 28.13 50.54 101.92 (N/A)

White ash 0.98 0.26 0.19 1.30 7.40 10.13 (N/A)

Honey mesquite 6.18 1.78 2.49 8.72 9.54 28.73 (N/A)

Honeylocust 1.72 0.51 0.30 2.39 15.08 20.01 (N/A)

Green ash 6.58 1.94 - 3.55 20.61 34.89 60.46 (N/A)

Hackberry 13.43 4.23 - 6.94 41.81 68.88 121.42 (N/A)

Mexican plum 3.57 1.01 1.42 4.77 6.66 17.43 (N/A)

Pecan 19.27 5.83 - 14.47 72.02 84.21 166.86 (N/A)

Chaste tree 2.95 0.80 1.17 3.86 5.84 14.62 (N/A)

Fragrant ash 7.68 2.35 2.91 13.14 30.23 56.33 (N/A)

Pond cypress 0.48 0.08 0.12 0.55 2.07 3.29 (N/A)

American elm 12.54 3.78 - 8.99 45.71 55.49 108.53 (N/A)

Desert willow 3.33 0.90 1.33 4.47 6.15 16.17 (N/A)

Red mulberry 10.13 3.28 - 3.62 27.27 58.57 95.63 (N/A)

Goldenrain tree 3.18 0.88 1.26 4.21 6.15 15.67 (N/A)

Eve's necklace 1.20 0.17 0.46 1.33 3.01 6.18 (N/A)

Eastern cottonwood 13.66 4.31 - 7.21 43.01 69.77 123.53 (N/A)

Texas mountain laurel 5.89 1.48 3.97 11.44 8.54 31.30 (N/A)

Southern red oak 8.12 2.67 - 2.09 19.66 51.08 79.44 (N/A)

Mexican fan palm 1.74 0.22 0.22 4.05 4.58 10.79 (N/A)

Eastern hophornbeam 1.99 0.42 0.72 2.69 11.39 17.22 (N/A)


May, 2015 Page 29

Sugar maple 11.37 2.67 3.25 23.00 47.39 87.68 (N/A)

Soapberry 12.85 1.46 5.53 22.75 17.08 59.67 (N/A)

Boxelder 16.74 9.90 6.68 48.27 70.60 152.19 (N/A)

Tree of heaven 11.28 3.63 - 3.60 28.98 63.82 104.09 (N/A)

Pine 10.04 2.74 4.14 23.26 29.83 70.00 (N/A)

Afghan pine 33.59 9.33 14.86 108.87 49.30 215.95 (N/A)

Eastern red cedar 2.56 0.68 1.57 5.87 6.87 17.55 (N/A)

Citywide Total 7.16 2.20 - 1.18 18.20 39.90 66.28 (N/A)


May, 2015 Page 30

Appendix G: Annual Benefits of All Inventoried Trees

Benefits

Total

($) SE $/tree SE $/capita SE

Energy 44,514 (N/A) 7.16 (N/A) 5.24 (N/A)

CO2 13,675 (N/A) 2.20 (N/A) 1.61 (N/A)

Air Quality - 7,318 (N/A) - 1.18 (N/A) - 0.86 (N/A)

Stormwater

113,166 (N/A) 18.20 (N/A) 13.31 (N/A)

Aesthetic/Other

248,067 (N/A) 39.90 (N/A) 29.18 (N/A)

Total Benefits

412,105 (N/A) 66.28 (N/A) 48.48 (N/A)


May, 2015 Page 31

Appendix H: Replacement Value/Structural Value of All Inventoried Trees

DBH Class (in)

Species 0-3 3-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 > 42 Total SE

% of

Total

Live oak 838.60 27,588.26 549,754.96 1,812,300.49 1,905,761.66 1,097,146.56 798,185.50 175,987.88 0.00 6,367,563.91 (±0) 35.68

Cedar elm 211.00 57,901.43 935,703.52 1,143,454.59 162,163.80 50,156.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,349,590.92 (±0) 13.16

Baldcypress 1,477.01 16,026.29 756,566.80 1,169,442.20 243,245.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,186,757.99 (±0) 12.25

Shumard oak 524.80 106,197.85 504,094.83 800,542.78 246,190.12 125,781.00 40,686.65 26,918.37 0.00 1,850,936.40 (±0) 10.37

Common crapemyrtle 5,380.53 96,674.71 350,650.61 327,443.81 121,622.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 901,772.51 (±0) 5.05

Chinese pistache 858.44 33,698.96 534,074.15 185,954.96 9,037.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 763,624.47 (±0) 4.28

Sweetgum 0.00 7,184.92 244,808.50 267,571.94 19,542.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 539,107.98 (±0) 3.02

Callery pear 0.00 445.51 65,181.82 359,634.97 59,136.26 48,587.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 532,986.05 (±0) 2.99

Post oak 0.00 0.00 1,539.93 4,100.23 87,347.41 195,919.03 228,053.00 0.00 0.00 516,959.60 (±0) 2.90

Southern magnolia 738.50 17,577.22 203,910.95 46,777.69 20,270.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 289,274.84 (±0) 1.62

Chinese elm 3,872.42 90,495.40 136,962.37 15,098.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 246,428.97 (±0) 1.38

Pecan 0.00 488.39 0.00 4,648.87 36,151.82 44,670.19 43,364.47 0.00 0.00 129,323.75 (±0) 0.72

Loblolly pine 0.00 459.80 63,137.12 49,202.73 15,881.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128,681.00 (±0) 0.72

Common pear 131.20 0.00 0.00 87,491.01 8,489.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96,111.53 (±0) 0.54

Hackberry 0.00 0.00 4,345.45 34,433.14 7,392.03 48,587.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 94,758.11 (±0) 0.53

Red maple 995.77 15,252.03 64,779.50 10,065.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91,093.15 (±0) 0.51

Honey mesquite 0.00 516.98 20,962.81 46,777.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68,257.47 (±0) 0.38

Holly 211.00 16,026.29 45,737.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61,974.33 (±0) 0.35

Bur oak 245.27 8,302.64 32,733.58 18,595.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,876.98 (±0) 0.34

River birch 131.20 4,740.98 50,572.62 4,374.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,819.35 (±0) 0.34

Ginkgo 0.00 22,878.05 33,315.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 56,193.22 (±0) 0.31

Green ash 0.00 5,057.85 0.00 20,501.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,141.13 0.00 50,700.11 (±0) 0.28

Soapberry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,135.24 33,437.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 43,572.96 (±0) 0.24

Eastern cottonwood 0.00 0.00 1,905.71 10,395.04 10,135.24 16,718.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,154.85 (±0) 0.22

Eastern redbud 4,499.24 21,414.00 4,729.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,642.76 (±0) 0.17

Red mulberry 0.00 0.00 3,811.42 15,592.56 10,135.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,539.22 (±0) 0.17

Trident maple 0.00 27,962.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,962.06 (±0) 0.16

American elm 599.20 0.00 0.00 2,179.96 8,200.37 6,660.48 9,632.06 0.00 0.00 27,272.08 (±0) 0.15

Siberian elm 0.00 0.00 20,604.22 918.08 0.00 2,454.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,976.55 (±0) 0.13

Texas mountain laurel 0.00 0.00 1,905.71 15,592.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,498.27 (±0) 0.10

Mexican plum 0.00 2,067.91 15,245.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,313.59 (±0) 0.10

Silver maple 0.00 8,755.42 7,593.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,348.99 (±0) 0.09

Afghan pine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,326.60 0.00 0.00 16,326.60 (±0) 0.09


May, 2015 Page 32

Japanese maple 633.00 7,237.68 7,622.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,493.52 (±0) 0.09

Fragrant ash 0.00 0.00 14,682.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,682.37 (±0) 0.08

Chinkapin oak 1,098.30 8,624.36 2,714.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,436.74 (±0) 0.07

Southern red oak 0.00 0.00 3,153.02 8,419.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,572.93 (±0) 0.06

Chaste tree 0.00 3,101.86 7,622.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,724.70 (±0) 0.06

Desert willow 0.00 2,584.89 1,905.71 5,197.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,688.12 (±0) 0.05

Sugar maple 0.00 445.51 0.00 7,651.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,097.32 (±0) 0.05

Honeylocust 0.00 7,921.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,921.57 (±0) 0.04

Goldenrain tree 0.00 1,379.41 4,619.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,999.20 (±0) 0.03

White ash 1,816.97 4,138.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,955.21 (±0) 0.03

Pine 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,551.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,551.58 (±0) 0.02

Boxelder 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,673.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,673.72 (±0) 0.01

Tree of heaven 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,905.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,905.64 (±0) 0.01

Eastern red cedar 0.00 0.00 1,539.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,539.93 (±0) 0.01

Eastern hophornbeam 245.27 976.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,222.05 (±0) 0.01

Mexican fan palm 0.00 0.00 882.00 294.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,176.00 (±0) 0.01

Pond cypress 949.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 949.51 (±0) 0.01

Eve's necklace 422.00 516.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 938.98 (±0) 0.01

Citywide Total 25,879.24 624,640.22 4,699,370.15 6,480,111.59 2,983,513.17 1,670,119.64 1,136,248.28 228,047.38 0.00 17,847,929.66 (±0) 100.00


May, 2015 Page 33

Appendix I: Carbon Dioxide Annual Sequestration and Storage Benefits for All Inventoried Trees

Species

Sequestered

(lb) Sequestered ($)

Decomposition

Release(lb)

Maintenance

Release (lb)

Total

Release ($)

Avoided

(lb)

Avoided

($)

Net Total

(lb) Total ($)

Standard

Error

% of

Total

Tree

Numbers

% of Total

$

Avg.

$/tree

Live oak 551,020.55 4,132.65 - 22,439.17 - 1,410.69 - 10.58

109,602.67 822.02 636,773.36 4,775.80 (N/A) 19.91 34.92 3.86

Cedar elm 208,023.58 1,560.18 - 5,115.98 - 638.72 - 4.79 38,540.99 289.06 240,809.87 1,806.07 (N/A) 13.57 13.21 2.14

Shumard oak 178,919.50 1,341.90 - 5,072.24 - 554.03 - 4.16 34,133.73 256.00 207,426.95 1,555.70 (N/A) 12.24 11.38 2.04

Baldcypress 189,232.35 1,419.24 - 4,865.43 - 562.57 - 4.22 35,335.49 265.02 219,139.84 1,643.55 (N/A) 11.11 12.02 2.38

Common crapemyrtle 26,856.09 201.42 - 584.64 - 278.68 - 2.09 11,607.88 87.06 37,600.64 282.00 (N/A) 7.99 2.06 0.57

Chinese pistache 117,259.63 879.45 - 1,815.66 - 275.80 - 2.07 22,201.31 166.51 137,369.48 1,030.27 (N/A) 6.87 7.53 2.41

Chinese elm 36,640.73 274.81 - 632.34 - 115.62 - 0.87 8,368.90 62.77 44,261.67 331.96 (N/A) 4.66 2.43 1.14

Sweetgum 39,579.92 296.85 - 857.99 - 222.92 - 1.67 11,817.53 88.63 50,316.54 377.37 (N/A) 4.62 2.76 1.31

Southern magnolia 8,378.93 62.84 - 273.49 - 96.33 - 0.72 4,532.98 34.00 12,542.10 94.07 (N/A) 2.56 0.69 0.59

Callery pear 41,070.21 308.03 - 1,397.75 - 154.86 - 1.16 10,116.70 75.88 49,634.30 372.26 (N/A) 2.44 2.72 2.45

Eastern redbud 3,122.43 23.42 - 49.46 - 20.95 - 0.16 835.73 6.27 3,887.76 29.16 (N/A) 1.32 0.21 0.36

Red maple 8,262.02 61.97 - 210.58 - 36.47 - 0.27 1,901.19 14.26 9,916.17 74.37 (N/A) 1.22 0.54 0.98

Ginkgo 8,489.23 63.67 - 146.57 - 26.94 - 0.20 1,977.21 14.83 10,292.94 77.20 (N/A) 1.01 0.56 1.23

Holly 2,812.30 21.09 - 93.82 - 26.49 - 0.20 731.39 5.49 3,423.37 25.68 (N/A) 0.92 0.19 0.45

Loblolly pine 8,597.47 64.48 - 207.03 - 44.01 - 0.33 2,265.88 16.99 10,612.31 79.59 (N/A) 0.90 0.58 1.42

Trident maple 2,963.27 22.22 - 39.35 - 18.29 - 0.14 678.06 5.09 3,583.69 26.88 (N/A) 0.88 0.20 0.49

Siberian elm 9,827.57 73.71 - 215.64 - 31.70 - 0.24 1,716.07 12.87 11,296.30 84.72 (N/A) 0.72 0.62 1.88

River birch 9,743.05 73.07 - 147.02 - 25.16 - 0.19 1,990.18 14.93 11,561.05 86.71 (N/A) 0.69 0.63 2.02

Bur oak 6,444.67 48.34 - 127.13 - 22.95 - 0.17 1,171.51 8.79 7,466.11 56.00 (N/A) 0.68 0.41 1.33

Post oak 31,685.55 237.64 - 2,136.08 - 78.04 - 0.59 7,046.71 52.85 36,518.15 273.89 (N/A) 0.64 2.00 6.85

Chinkapin oak 2,225.55 16.69 - 43.44 - 8.76 - 0.07 578.07 4.34 2,751.42 20.64 (N/A) 0.47 0.15 0.71

Silver maple 2,665.58 19.99 - 59.34 - 10.97 - 0.08 664.78 4.99 3,260.04 24.45 (N/A) 0.43 0.18 0.91

Japanese maple 1,379.75 10.35 - 28.68 - 7.98 - 0.06 318.18 2.39 1,661.27 12.46 (N/A) 0.39 0.09 0.52

Common pear 15,355.25 115.16 - 275.89 - 23.83 - 0.18 2,048.07 15.36 17,103.60 128.28 (N/A) 0.35 0.94 5.83

White ash 626.24 4.70 - 7.06 - 4.43 - 0.03 137.74 1.03 752.48 5.64 (N/A) 0.35 0.04 0.26

Honey mesquite 4,331.01 32.48 - 209.58 - 17.63 - 0.13 889.16 6.67 4,992.97 37.45 (N/A) 0.34 0.27 1.78

Honeylocust 1,094.67 8.21 - 12.15 - 6.32 - 0.05 218.30 1.64 1,294.50 9.71 (N/A) 0.31 0.07 0.51

Green ash 3,761.07 28.21 - 197.63 - 12.08 - 0.09 840.43 6.30 4,391.78 32.94 (N/A) 0.27 0.24 1.94

Hackberry 8,280.93 62.11 - 358.64 - 21.51 - 0.16 1,696.92 12.73 9,597.70 71.98 (N/A) 0.27 0.53 4.23

Mexican plum 1,392.77 10.45 - 39.12 - 6.65 - 0.05 273.34 2.05 1,620.34 12.15 (N/A) 0.19 0.09 1.01

Pecan 7,410.57 55.58 - 453.51 - 18.51 - 0.14 1,611.24 12.08 8,549.78 64.12 (N/A) 0.18 0.47 5.83

Chaste tree 911.90 6.84 - 22.42 - 4.66 - 0.03 185.98 1.39 1,070.80 8.03 (N/A) 0.16 0.06 0.80

Fragrant ash 2,381.48 17.86 - 33.96 - 5.99 - 0.04 483.91 3.63 2,825.44 21.19 (N/A) 0.14 0.15 2.35

Pond cypress 74.57 0.56 - 0.90 - 1.00 - 0.01 23.77 0.18 96.44 0.72 (N/A) 0.14 0.01 0.08

American elm 3,491.91 26.19 - 206.78 - 8.98 - 0.07 757.87 5.68 4,034.03 30.26 (N/A) 0.13 0.22 3.78

Desert willow 711.92 5.34 - 25.78 - 3.44 - 0.03 152.84 1.15 835.55 6.27 (N/A) 0.11 0.05 0.90

Red mulberry 2,262.21 16.97 - 72.18 - 6.21 - 0.05 439.83 3.30 2,623.66 19.68 (N/A) 0.10 0.14 3.28

Goldenrain tree 603.11 4.52 - 15.74 - 2.99 - 0.02 121.00 0.91 705.37 5.29 (N/A) 0.10 0.04 0.88

Eve's necklace 78.43 0.59 - 1.07 - 0.78 - 0.01 34.71 0.26 111.29 0.83 (N/A) 0.08 0.01 0.17

Eastern cottonwood 2,481.53 18.61 - 108.59 - 6.43 - 0.05 505.93 3.79 2,872.44 21.54 (N/A) 0.08 0.16 4.31

Texas mountain laurel 631.55 4.74 - 34.35 - 3.99 - 0.03 194.91 1.46 788.12 5.91 (N/A) 0.06 0.04 1.48


May, 2015 Page 34

Southern red oak 1,227.82 9.21 - 31.68 - 3.55 - 0.03 232.30 1.74 1,424.89 10.69 (N/A) 0.06 0.08 2.67

Mexican fan palm 79.85 0.60 - 7.56 - 2.66 - 0.02 46.39 0.35 116.01 0.87 (N/A) 0.06 0.01 0.22

Eastern hophornbeam 177.10 1.33 - 3.76 - 0.89 - 0.01 51.12 0.38 223.57 1.68 (N/A) 0.06 0.01 0.42

Sugar maple 849.91 6.37 - 26.60 - 2.55 - 0.02 246.93 1.85 1,067.68 8.01 (N/A) 0.05 0.06 2.67

Soapberry 444.24 3.33 - 129.87 - 4.66 - 0.03 272.41 2.04 582.12 4.37 (N/A) 0.05 0.03 1.46

Boxelder 1,221.82 9.16 - 27.24 - 1.55 - 0.01 126.36 0.95 1,319.39 9.90 (N/A) 0.02 0.07 9.90

Tree of heaven 414.38 3.11 - 12.33 - 1.11 - 0.01 82.39 0.62 483.34 3.63 (N/A) 0.02 0.03 3.63

Pine 298.56 2.24 - 8.68 - 1.11 - 0.01 75.91 0.57 364.68 2.74 (N/A) 0.02 0.02 2.74

Afghan pine 1,043.33 7.82 - 67.17 - 2.44 - 0.02 270.22 2.03 1,243.95 9.33 (N/A) 0.02 0.07 9.33

Eastern red cedar 73.12 0.55 - 1.64 - 0.67 0.00 19.95 0.15 90.77 0.68 (N/A) 0.02 0.00 0.68

Citywide Total 1,556,911.13 11,676.83 - 48,950.71 - 4,845.52 - 36.34

320,173.08 2,401.30

1,823,287.99

13,674.66 (N/A) 100.00 100.00 2.20


May, 2015 Page 35

Appendix J: Annual Energy Savings for All Inventoried Trees

Species

Total

Electricity

(MWh)

Electricity

($)

Total

Natural Gas

(Therms)

Natural

Gas ($) Total ($)

Standard

Error

% of

Total

Tree

Numbers

% of

Total

$

Avg.

$/tree

Live oak 129.7 9842.8 4733.3 4951.0 14793.9 (N/A) 19.9 33.2 11.9

Cedar elm 45.6 3461.2 1904.0 1991.6 5452.8 (N/A) 13.6 12.2 6.5

Shumard oak 40.4 3065.4 1645.9 1721.6 4786.9 (N/A) 12.2 10.8 6.3

Baldcypress 41.8 3173.3 1722.0 1801.2 4974.5 (N/A) 11.1 11.2 7.2

Common crapemyrtle 13.7 1042.4 671.6 702.5 1744.9 (N/A) 8.0 3.9 3.5

Chinese pistache 26.3 1993.8 1109.6 1160.7 3154.5 (N/A) 6.9 7.1 7.4

Chinese elm 9.9 751.6 461.8 483.0 1234.6 (N/A) 4.7 2.8 4.3

Sweetgum 14.0 1061.3 546.5 571.7 1632.9 (N/A) 4.6 3.7 5.7

Southern magnolia 5.4 407.1 205.1 214.5 621.6 (N/A) 2.6 1.4 3.9

Callery pear 12.0 908.5 459.2 480.3 1388.9 (N/A) 2.4 3.1 9.1

Eastern redbud 1.0 75.1 60.9 63.7 138.7 (N/A) 1.3 0.3 1.7

Red maple 2.2 170.7 108.2 113.1 283.9 (N/A) 1.2 0.6 3.7

Ginkgo 2.3 177.6 109.2 114.2 291.8 (N/A) 1.0 0.7 4.6

Holly 0.9 65.7 40.9 42.8 108.5 (N/A) 0.9 0.2 1.9

Loblolly pine 2.7 203.5 71.6 74.9 278.4 (N/A) 0.9 0.6 5.0

Trident maple 0.8 60.9 47.7 49.9 110.8 (N/A) 0.9 0.2 2.0

Siberian elm 2.0 154.1 89.9 94.1 248.2 (N/A) 0.7 0.6 5.5

River birch 2.4 178.7 102.3 107.0 285.8 (N/A) 0.7 0.6 6.6

Bur oak 1.4 105.2 61.5 64.3 169.5 (N/A) 0.7 0.4 4.0

Post oak 8.3 632.8 272.0 284.5 917.3 (N/A) 0.6 2.1 22.9

Chinkapin oak 0.7 51.9 34.1 35.7 87.6 (N/A) 0.5 0.2 3.0

Silver maple 0.8 59.7 41.9 43.8 103.5 (N/A) 0.4 0.2 3.8

Japanese maple 0.4 28.6 22.0 23.0 51.6 (N/A) 0.4 0.1 2.1

Common pear 2.4 183.9 87.7 91.8 275.7 (N/A) 0.4 0.6 12.5

White ash 0.2 12.4 8.9 9.3 21.7 (N/A) 0.4 0.0 1.0

Honey mesquite 1.1 79.9 47.8 50.0 129.9 (N/A) 0.3 0.3 6.2

Honeylocust 0.3 19.6 12.5 13.1 32.7 (N/A) 0.3 0.1 1.7

Green ash 1.0 75.5 34.8 36.4 111.9 (N/A) 0.3 0.3 6.6

Hackberry 2.0 152.4 72.6 76.0 228.4 (N/A) 0.3 0.5 13.4

Mexican plum 0.3 24.5 17.4 18.2 42.8 (N/A) 0.2 0.1 3.6

Pecan 1.9 144.7 64.3 67.3 212.0 (N/A) 0.2 0.5 19.3


May, 2015 Page 36

Chaste tree 0.2 16.7 12.2 12.8 29.5 (N/A) 0.2 0.1 2.9

Fragrant ash 0.6 43.5 24.6 25.7 69.1 (N/A) 0.1 0.2 7.7

Pond cypress 0.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 4.3 (N/A) 0.1 0.0 0.5

American elm 0.9 68.1 30.8 32.3 100.3 (N/A) 0.1 0.2 12.5

Desert willow 0.2 13.7 9.2 9.6 23.3 (N/A) 0.1 0.1 3.3

Red mulberry 0.5 39.5 20.3 21.3 60.8 (N/A) 0.1 0.1 10.1

Goldenrain tree 0.1 10.9 7.8 8.2 19.1 (N/A) 0.1 0.0 3.2

Eve's necklace 0.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 6.0 (N/A) 0.1 0.0 1.2

Eastern cottonwood 0.6 45.4 21.8 22.9 68.3 (N/A) 0.1 0.2 13.7

Texas mountain laurel 0.2 17.5 5.8 6.1 23.6 (N/A) 0.1 0.1 5.9

Southern red oak 0.3 20.9 11.1 11.6 32.5 (N/A) 0.1 0.1 8.1

Mexican fan palm 0.1 4.2 2.7 2.8 6.9 (N/A) 0.1 0.0 1.7

Eastern hophornbeam 0.1 4.6 3.2 3.4 8.0 (N/A) 0.1 0.0 2.0

Sugar maple 0.3 22.2 11.4 11.9 34.1 (N/A) 0.0 0.1 11.4

Soapberry 0.3 24.5 13.5 14.1 38.5 (N/A) 0.0 0.1 12.8

Boxelder 0.1 11.3 5.2 5.4 16.7 (N/A) 0.0 0.0 16.7

Tree of heaven 0.1 7.4 3.7 3.9 11.3 (N/A) 0.0 0.0 11.3

Pine 0.1 6.8 3.1 3.2 10.0 (N/A) 0.0 0.0 10.0

Afghan pine 0.3 24.3 8.9 9.3 33.6 (N/A) 0.0 0.1 33.6

Eastern red cedar 0.0 1.8 0.7 0.8 2.6 (N/A) 0.0 0.0 2.6

Total 378.8 28753.1 15068.2 15761.4 44514.5 (N/A) 100.0 100.0 7.2


May, 2015 Page 37

Appendix K: Annual Stormwater Mitigation Benefits for All Inventoried Trees

Species

Total Rainfall

Interception

(Gal)

Total ($) Standard

Error

% of

Total

Tree

Numbers

% of

Total

$

Avg.

$/tree

Live oak 4,753,147.92 47,056.16 (N/A) 19.91 41.58 38.01

Cedar elm 1,301,669.52 12,886.53 (N/A) 13.57 11.39 15.27

Shumard oak 1,203,918.17 11,918.79 (N/A) 12.24 10.53 15.66

Baldcypress 1,217,026.74 12,048.56 (N/A) 11.11 10.65 17.44

Common crapemyrtle 224,689.52 2,224.43 (N/A) 7.99 1.97 4.48

Chinese pistache 564,330.51 5,586.87 (N/A) 6.87 4.94 13.08

Chinese elm 192,742.77 1,908.15 (N/A) 4.66 1.69 6.58

Sweetgum 371,638.44 3,679.22 (N/A) 4.62 3.25 12.82

Southern magnolia 156,601.25 1,550.35 (N/A) 2.56 1.37 9.75

Callery pear 261,735.91 2,591.19 (N/A) 2.44 2.29 17.05

Eastern redbud 16,892.97 167.24 (N/A) 1.32 0.15 2.04

Red maple 54,457.44 539.13 (N/A) 1.22 0.48 7.09

Ginkgo 44,937.33 444.88 (N/A) 1.01 0.39 7.06

Holly 14,611.64 144.66 (N/A) 0.92 0.13 2.54

Loblolly pine 70,352.13 696.49 (N/A) 0.90 0.62 12.44

Trident maple 13,906.13 137.67 (N/A) 0.88 0.12 2.50

Siberian elm 56,980.02 564.10 (N/A) 0.72 0.50 12.54

River birch 48,784.88 482.97 (N/A) 0.69 0.43 11.23

Bur oak 35,760.29 354.03 (N/A) 0.68 0.31 8.43

Post oak 364,035.48 3,603.95 (N/A) 0.64 3.18 90.10

Chinkapin oak 12,534.55 124.09 (N/A) 0.47 0.11 4.28

Silver maple 13,363.34 132.30 (N/A) 0.43 0.12 4.90

Japanese maple 6,557.91 64.92 (N/A) 0.39 0.06 2.71

Common pear 62,502.36 618.77 (N/A) 0.35 0.55 28.13

White ash 2,891.02 28.62 (N/A) 0.35 0.03 1.30

Honey mesquite 18,502.32 183.17 (N/A) 0.34 0.16 8.72

Honeylocust 4,591.63 45.46 (N/A) 0.31 0.04 2.39

Green ash 35,387.70 350.34 (N/A) 0.27 0.31 20.61


May, 2015 Page 38

Hackberry 71,792.55 710.75 (N/A) 0.27 0.63 41.81

Mexican plum 5,785.05 57.27 (N/A) 0.19 0.05 4.77

Pecan 80,019.71 792.20 (N/A) 0.18 0.70 72.02

Chaste tree 3,903.88 38.65 (N/A) 0.16 0.03 3.86

Fragrant ash 11,948.60 118.29 (N/A) 0.14 0.10 13.14

Pond cypress 495.72 4.91 (N/A) 0.14 0.00 0.55

American elm 36,935.08 365.66 (N/A) 0.13 0.32 45.71

Desert willow 3,159.31 31.28 (N/A) 0.11 0.03 4.47

Red mulberry 16,525.97 163.61 (N/A) 0.10 0.14 27.27

Goldenrain tree 2,548.65 25.23 (N/A) 0.10 0.02 4.21

Eve's necklace 673.72 6.67 (N/A) 0.08 0.01 1.33

Eastern cottonwood 21,720.43 215.03 (N/A) 0.08 0.19 43.01

Texas mountain laurel 4,620.26 45.74 (N/A) 0.06 0.04 11.44

Southern red oak 7,941.65 78.62 (N/A) 0.06 0.07 19.66

Mexican fan palm 1,634.75 16.18 (N/A) 0.06 0.01 4.05

Eastern hophornbeam 1,086.01 10.75 (N/A) 0.06 0.01 2.69

Sugar maple 6,971.19 69.01 (N/A) 0.05 0.06 23.00

Soapberry 6,894.89 68.26 (N/A) 0.05 0.06 22.75

Boxelder 4,875.96 48.27 (N/A) 0.02 0.04 48.27

Tree of heaven 2,926.92 28.98 (N/A) 0.02 0.03 28.98

Pine 2,349.39 23.26 (N/A) 0.02 0.02 23.26

Afghan pine 10,996.63 108.87 (N/A) 0.02 0.10

108.87

Eastern red cedar 592.80 5.87 (N/A) 0.02 0.01 5.87

Citywide total 11,430,948.98

113,166.39 (N/A) 100.00

100.00 18.20


May, 2015 Page 39

Appendix L: Annual Aesthetics Values for All Inventoried Trees

Species

Total ($) Standard

Error

% of

Total

Tree

Numbers

% of

Total $

Avg.

$/tree

Live oak 88,535.10 (N/A) 19.91 35.69 71.51

Cedar elm 36,192.55 (N/A) 13.57 14.59 42.88

Shumard oak 30,549.34 (N/A) 12.24 12.31 40.14

Baldcypress 32,077.31 (N/A) 11.11 12.93 46.42

Common crapemyrtle 3,536.52 (N/A) 7.99 1.43 7.12

Chinese pistache 12,713.21 (N/A) 6.87 5.12 29.77

Chinese elm 5,589.17 (N/A) 4.66 2.25 19.27

Sweetgum 11,343.86 (N/A) 4.62 4.57 39.53

Southern magnolia 2,443.79 (N/A) 2.56 0.99 15.37

Callery pear 4,020.19 (N/A) 2.44 1.62 26.45

Eastern redbud 320.82 (N/A) 1.32 0.13 3.91

Red maple 1,946.47 (N/A) 1.22 0.78 25.61

Ginkgo 1,299.14 (N/A) 1.01 0.52 20.62

Holly 109.97 (N/A) 0.92 0.04 1.93

Loblolly pine 1,272.49 (N/A) 0.90 0.51 22.72

Trident maple 252.79 (N/A) 0.88 0.10 4.60

Siberian elm 1,812.32 (N/A) 0.72 0.73 40.27

River birch 1,162.78 (N/A) 0.69 0.47 27.04

Bur oak 1,244.44 (N/A) 0.68 0.50 29.63

Post oak 3,805.56 (N/A) 0.64 1.53 95.14

Chinkapin oak 438.07 (N/A) 0.47 0.18 15.11

Silver maple 454.16 (N/A) 0.43 0.18 16.82

Japanese maple 110.83 (N/A) 0.39 0.04 4.62

Common pear 1,111.91 (N/A) 0.35 0.45 50.54

White ash 162.69 (N/A) 0.35 0.07 7.40

Honey mesquite 200.41 (N/A) 0.34 0.08 9.54

Honeylocust 286.60 (N/A) 0.31 0.12 15.08

Green ash 593.11 (N/A) 0.27 0.24 34.89


May, 2015 Page 40

Hackberry 1,171.03 (N/A) 0.27 0.47 68.88

Mexican plum 79.96 (N/A) 0.19 0.03 6.66

Pecan 926.31 (N/A) 0.18 0.37 84.21

Chaste tree 58.36 (N/A) 0.16 0.02 5.84

Fragrant ash 272.10 (N/A) 0.14 0.11 30.23

Pond cypress 18.64 (N/A) 0.14 0.01 2.07

American elm 443.94 (N/A) 0.13 0.18 55.49

Desert willow 43.03 (N/A) 0.11 0.02 6.15

Red mulberry 351.40 (N/A) 0.10 0.14 58.57

Goldenrain tree 36.88 (N/A) 0.10 0.01 6.15

Eve's necklace 15.06 (N/A) 0.08 0.01 3.01

Eastern cottonwood 348.83 (N/A) 0.08 0.14 69.77

Texas mountain laurel 34.14 (N/A) 0.06 0.01 8.54

Southern red oak 204.33 (N/A) 0.06 0.08 51.08

Mexican fan palm 18.31 (N/A) 0.06 0.01 4.58

Eastern hophornbeam 45.57 (N/A) 0.06 0.02 11.39

Sugar maple 142.16 (N/A) 0.05 0.06 47.39

Soapberry 51.24 (N/A) 0.05 0.02 17.08

Boxelder 70.60 (N/A) 0.02 0.03 70.60

Tree of heaven 63.82 (N/A) 0.02 0.03 63.82

Pine 29.83 (N/A) 0.02 0.01 29.83

Afghan pine 49.30 (N/A) 0.02 0.02 49.30

Eastern red cedar 6.87 (N/A) 0.02 0.00 6.87

Citywide Total 248,067.31 (N/A) 100.00 100.00 39.90


May, 2015 Page 41

About Texas Trees Foundation The Texas Trees Foundation, formerly the Dallas Parks Foundation, was established as a

501(c)(3) organization in 1982 as a resource to support the Dallas parks system. In 1998, the

Foundation merged with Treescape Dallas, Inc., a project that had been funded by the Dallas

Junior League and the Central Dallas Association. The Texas Trees Foundation was then known

as the Dallas Trees and Parks Foundation. In 2003, the Foundation was renamed the Texas Trees

Foundation to expand the area of focus from Dallas to the North Texas region to better reflect its

mission. The Texas Trees Foundation has a rich history and is positioned to build on the

traditions established by its founders and nurtured by the generous support of individuals,

foundations, corporations and, agencies throughout Texas.

MISSION

The Mission of the Texas Trees Foundation is (i) to preserve, beautify and expand parks and

other public natural green spaces, and (ii) to beautify our public streets, boulevards and rights-of-

way by planting trees and encouraging others to do the same through educational programs that

focus on the importance of building and protecting the “urban forest” today as a legacy for

generations to come. The Foundation will share its vision on a national level, but will focus its

efforts and develop loyalties among communities in the North Central Texas area.

VISION

The Texas Trees Foundation has a vision for our community. It is a community comprised of

beautiful, well maintained parks, shady tree-lined streets and boulevards, hiking, biking and

nature trails, and other outdoor amenities which combine to form a living and working

environment that enhances the economic value of its commercial areas and its neighborhoods,

and nurtures the health, safety and quality of life of all its citizens; a community in which its

citizens actively participate in building and sustaining its “urban forest.” The Foundation will

serve as a catalyst in creating such a community.

Contact Information

2100 Ross Ave. Suite 855

Dallas, Texas 75201

214.953.1184

www.texastrees.org

www.texastreesmart.org

http://www.texastrees.org/


May 2015 Page 42

Texas Trees Foundation

Board of Trustees - 2015

Dr. Bobby B. Lyle, Chairman

Chairman, President and CEO

Lyco Holdings Incorporated

Walter Dahlberg, Secretary

Principal, Dahlberg Landscape Design Studio

Don M. Glendenning, Vice Chair

Partner, Locke Lord LLP

Dan E. Patterson, Treasurer

Chairman, Transition Capital Partners

Martha Gallier

Owner, Gallier & Wittenberg

Stanley R. Levenson

CEO, Levenson & Brinker Public Relations

Patrick D. Little

Logistics Director, Turner Construction Company

Warren J. 'Bud' Melton, III

V.P./Senior Planner, Bowman-Melton Associates, Inc.

Adam McGill

Director, Corporate Communications,

Energy Future Holdings

Diane Scovell

Community Volunteer


May 2015 Page 43

Texas Trees Foundation Staff

Janette Monear, President/CEO

Janette K. Monear is the President/CEO of Texas Trees Foundation in Dallas, Texas, a private

non-profit dedicated to “Greening North Central Texas.” Under Monear’s leadership, the

Foundation maintains the TXU Energy Urban Tree Farm and Education Center and supports

tree-planting projects and education outreach for municipalities, schools, utilities, and

builders/developers. With the national agenda for environmental action catalyzing around global

climate change, air and water quality, and energy conservation, Texas Trees Foundation has

created a national model, The Roadmap to Tree Planting in the Dallas, by identifying and

prioritizing planting sites through the use of geographical information systems (GIS). The

emphasis for urban forestry through community development provides a platform for Ms.

Monear to create partnerships that support programs and projects that improves the quality of life

in communities.

Prior to her work with the Texas Trees Foundation, Ms. Monear was the Director of Urban &

Community Forestry for the Tree Trust in Minnesota, where she developed the Time for Trees

outdoor learning program, the Trade-a-Tree program with utilities, and a grant program that

helps communities replace hazardous trees under power lines with small-stature trees. She

worked closely with the MN Department of Natural Resources, local government planners,

foresters, and soil and water conservation district professionals to develop comprehensive

programs for protecting and managing community forest resources for maximum benefit for the

environment -- especially in rapidly growing communities. She also developed TreeOrd, an

interactive CD-ROM for local governments to write tree ordinances, a Community Tree Planting

Manual, Environmental Service Learning Manual, and the new Open Spaces-Clean Water

guidebook. Her recent award winning guidebook, City Trees Sustainability Guidelines and Best

Practices, has positioned trees as a capital asset and part of a community’s infrastructure. Ms.

Monear also co-produced the international award winning Public Television documentary, Spirit

of the Trees.

Ms. Monear began work in community forestry for the University of Minnesota as an Anoka

County Extension Specialist for Oak Wilt where she coordinated a statewide effort for Oak Wilt

suppression to preserve trees and promote research. She served on the Board of Trustees for

TreeLink, an international website for urban forestry, is active with the National Alliance for

Community Trees, Regional Tech Transfer Committee of the USDA Forest Service, Dallas

Urban Forestry Advisory Committee, and served on the Arboretum Advisory Council for Saint

John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota. Monear is a frequent speaker and panelist at regional

and national environmental and land-development conferences. She is recognized nationally for

her more than 30 years of experience in urban forestry, program development and project

implementation. She has received numerous awards which include the President’s Award for the


May 2015 Page 44

Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Council (MNSTAC), Chevrolet Geo Award of Excellence,

Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee Innovation Award for the City Trees Sustainability

Guidelines & Best Practices Guidebook, and the Distinguished Service Award from the

Minnesota Society of Arboriculture.

Matt Grubisich, Operations Director/Urban Forester

Matt Grubisich received his Bachelor of Science in Urban Forestry and Forest Management from

Iowa State University and has been working in the Urban Forestry field for over 13 years in the

DFW area. Matt joined the Texas Trees Foundation staff as the Operations Director/Urban

Forester in September 2010 after working 2 years as a private consulting arborist/urban forester

specializing in assisting communities, developers, landscaping companies and others with Urban

Forestry related issues. Prior to consulting, he served eight years with the Texas Forest Service

as the Regional Urban Forester serving the Dallas and surrounding areas.

Matt is a Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and specializes

in GIS mapping, technology transfer, and eco-system analysis.

His recent work in Arlington, McKinney, Mesquite, and in Dallas has produced several tools

advancing Urban Forestry in those communities. Matt has hands-on experience with GIS based

eco-system studies and urban forestry development with federal, state, and local government

agencies, utilities, private firms, non-profits and universities.

Matt has served in a leadership position on several boards and commissions including President

of the Trinity Blacklands Urban Forestry Council, Chair of the Dallas Chapter of the Society of

American Foresters, founding member of the Dallas Urban Forestry Advisory Committee and

two terms on the Rowlett Parks and Recreation Board. He is a frequent speaker at national &

state conferences and workshops related to urban forestry and green infrastructure management.

Gordon Tyler Wright, M.S.F., Urban & Community Forester

G. Tyler Wright, a native of Lyndhurst, Virginia, earned his Bachelor of Science in Forestry

degree while attending West Virginia University (Morgantown, WV) and has a Master of

Science in Forestry from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, (Blacksburg, VA).

Tyler’s five successful internships with the F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Research

Laboratory and Arboretum, earned him a position as a Plant Health Care Technician. Tyler also

worked for Davey Resource Group as a Municipal Inventory Arborist, capturing street tree data

in Spokane and Seattle, WA. In 2013, Tyler was hired by the Texas Trees Foundation as an

Urban and Community Forester. His duties include research/technology, education, outreach,

nursery management, volunteer and internship coordination, urban forest project management


May 2015 Page 45

and he provides technical assistance for urban forestry consulting to municipalities, universities,

corporations and homeowners. Tyler is a Certified Arborist and has earned several awards from

Gamma Sigma Delta, WVU Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, VPI& SU Forestry

Student Graduate Association, and VPI&SU Forestry Graduate Symposium. He is a member of

the Dallas Urban Forestry Advisory Committee, Trinity Blacklands Urban Forestry Council and

the International Society of Arboriculture.

Documents

SMU Campus Tree Inventory & Ecosystem Services Report · Downtown Dallas, Inc. Tree Inventory & Ecosystem Services Report May, 2015 Page 7 Introduction Downtown Dallas, Inc. (DDI)