The existing canopy cover for entire municipality is <50% of the desired canopy.

The existing canopy is 50%-75% of desired.

The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired.

The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired – at individual neighborhood level as well as overall municipality.

No inventory

Complete or sample-based inventory of publicly owned trees.

Inventory guides planning, management decisions.

Systematic comprehensive inventory system of entire urban forest – with information tailored to users and supported by mapping in municipality-wide GIS system. Provides for change analysis.

No assessment.

Low-resolution and/or point-based sampling of canopy cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery, for example i-Tree Canopy.

Complete, detailed, and spatially explicit, high-resolution Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment based on enhanced data (such as LIDAR) – accompanied by comprehensive set of goals by land use and other parameters.

As described for "Better" rating – and all utilized effectively to drive urban forest and green infrastructure policy and practice municipality-wide and at neighborhood or smaller management level.

No information.

Sample-based tree inventory indicating tree condition and risk level.

Complete tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition ratings.

Complete GIS tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings.

No information.

Identified only in natural area survey.

Level and type of public use documented.

Ecological structure and function of all natural areas assessed and documented.

Management plan focused on sustaining and, where possible, improving overall ecological structure and function while facilitating appropriate public use. Plan should consider impacts on contiguous natural areas [open space corridors] outside the community's borders

No information.

Aerial, point-based assessment – capturing extent and location.

Bottom-up sample based assessment, as well as basic aerial view.

Bottom-up sample based assessment, as well as detailed UTC analysis of entire urban forest, including private property, integrated into municipality-wide [multi-agency] GIS system. LIDAR and hyper-spectral imaging most helpful.

No information.

Six most common species have lower RPI scores than the average of all species in community. (<1.)

Half of the six most common species have higher RPI scores than the average of all species in community. (>1.)

All six most common species have higher RPI scores than the average of all species in community. (>1.)

No coordinated focus on native vegetation.

Voluntary use of native species on publicly and privately owned lands; invasive species are recognized.

Use of native species is encouraged on a project-appropriate basis in all areas; invasive species are recognized and discouraged on public and private lands.

Native species are widely used on a project-appropriate basis in all areas; invasive species are proactively managed for eradication to the full extent possible.

Municipal departments/agencies take actions impacting urban forest with no cross-departmental coordination or consideration of the urban forest resource.

Municipal departments/agencies recognize potential conflicts and reach out to urban forest managers on an ad hoc basis – and vice versa.

Informal teams among departments and agencies communicate regularly and collaborate on a project-specific basis.

Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/interagency working teams on all municipal projects.

Little or no citizen involvement or neighborhood action.

Some neighborhood groups engaged across the community but no minimal outreach to assure underserved neighborhoods participate effectively.

Many active neighborhood groups engaged in advancing urban forest goals, but with little or no overall coordination with municipality or its partnering NGOs.

Proactive outreach and coordination efforts by municipality and NGO partners resulting in widespread citizen involvement and structured engagement among diverse neighborhood groups.

Tree planting and outreach is not determined equitably by canopy cover or need for benefits.

Planting and outreach includes attention to low canopy neighborhoods or areas.

Planting and outreach targets neighborhoods with low canopy and a high need for tree benefits.

Equitqable planting and outreach at the neighborhood level is guided by strong resident involvement in low canopy/high need areas. Residents participate actively in identifying needs for their neighborhoods, planning, implementation and monitoring.

General ambivalence or negative attitudes about trees, which are perceived as neutral at best or as the source of problems. Actions harmful to trees may be taken deliberately.

Trees generally recognized as important and beneficial.

Trees widely acknowledged as providing environmental, social, and economic services – resulting in some action or advocacy in support of the urban forest.

Urban forest recognized as vital to the community's environmental, social, and economic well-being.

Large private landholders are generally uninformed about urban forest issues and opportunities.

Municipality educates landowners, provides technical assistance, sets goals and provides incentives for managing resources in accordance with plan.

Landowners develop tree management plans that advance municipal urban forest goals.

Tree management plans developed with input from community, and public access to the property's forest resource.

No utility consideration of the health of the urban forest resource.

Utilities take actions impacting urban forest with no municipal coordination.

Utilities employ best management practices, recognize potential municipal conflicts, and reach out to urban forest managers on an ad hoc basis – and vice versa.

Utilities are included in informal municipal teams that communicate regularly and collaborate on a project-specific basis.

Little or no cooperation among segments of green industry or awareness of municipality-wide urban forest goals and objectives.

Some cooperation among green industry as well as general awareness and acceptance of municipality-wide goals and objectives.

Specific collaborate arrangements across segments of green industry in support of municipality-wide goals and objectives.

Shared vision and goals and extensive committed partnerships in place. Solid adherence to high professional standards, and commitment to credentialing and continuing education.

No urban forest management plan.

Modest planting on public lands primarily for replacement on case-by-case basis, reactive risk management.

Municipalities have no interaction with each other or the broader region. No regional planning or coordination on urban forestry.

Some neighboring municipalities and regional agencies share similar urban forest policies and plans.

Some urban forest planning and cooperation across municipalities and regional agencies.

Widespread regional cooperation resulting in development of regional urban forestry strategy.

Urban forestry plan mentions how it could meet other municipal objectives, or inform other planning efforts.

Urban forestry planning team presents plan to other agencies, encouraging them to consider how forestry might help achieve their objectives.

Once completed, urban forestry planning team works with other agencies to align current and future objectives.

All agencies whose goals are served by urban forestry practices, participate in creation of forestry plan, and commit to designated roles and responsibilities.

Lack of personnel and/or adequate equipment severely limits needed maintenance. Few resources, if any available to achieve new goals.

Lack of staff training and/or access to adequate equipment limits effectiveness.

Little or no dedicated funding.

Ad hoc funding for emergency, reactive management.

Funding sufficient for some proactive management based on urban forest management plan.

Sustained, long-term funding from multiple municipal, regional and/or state angencies, along with private sources to implement a comprehensive urban forest management plan, and provide for maintenance and adaptive management as circumstances change.

Trees selected and planted without consideration of site conditions.

Appropriate tree species are considered in site selection.

Municipality-wide guidelines for the improvement of planting site conditions and selection of suitable species.

All trees planted in sites with adequate soil quality and quantity, and with sufficient growing space and overall site conditions to achieve their genetic potential and thus provide maximum ecosystem services. Where growing conditions are poor, guidance provided on how to improve soil volume, quality, other factors.

Little or no tree planting. Tree establishment is ad hoc.

Some tree planting and establishment occurs, but with limited overall municipality-wide planning and post-planting care.

Limited planning and post-planting care. Planting takes place on plan-identified sites. None or only fragmentary planting and maintenance protocols.

Planting and post-planting care and maintenance protocols in place.

Comprehensive tree establishment plan provides concrete guidance on most of the following criteria: site selection, size, age class, diversity of species, native plant choice; planting protocols [e.g. minimum soil volumes, soil conditions]; young tree care, including region appropriate irrigation requirements. Includes provisions and funding for maintenance.

No natural areas management plans or implementation in effect.

Only reactive management to facilitate public use, e.g. hazard abatement, trail maintenance.

Management plan in place for each publicly owned natural area to facilitate appropriate public use.

Management plan for each publicly owned natural area focused on sustaining and, where possible, improving overall ecological integrity (i.e., structure and function) – while facilitating appropriate public use.

No tree protection ordinance, or one that's weak and rarely enforced.

Strong tree protection ordinance focused on maintaining mature trees with effective procedures.

Policies regarding stormwater, site and subdivision planning, zoning and other issues that affect private forests are included in management plan.

All relevant municipal policies require or incentivize adherence by private owners to standards incorporated in the plan. Incentives and sanctions applied when appropriate. SEE LIST OF POLICIES.

No tree protection policy

Policies in place to protect public trees and employ industry best management practices, but rare or inconsistent enforcement.

Policies and practices in place to protect public trees, generally enforced. As a companion to the public tree care policy, community issues a guide to aid compliance for all affected agency staffs and contractors.

Policies include construction standards for on-site tree protection, establishment and maintenance. Conforms to and references ANSI Standards for arboricultural practices (A300), safety (Z133), and nursery stock (Z60.1), as well as applicable ISA BMPs.

Integrated municipality-wide policies and practices to protect public and private trees, consistently enforced and with penalties sufficient to deter violations.

No monitoring.

Monitoring is infrequent and reactive to reported changes in tree health, site condition.

Monitoring on a regular basis with rotating schedule for each area. Monitors are professionals or volunteers trained to collect specific data required by municipality. Multi-year data available for trend analyses.

Monitoring adheres to the standards and protocols established by the Urban Tree Growth and Longevity network.

No tree risk assessment or risk management program. Response is on a reactive basis only.

Citizens and city staff report tree safety issues to the forestry department or manager (e.g. 3-1-1 system, online form, etc.). System tracks the time between damage report and mitigation action.

The community has written tree risk management policy (aka, 'standard of care') and an operational plan for inspecting and mitigating reported tree problems, including a timetable for mitigating potential hazards.

Policies and ordinances in place to minimize tree damage and removal on commercial developments, and public capital. Protection measures conform to ANSI A300 standards and ISA BMPs.

Includes "better" but with TRAQ-qualified contractors on city projects. Educate tree care companies and public about importance of TRAQ qualifications.

No utilization plan; wood and other green waste goes to landfill with little or no recycling and reuse.

While most green waste does not go to landfill, uses are limited to chips or mulch.

The majority of green waste is reused or recycled – for energy, products, and other purposes beyond chips or mulch.

Comprehensive plan and processes in place to utilize all green waste one way or another, to the fullest extent possible.