Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Agenda and Packet

Community Development Department 222 Lewis Street River Falls, WI 54022 715.425.0900 www.rfcity.org PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA August 19, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the July 15, 2026 meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS ACTION ITEMS 2. Resolution Approving the 2026 Forestry Management Plan DISCUSSION ITEMS STAFF REPORTS 3. Conservation, Parks, and Public Works Staff Report CALENDAR The next Park and Recreation Advisory Board meeting will be 09/16/2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT Council members may be in attendance for informational purposes only. No official Council action will be taken. NOTE: Any person who has a qualifying disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires the meeting or materials to be in an accessible location or format may contact City Clerk Amy White at (715) 426-3408 or in person at 222 Lewis Street for accommodations. Requests for accommodations should be made at least three (3) business days in advance of the meeting. Every effort will be made to arrange accommodations. Post: City Hall and City website 08/14/2026 Community Development Department 222 Lewis Street River Falls, WI 54022 715.425.0900 www.rfcity.org PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES July 15, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Matt Janquart (Chair), Sean Downing (Council Rep) , Brenda Gaulke, Eli Guthrie, Melissa Pedrini, and Natasha Schaefer. Members Absent: Phil Galli. Staff Present: Levi Myers –Natural Resources Coordinator , Kyle Mackey - Recreation Coordinator , Emily Shively -Assistant Director of Community Development, and Brenda Rundle-Customer Service Representative. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. MSC Guthrie/Downing to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2026 Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meeting. Unanimous. PUBLIC COMMENTS William Hansen of the Town of River Falls spoke about the Kinni River Corridor Project and asked a number of questions that he feels should be considered before moving forward with any kayaking enhancements in River Falls. He’d like to see more data on the subject before a dam, hydro generator and biodiversity are destroyed. He wonders if there is really a need for more water access. Beth Rausch, a City resident near Glen Park, thanks the board for their service. She expressed concerns about the Glen Park phase 2 discussion from last month. She recommends moving the proposed multi-sport court from the tree area in the northeast to the southwest corner of the park where the ballfield was proposed. This would be closer to parking and emergency access, allow for further expansion, offer increased visibility, and require no tree removal or light pollution next to the river. ACTION ITEMS 2. Levi Myers and Emily Shively shared a presentation about a proposed development on approximately 50 Johnson acres at CTY Hwy M and 1060 th St called Ironhorse Neighborhood (EW Homes) with 179 housing units . The land was approved for annexation by City Council on June 9, 2026. A 2.3 acre park and a 0.8 acre “tot lot” play area is included, along with trail connections. Schaefer would like to be sure the space and equipment is accessible. Downing would like to see a pollinator rain garden. PRAB seems to feel a natural wood playground may not be the best fit for this neighborhood. They seemed interested in built -in outdoor games but would like to know about the accessories. Shade and benches are encouraged. The board can continue to have conversations about the design and amenities in the new City park. MSC Gaulke/Schaefer to recommend approval of combination of new park land and cash- in-lieu of land be accepted for park dedication for the Ironhorse neighborhood (EW Homes) at CTY Hwy M and 1060th St. Unanimous. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Rick Cleary of Kinnickinnic Off-Road Cyclists (KORC) gave their annual report. The Border Crossing was held May 17. It is one of their main funding sources. The grade 6-12 race with nearly 1,000 riders will be in September. The Ice Box 480 running event will be held on November 7. Many of their big events are staged in Lot C which is for sale by the City. They hope to work with the future owner of the property. They have re-vamped the skills park and added 1.5 miles of new trail on the Fox easement land, but signage is not up yet. They purchased a mini-excavator to continue to build trail. Many volunteers work on the Whitetail Ridge bike trails. They feel fortunate about the relationship they have with the City. PRAB thanked KORC for the asset to our City. STAFF REPORTS 4. Levi Myers gave the Public Works Maintenance Staff Report. The section of the White Pathway (offshoot of the Kinnickinnic Pathway) near the fishing pier and benches overlooking Lake George has received improvements including invasive vegetation clearing, three new concrete pads and picnic tables, decomposed granite hardscape, and new landscape with over 300 native shrubs, perennials, and grasses to help restore the area and support pollinators. The dugouts at Hoffman Park softball fields were power washed and a River Falls 10U Baseball Team painted them black. At DeSanctis Park, over 600 native trees, shrubs, perennials, and grasses were planted in June 2026 as part of the City’s Bee City pollinator initiatives. This includes the first four of 10 pollinator gardens. Thank you to staff, Bee City Committee, and volunteers for all their hard work! Electric Utility staff installed vinyl wraps of the 2026 Bee City Committee Pollinator Art Contest elementary school winners on three different utility boxes at DeSanctis Park. CALENDAR The next Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting will be Wednesday, August 19, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT29 MSC Schaefer/Gaulke to adjourn the meeting at 6:29 p.m. Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, Brenda Rundle, Customer Service Representative MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Levi Myers, Natural Resources Coordinator DATE: August 19, 2026 TITLE: 2026 FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTION RECOMMENDED ACTION Park and Recreation Advisory Board forward the 2026 Forestry Management Plan and attached resolution to City Council with a favorable recommendation for consideration and approval. BACKGROUND The City of River Falls (City) has demonstrated a long -standing commitment to urban forestry. The City adopted its first urban forestry management plan in 1985, became a Tree City USA community in 1997, and updated its management plan again in 2000. The City has continued to invest in the management of its public trees through its response to Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). Since detected in 2019, the City has removed over 2000 infected ash trees with only around 110 publicly inventoried ash trees remaining. This has led to a significant reduction in canopy cover and the benefits that trees provide the community. As the City's initial EAB response nears completion, River Falls has a n opportunity to transition from reactive management toward a proactive, long-term approach focused on resilience, canopy expansion, and sustainable forest management. During 2025, the City completed a comprehensive analysis of its urban forest using tree in ventory data, canopy assessments, and urban forest modeling. This analysis identified strengths, vulnerabilities, and opportunities that serve as the foundation for the proposed 2026 Forestry Management Plan. The plan also formalizes existing policies and incorporates best management practices from the U.S. Forest Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the International Society of Arboriculture. It also aligns with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan, ensuring that urban forestry continues to support broader community priorities related to connection, livability, access, resources, partnerships, and resiliency. DISCUSSION FOREST ANALYSIS The City's public urban forest includes more than 8,000 inventoried trees covering approximately 1,126 acres, with an estimated canopy cover between 23% to 30%, which is comparable to neighboring communities. The City’s tree inventory includes 74 tree species; however, the forest is heavily dominated by maple (46%), oak (14%) and honeylocust (9%), indicating limited species 2 a a a a Memorandum August 19, 2026 Page 2 diversity and an overreliance on maple which poses a risk to long-term forest health. The City's urban forest includes a healthy balance of young, maturing, and mature trees ensuring canopy continuity over time . Canopy distribution varies considerably throughout the City, ranging from 17% to 47% by census block group. The analysis also highlights the significant impacts of tree removals, with 2,039 public trees removed and 1,750 trees planted between 2020 and 2025. Most of these removals were ash trees and by the end of 2026, 400 ash trees will be removed. These findings emphasize the need to diversify the City's tree population, restore canopy lost to EAB, and continue investing in urban forest management. FORESTY MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS Building on the preexisting forestry vision statement of “A healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest for current and future generations” the Forestry Management Plan focuses on four key areas: Planning, Health, Access, and Partnership. These goals are summarized below: Planning: Strengthened governance and planning Adoption of a forestry management plan is the first step to enhancing forestry management planning and improved forestry outcomes. This plan will serve as a roadmap to urban forest expansion and resilience. Enhanced planning will allow for more efficient and effective use of resources. One of the current management limitations is insufficient data within the City’s tree inventory. A complete inventory of all boulevard and park trees will provide actionable information to inform management decisions. This goal also identifies the need to review and update existing ordinances, development policies, pruning cycles, and planning to replant trees lost due to EAB. Health: Enhance forest health and resilience One of the greatest risks to the City’s current urban forest is lo w species diversity. This goal focuses on the health and resilience of the forest which is also tied to reducing the risk of catastrophic canopy loss as seen with EAB. To promote forest health, intentional plantings should be used to increase species diversity. Native species should be emphasized because they are better suited to local climate conditions and provide greater benefit to local wildlife including pollinators and birds. Invasive tree species pose a threat to local ecosystems and biodiversity and should be removed from public parks and boulevard areas then replaced with native species. Access: Ensure the provision of equitable canopy cover and ecosystem services Urban trees provide many benefits to residents and are an important asset to the community. All residents should be able to access and enjoy these benefits. To accomplish this, this plan sets a goal of increasing citywide canopy coverage 8% by 2045. This goal also promotes equitable canopy coverage by working to reduce variation between census block groups. To accomplish this, tree plantings will be prioritized in low canopy areas. Plantings will also be focused on park spaces because they are publicly accessible to all residents. Partnership: Increase community engagement and education River Falls’ canopy coverage is comprised of both public and private trees. To accomplish forestry goals, partnership between the City, community partners, and residents is critical. This plan Memorandum August 19, 2026 Page 3 recognizes the need to identify and pursue partnerships focused on canopy expansion and tree health. These efforts will center on supporting tree planting initiatives, educational materials, and increased community engagement. FINANCIAL IMPACT As the City shifts from responding to EAB toward proactive, long-term urban forest management a new baseline forestry budget will need to be established. Since EAB was first detected in River Falls, forestry resources have been focused on inventorying, assessing, treating, and removing ash trees, resulting in a significant increase in annual forestry expenditures. As the City's EAB response nears completion, tree removals are expected to return to more typical levels, allowing resources to be redirected toward tree planting, routine maintenance, i nventory updates, and implementation of the Forestry Management Plan. Continued investment in urban forestry will be essential to restore canopy lost to EAB, improve species diversity, and maintain the long -term health of the City's public trees. Based on studies and surveys conducted by the National Arbor Day Foundation, In ternational City/County Management Association, and the Wisconsin DNR, forestry benchmarks for a City with a population of River Falls’ size is as follows: Spending Level Per Capita Annual Budget Minimum Tree City USA benchmark $2.00 $32,000 Low service level $5.00 $80,000 Wisconsin average $7.50 $120,000 National average (Tree City USA communities) $9.60 $154,000 High service level $12.00 $192,000 A high service level has been necessary to deal with EAB and its ramifications, but as operations normalize to a post -EAB regimen staff recommends meeting the national average of approximately $154,000 annually. Annually, this would allow for a removal rate of 50 -100 trees, planting 250-300 trees, and hiring for the maintenance of 20-30 trees that are outside the capacity of the Public Works team. Our urban forest is an essential service and to ensure a sustainable future for it, we need to meet or exceed the national average for the City’s Forestry expenditures. Staff will continue to apply annually for the DNR Urban Forestry Grant to supplement the budget and will pursue additional grants as needed to bolster forestry efforts. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board forward the proposed Forestry Management Plan and attached resolution to City Council for adoption. Adoption of the plan will establish the City's first comprehensive update to its forestry management strategy in more than twenty-five years and provide a clear roadmap for protecting, managing, and expanding River Falls' urban forest. The plan will guide budgeting, annual work plans, grant applications, and long- term decision-making while ensuring the City's urban forest continues to provide environmental, economic, and social benefits for present and future generations. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2026 FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City of River Falls is a Tree City USA community and recognizes its urban forest as a valuable public asset that provides environmental, economic, and social benefits to the community; and WHEREAS, the City of River Falls has experienced significant tree and canopy los s due to the impacts of Emerald Ash Borer; and WHEREAS, the City last adopted a forestry management plan in 2000; and WHEREAS, forestry management plans are a critical component of robust and healthy urban forest management; and WHEREAS, the City’s Park and Recreation Advisory Board approved forwarding the Plan to the City Council with a favorable recommendation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council hereby approves the 2026 Forestry Management Plan Dated this ___ day of ____________, 2026. Alison Page, Mayor ATTEST: Amy White, City Clerk FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RIVER FALLS PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD CITY STAFF Mei Mei Abdouch Alison Page Alderperson At Large Mayor Michael Page Todd Bjerstedt Alderperson District 3 Deputy Comptroller Alderperson District 4 Sean Downing Mei Mei Abdouch Alison Page Alderperson District 1 Alderperson At Large Mayor Diane Odeen Michael Page Todd Bjerstedt Alderperson at Large Council President Alderperson District 3 Deputy Comptroller Alderperson District 4 Nick Carow Mei Mei Abdouch Alison Page Alderperson District 2 Comptroller Alderperson At Large Mayor Rose Walker Michael Page Todd Bjerstedt Alderperson at Large Alderperson District 3 Deputy Comptroller Alderperson District 4 Alison Page Mayor Todd Bjerstedt Alderperson District 4 Matt Janquart Chairperson Melissa Pedrini Sean Downing Council Representative Natasha Schaefer Eli Guthrie Phil Galli Brenda Gaulke Scot Simpson City Administrator Amy Peterson Community Development Director Brooks Ostendorf Conservation and Parks Manager Levi Myers Natural Resources Coordinator Erica Ellefson Public Works Manager Becky Corson Community Development Coordinator TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ii Mayor and City Council ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ii River Falls Park and Recreation Advisory Board ................................................................................................................................................................................. ii City Staff ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 A Healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest for future generations .............................................................................................................................................. 1 FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 OUR FOREST AT A GLANCE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Where are we now? ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND FORESTRY HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10 FOREST COMPOSITION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 SPECIES DIVERSITY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 PESTS AND DISEASES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 POTENTIAL URBAN FOREST PEST IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 TREE SIZE DIVERSITY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 CANOPY COVER ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 TREE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 MISSION, VISION, STRATEGIC GOALS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 HOW DO WE GET THERE?................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 STRATEGIC GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 POLICIES AND BEST PRACTICES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 42 DIVERSITY STANDARDS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 LOCATION SPACING .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 TREE INSTALLATION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 VOLUNTEER PLANTINGS AND DONATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 PRUNING AND REMOVAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES .......................................................................................................................................................... 45 PRUNING CYCLE DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 47 STORM RESPONSE AND RISK MITIGATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 GIS AND RECORDKEEPING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 50 BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 STAFF .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 TIMELINE AND TRACKING ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 SUMMARY OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METRICS ........................................................................................................................................ 54 SUMMARY OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METRICS ........................................................................................................................................ 55 Appendix A: Comprehensive plan references ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX B: OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIX C: EXISTING FOREST COMPOSTION (As of July 21, 2025) ........................................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX D: APPROVED TREE PLANTING LISTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 62 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A HEALTHY, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT URBAN FOREST FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS The City of River Falls Forestry Management Plan is a 20 -year roadmap to care for, expand, and sustain the City’s urban forest, a key natural resource that supports livability, public health, and environmental stewardship. It aligns with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and its six goals: connection, livability, access, resources, partnerships, and resiliency, by implementing them through urban forest management and growth. The plan also formalized existing forestry policy and practices into a single guiding document. It is based on a fall 2025 an alysis of the City’s urban forest and was developed by the Natural Resource Coordinator in the Conservation and Parks Division with input from City staff and the Park and Recreation Board. Figure 1: Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Agriculture, Natural & Cultural Resources Goals FRAMEWORK This plan is built on a clear, forward-looking framework that asks three essential questions: “Where are we now?”, “Where do we want to go?”, and “How do we get there?” It begins by assessing the current condition of the City’s urban forest to identify both challenges and opportunities for long-term sustainability and growth. It then establishes a vision for the future, aligning with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as the Outdoor Recreation Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Finally, the plan defines the path forward through clear goals, targets, and measurable outcomes. It also outlines best practices for tree planting, maintenance, and removal. Together, these priorities provide practical guidance for day -to-day operations and decision making while supporting the long-term health and resilience of the urban forest. Figure 2: Management Plan Framework OUR FOREST AT A GLANCE The City’s public urban forest includes over 8,000 inventoried trees covering approximately 1,126 acres, with an estimated canopy cover of 23 -30%, comparable to neighboring communities. The total replacement value of inventoried public trees is approximately $11.4 million. The forest includes 74 tree species, though it is heavily dominated by Maple (46%), followed by Oak (14%) and Honeylocust (9%), indicating limited species diversity and an overreliance on maple. Canopy coverage varies significantly across the City, ranging from 17% to 47% by census block group. Land cover is approximately 74% pervious and 25% impervious. Oaks and ash trees are the most vulnerable species due to their prevalence and susceptibility to pests and disease, particularly oak wilt and emerald ash borer (EAB), which present the greatest current financial and ecological risks. From 2020 to 2025, 2,039 trees were removed and 1,750 were planted in response to canopy loss, with an additional 400 ash trees scheduled for removal in 2026. Despite these impacts, the City maintains a balanced age structure of young, maturing, and mature trees, supporting long-term forest continuity. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Trees Planted vs Removed 2020-2025 Total Trees Removed Total Trees Planted 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 26-32 33+ Percentage of Trees Tree Diameter (DBH) Tree Size Diversity Figure 3: Species Diversity of Inventoried trees with Species Data Figure 4: Tree Removals 2020 to Present Figure 5: Forest Tree Size Comparison WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? URBAN FORESTRY MISSION STATEMENT “To preserve and perpetuate one of the community’s most valuable natural resources and assets, its municipal forest of trees on public property. This includes trees on boulevards, parks, and other City properties.” URBAN FORESTRY VISION STATEMENT “A healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest for current and future generations” FORESTRY GOALS Enhance forest health and resilience Ensure the provisions of equitable canopy cover and ecosystem services Increase community engagement and education Strengthened governance and planning 1. Planning 2. Health 3. Access 4. Partnership HOW DO WE GET THERE? WHERE DO WE WANT • Reduce Risk Through Proactive Assessment and Management • Update Tree Related Ordinances and Policies PLANNING HEALTH ACCESS PARTNERSHIP • Increase Genus and Species Diversity • Encourage and Promote Native Tree Plantings • Improved Tree Health Care • Increase Canopy Cover Citywide • Provide Equitable Canopy Throughout All Neighborhoods • Mitigate the Impacts of Urban Heat Island Effects • Develop Publicly Available Educational Resources • Promote Community Engagement and Education Opportunities • Increase Internal Collaboration Efforts • Partner with local Organizations, Institutions, and Businesses Planning Targets • Update inventory of existing public trees, including missing park and street trees • Create a public facing “dashboard” showing key metrics of urban forest health • Review and update pruning cycles • Create and implement 5-year planting plan • Adoption of a forest management plan • Updated urban forestry ordinances • Review and establish tree related policies for new development Health Targets • No single tree species makes up more than 5% of total population • No single tree genus makes up more than 10% of total population • Maple (Acer) may not comprise more than 5% of any given planting project • Non-street plantings include 10% coniferous tree species • Overall tree composition to include 60% native tree species • Removal of invasive trees from boulevard and park areas • Reduction in tree mortality Access Targets • Increase citywide canopy by 8% by 2045 (~35% citywide canopy) • Plant at least 250 trees per year for the next 5 years • Plant at least 2,500 trees by 2035 • At least 30% tree canopy cover in every census block group • No more than 10% tree canopy variation between census block groups • Plant at least 200 park trees by 2035 • Add all park trees to tree inventory • Reduced urban heat island effects by planting trees in areas with highest urban heat index (UHI) Partnership Targets • Publicly available and accessible tree care educational resources • Increased engagement with external partners • Increased communication and collaboration between staff • Increased partnership between City staff and external stakeholders MOVING FORWARD Implementation will be monitored through annual updates to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, GIS-based dashboards, and the City’s urban forestry webpage. Key metrics and progress towards goals will be tracked by staff and reported annually to the Park Board and Recreation Advisory Board. The plan should be updated as priorities evolve, with a comprehensive review or replacement after 20 years or once its goals have been achieved. Tree inventories should be completed every 5 -10 years to maintain accurate data. The C ity Forester, with support from the Public Works Manager, will oversee implementation and progress toward the plan’s goals. Figure 6: Swinging Bridge River Falls 2025 FORESTRY BENCHMARKS Inventoried Trees 8,166 Replacement Value $11.4 Million Canopy Cover 23-30% Canopy Area 1,156 Acres Most Dominate Genera** Maple (Acer spp.) – 46% Oak (Quercus spp.) – 14% Honeylocust (Gleditsia spp.) – 9% Ecosystem Benefits** Pollution Removal Carbon Storage Carbon Sequestration Oxygen Production Avoided Runoff 2 Tons/Year 3 thousand Tons/Year 59 Tons/Year 157 Tons/Year 914 thousand Gallons/Year $12.5 Thousand/Year $1.3 Million/Year $26 Thousand/Year N/A $8.2 Thousand/Year * A Canopy cover estimate of 23% was derived using random sampling techniques from i-Tree Canopy models. A 30% canopy cover estimate was derived from treecanopy.us 2022 LIDAR imagery. **Inventoried Trees indicates data is derived from only currently inven toried public trees from the City’s tree inventory. Not every publicly owned tree is included in this inventory and the inventory does not include private trees. Figure 7: Tree Coverage of Maple Trees WHERE ARE WE NOW? INTRODUCTION In 2021, the City of River Falls launched an 18-month planning effort to update its Comprehensive Plan, Outdoor Recreation Plan, and Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Developed in partnership with SRF Consulting and informed by extensive community engagement, the plans were adopted by the City Council on March 28, 2023, and establish a framework for policy, investment, and decision-making over the next 20 years. As required by Wisconsin’s Smart Growth legislation, the Comprehensive Plan evaluates existing conditions and establishes goals to guide future growth and development. The Plan identifies six overarching goals: Connection, Livability, Access, Resources, Partnerships, and Resiliency, that serve as the foundation for many City initiatives, including urban forestry. Trees and green infrastructure contribute directly to each of these goals by enhancing community character, supporting environmental sustainability, and improving quality of life. Urban forestry is most closely aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s focus on natural resources and community assets. Public engagement conducted during the planning process demonstrated strong community support for preserving natural resources, protecting parks and trails, enhancing waterfront areas, and investing in landscaping and tree canopy. Additional information regarding the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and urban forestry is provided in Appendix A. Urban forestry also supports key objectives identified in the Outdoor Recreation Plan by strengthening green corridors, improving recreational experiences, and creating opportunities for residents to connect with nature and one another. Further information can be found in Appendix B. Figure 8: Smart Planning Focus Areas Figure 9: River Falls Comprehensive Plan Strategic Goals The City of River Falls recognizes its urban forest as a vital component of municipal infrastructure and community identity. Trees provide numerous environmental, economic, and social benefits, including improved public health, enhanced property values, wildlife habitat, stormwater management, energy savings, and improved air quality. As River Falls continues to grow and respond to changing environmental conditions, proactive management is necessary to ensure a healthy, sustainable, and resilient urban forest. This Forestry Management Plan establishes a framework for the long-term care, protection, and expansion of the City's urban forest. Building upon the goals and priorities established in the Comprehensive and Outdoor Recreation Plans, it serves as both a technical guide and policy tool to support future forestry initiatives, formalize existing practices, and guide decision-making. The need for this plan is further reinforced by the impacts of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), first detected in River Falls in 2019. With much of the City’s EAB Response Plan nearing completion, the City is positioned to transition from reactive management toward long-term stewardship focused on species diversity, canopy expansion, and forest resiliency. Today, the City manages more than 8,000 public trees throughout its streets, parks, and greenspaces. Maintaining this valuable asset requires coordinated planning, strong policies, adequate resources, and active community participation. This plan establishes goals and strategies related to asset management, tree planting, maintenance, risk mitigation, species diversity, education, and partnerships. Developed using best practices from the U.S. Forest Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and International Society of Arboriculture, this plan will help guide annual work plans, budgeting, ordinance development, and grant applications. It also encourages continued collaboration among residents, community organizations, institutions, and City staff in stewarding the urban forest. Urban forestry is a shared responsibility. Through this plan, the City of River Falls reaffirms its commitment to environmental stewardship and to maintaining a healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest that benefits the community today and for generations to come. Figure 10: Swinging Bridge River Falls Figure 11: Walking Trails River Falls Figure 12: Neighborhood Tree Coverage The City of River Falls is located in western Wisconsin, straddling Pierce and St. Croix counties. Situated along the Kinnickinnic River and within the Twin Cities metropolitan region, River Falls works to align sustained growth and development with community identity, livability, and quality of life. With a population of 17,802 in 2024, the City is experiencing steady residential and commercial growth: The City has seen an 18% population increase between 2010 and 2024 with sustained growth expected to continue. Land uses include a mixture of residential neighborhoods, institutional campuses, industrial parks, commercial corridors, and public greenspaces. It is home to the University of Wisconsin River Falls (UWRF) and the Chippewa Valley Technical College’s River Falls Campus (CVTC). As growth continues, careful planning is necessary to ensure the preservation and expansion of the City’s forest resources. The City of River Falls has a history of supporting its urban forest since the City created its first Urban Forestry Management Plan in 1985 and designated its first City Forester in 1990. This management plan highlighted the need for a designated City Forester, a computerized tree inventory, and made recommendations for tree selection, planting procedures, and planting locations. Throughout its history, the City also has a rich history of partnership with various organizations such as the WIDNR and local partners for support and assistance. In 1997, River Falls gained designation as a Tree City USA further demonstrating its continued commitment to urban forestry. An updated management plan and the City’s first digital tree inventory utilizing the City’s Geographical Information System (GIS) were created in 2000. Recent forestry efforts have focused on the City’s response to Emerald Ash borer (EAB) with the creation of the City’s EAB Preparedness Plan and updates to the City’s tree ordinances in 2019. In 2025, the City continued to demonstrate its commitment to urban forestry through the creation of the Conservation and Parks Division. Urban forestry is currently led by the City Forester within this division and operational support is provided by the Public Works Department. In 2025, this division completed a canopy analysis of the current urban forest using i-Tree modeling software and tree inventory data. The City continues to build on the City’s commitment to urban forestry through the drafting of this Forestry Management Plan and accompanying policies. As of the Fall of 2025, the City of River Falls actively manages over 8,000 public trees located in boulevards, parks, and public properties. These trees are critical public assets, providing environmental, economic, and social benefits across the City. A digital tree inventory is maintained by the City that is comprised of data including tree location, species, condition, size class, maintenance activities, and other key indicators important in assessing forest health. Over time tree inventories can become inaccurate due to the evolving nature of forests. The City’s current inventory includes over 8,000 trees but some trees included do not include data on the species, size, or other key information. This limits the City’s ability to rely on this information for planning and management purposes. Since the presence of EAB was first discovered in River Falls in 2019, the City’s urban forestry planning and operations have primarily focused on responding to its impacts. In this time period, the City’s urban forest has undergone a significant and rapid transformation. EAB, an invasive insect that targets and kills ash trees, has had a significant and measurable impact on the tree canopy throughout the City. As a result, the community has been forced to undertake extensive removal efforts to address public safety hazards. To date over 2,000 ash trees have been removed due to EAB infestation. COMMUNITY PROFILE AND FORESTRY HISTORY SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL MILESTONES In 2025 alone, 700 ash trees were removed from boulevards, parks, and other public spaces. An additional 400 removals are planned for 2026. These removals represent one of the most substantial changes to the City’s urban forest in recent decades, dramatically altering the structure, aesthetics, and ecological functions of our forest. The loss of ash trees has reduced overall canopy cover, reduced biodiversity, and disrupted the ecosystem services these trees provided including shade, stormwater management, carbon sequestration, and habitat for urban wildlife. This change has required extensive City resources and underscores the importance of species diversity and proactive management to ensure long-term forest resilience. The historical impacts of EAB in recent history and prior impacts of Dutch Elm’s disease seen in the 1960’s and 70’s highlight the need for increased forest diversity to minimize the risk of future potential pest and disease outbreaks. While the City has made progress on its initial EAB response, this canopy loss requires a thoughtful and strategic response. Recovery efforts must prioritize replanting with a diverse mix of species to restore canopy cover, prevent future overreliance on any single genus, and build forest resilience. Preliminary canopy studies suggest moderate urban tree canopy coverage, with variation between older neighborhoods and newer developments. In some areas, limited canopy cover correlates with higher amounts of impervious surfaces which reduces access to the benefits trees provide and raises equity concerns. River Falls’ urban forest is at a critical point of transition. Some of the most pressing challenges include limited species diversity, reduced canopy cover, and limited management capacity. These must be addressed through strategic planning and thoughtful investment over time. At the same time, River Falls is uniquely positioned to advance its urban forestry goals through increased tree planting, strong community engagement, leveraging tree inventory data, collaboration, and enhanced urban forestry planning. This management plan aims to build upon these assets to ensure a healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest for current and future generations. Figure 13: Timeline of Significant Historical Forestry Milestones FOREST COMPOSITION ANALYSIS SPECIES DIVERSITY Understanding the composition of River Falls’ urban forest is essential for informed management, long-term resilience, and efficient resource allocation. A detailed analysis of tree diversity, age composition, canopy cover, and distribution reveals strengths and vulnerabilities of our current forest. While the City benefits from a range of native and non- native species, past planting trends have led to an overreliance on certain genera, particularly maple (Acer) and ash (Fraxinus) which poses a risk to forest health and stability. This section provides an overview of the urban forest’s current structure, highlights diversity gaps, and shows the impacts of recent management activities to inform future planting and maintenance strategies. Species diversity is a cornerstone of a healthy, resilient urban forest. A diverse mix of tree species helps buffer the canopy against pests and diseases. Past plantings have led to concentrations of certain species increasing vulnerability to large scale canopy loss, as seen with the Emerald Ash Borer and Dutch elm disease. This section examines current species diversity within the urban forest. Using current inventory data from trees where the tree species is available, the public tree inventory includes 74 different tree species. The City currently has 8,166 public trees inventoried, but only 6,982 trees have enough data to be used for this analysis. Further, only 5,774 of trees inventoried have species data available. About 46% of these inventoried trees are known to be maple (Acer spp.), 14% are Oaks (Quercus spp.), and 9% are Honeylocust (Gleditsia). The percentage of maple is well above professionally accepted guidelines like the 30-20-10 rule that suggests limiting any tree family to 30%, any genus to 20%, and any single species to 10% of the total tree population. The WIDNR now recommends an even more stringent guideline and has adopted a 20 -10-5 rule of thumb citing the previous guideline’s inadequacy to support resilience and sustainability goals. While these are only guidelines, our current composition falls short of these guidelines as seen in the following tables, limiting the benefits of forest diversity, and posing a risk to the long-term health of our urban forest. More in depth data is shown in Appendix C. TOP 10 GENERA GENUS Acer Quercus Gleditsia Fraxinus Picea Malus Tilia Aesculus Pinus Catalpa Other TOTAL PERCENTAGE 46% 14% 9% 7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 8% 100% Table 1: Top Ten Genera of Inventoried Public Trees with Species Data Available Figure 14: Kinnickinick River Aerial Table 2: Tree Diversity by Genus of Inventoried Trees with Available Tree Species Data DIVERSITY BY GENUS GENUS Acer Quercus Gleditsia Fraxinus Picea Malus Tilia Aesculus Pinus Catalpa Betula Cercis Juniperus Juglans Ostrya Populus Sorbus Prunus PERCENTAGE 45.55% 13.60% 9.23% 6.67% 4.12% 3.52% 3.33% 2.29% 1.84% 1.37% 0.99% 0.97% 0.90% 0.83% 0.57% 0.52% 0.50% 0.48% GENUS Robinia Thuja Ulmus Platanus Other Amelanchier Carpinus Pyrus Salix Cladrastis Syringa Taxodium Carya Elaeagnus Rhamnus Unknown Magnolia PERCENTAGE 0.40% 0.40% 0.36% 0.35% 0.33% 0.29% 0.23% 0.10% 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% < 0.01% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Species Diversity By Genera Figure 15: Tree Genus Diversity of Inventoried Trees with Available Tree Species Data Percentage of Trees by Species 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%PERCENTAGE TREE SPECIES Percentage of Trees by Species Figure 16: Tree Species Percentages Including All Inventoried Trees Figure 17: Percentage of Overall Forest Composition for Trees with Available Species Data PESTS AND DISEASES Pests and disease can have major impacts on urban forests as seen with the emergence of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and Dutch Elm Disease. Ensuring diverse forest composition and proper tree care are the most effective ways to protect vulnerable trees. Urban forests have potential to be devastated when forests are dominated by only a few species. Using data from the City’s current tree inventory, and i-Tree Eco modeling software, pest and disease related risks were assessed. i-Tree is suite of software created through collaboration between the U.S. Forest Service and other partners. These tools were created to aid practitioners in assessing the health of urban forests. This analysis shows the impact that the most threatening pests and diseases could have on our trees by showing the percentage of trees susceptible and the estimated replacement value of those trees. Replacement value considers factors such as tree species, diameter at breast height (DBH), tree condition, and land use to estimate the cost of replacing the tree. Based on tree species and the number of trees impacted, replacement values vary significantly. The results demonstrating the impacts of catastrophic tree loss are as follows: PEST AND DISEASE RISK ASSESSMENT TREE SPECIES DISEASE/PEST % OF ALL TREES REPLACEMENT VALUE PEST RISK Oak Oak Wilt (OW) 10.0 % $1,900,000 High Ash Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) 4.70 % $1,340,000 High Bur and Swamp White Oak Bur Oak Blight (BOB) 1.50 % $573,000 Moderate Elm Dutch Elm Disease (DED) 5.60 % $521,000 Moderate Scots Pine Pine Shoot Beetle (PSB) 1.90 % $482,000 Moderate Pine and Spruce Jack Pine Budworm (JPBW) 1.50 % $375,000 Low White Pines White Pine Blister Rust (WPBR) 1.20 % $320,000 Low Aspen, Birch, and Poplar Large Aspen Tortrix (LAT) 1.30 % $163,000 Low Butternut and Walnut Butternut Canker (BC) 0.70 % $127,000 Low Table 3: Summary of Risk Assessment Completed Using i-Tree Eco Modeling Software EMERALD ASH BORER (EAB) Emerald Ash Borer has killed tho usands of ash trees in communities throughout the United States, including River Falls. EAB still has the potential to affect 4.7% of our tree population which is represented by a $1,340,000 replacement value and is still considered a high-risk pest. BUR OAK BLIGHT (BOB) Bur Oak Blight, which primarily impacts Bur and Swamp White Oaks, poses a threat to 1.5% of the urban forest in 2025, which represents a potential loss of $573,000 in replacement value, posing a low risk to our urban forest. DUTCH ELM DISEASE (DED) The American Elm, one of the most common street trees of the twentieth century, has been devastated by Dutch Elm Disease. Since first reported in the 1930’s, this disease has killed over 50% of the native elm population in the Untied States. Some elm species have shown varying degrees of resistance to this disease. River Falls’ elm population makes up 5.6% of the urban forest and the replacement value of trees is estimated to be $521,000 posing a moderate risk to the urban forest. LARGE ASPEN TORTRIX (LAT) Quaking Aspen is a principal host for the defoliator, Large Aspen Tortrix. This pest poses a threat to 1.3% of the urban forest, which represents a potential loss of $163,000 in replacement value. OAK WILT (OW) Oak Wilt, which is caused by a fungus, is a prominent disease among oak trees. Red oak trees are most susceptible. Oak Wilt poses a threat to 10.0% of the urban forest, which represents a potential loss of $1,900,000 in replacement value. PINE SHOOT BEETLE (PSB) The Pine Shoot Beetle is a wood borer that attacks various pine species, though Scots pine is the preferred host in North America. PSB has the potential to affect 1.9% of our urban forest population with a replacement value of $482,000. JACK PINE BUDWORM (JPBW) Jack Pine Budworm poses a threat to 1.5% of the urban forest impacting several pine and spruce species. These vulnerable trees, if lost, would require $375,000 in replacement value. This pest is a low risk to the urban forest. WHITE PINE BLISTER RUST (WPBR) Since its introduction to the United States in 1990, White Pine Blister Rust (WPBR) has had detrimental effect on white pines, particularly in the Great Lakes Region. WPBR has the potential to affect 1.2% of the population with a replacement value of $320,000. BUTTERNUT CANKER (BC) Butternut Canker is caused by a fungus that infects butternut trees. The disease has since caused significant declines in butternut populations in the United States. Potential loss of trees from BC is 0.7% of our tree population which equates to a $127,000 replacement value and poses a low risk to our urban forest. TREE SIZE DIVERSITY POTENTIAL URBAN FOREST PEST IMPACTS Figure 18: Summary of Forest Pests with Greatest Potential Impact on Existing Urban Forest Tree size is commonly used as a proxy for estimating tree age in urban forest inventories. Size is measured using diameter at breast height (DBH), which is the diameter of a tree's trunk measured at approximately 4.5 feet above the ground. While actual age can differ from DBH based on species and growing conditions, DBH provides a reliable and standardized method for categorizing trees into relative age classes across an urban forest. Understanding the distribution of trees by size class is important because it helps assess the age, structure, and long-term sustainability of the urban forest. At all times a healthy and resilient urban forest should include a balanced mix of young, maturing, and mature trees. This diversity ensures that as older trees decline or are removed, younger cohorts are already in place to maintain canopy cover and ecosystem benefits. Table 4: Urban Forest Composition by Size Class Urban environments often present challenges that influence tree growth rates and longevity, such as compacted soils, limited rooting space, air pollution, heat island effects, and physical damage from infrastructure or human activity. These factors can accelerate tree decline and mortality, due to higher stress environments. Different sized trees pose different challenges and require different management strategies. Small, young trees often require more frequent pruning and are easily stressed during their establishment while larger older trees are reaching the end of their life cycle and often begin to decline. TREE SIZE DIVERSITY SIZE CLASS (BY DBH) 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 26-32 33+ Total COUNT 2747 2002 1691 463 329 278 7510 PERCENTAGE 37% 27% 23% 6% 4% 4% 100% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-25 26-32 33+ Percentage of Trees DBH (Inches) Tree Size Diversity Figure 19: Breakdown of Tree Size Diversity Assessing tree size classes across the City allows forest managers to identify potential age gaps, areas that may be over-reliant on older trees, or neighborhoods where a lack of young trees could signal long -term canopy decline. By analyzing DBH data, the City can prioritize planting efforts, diversify species across all age classes, and strategically plan for the replacement of aging tree populations to maintain canopy continuity over time. River Falls has a well balanced size diversity and should continue planting to ensure future canopy is maintained and expanded. CANOPY COVER Canopy cover refers to the layer of tree leaves, branches, and stems that provide shade and coverage when viewed from above. It is a key indicator of urban forest structure and one of the most important metrics for evaluating the benefits provided by trees in a community. Assessing canopy cover shows the extent and distribution of tree coverage across the City. In urban forestry, both total canopy cover and spatial distribution are important. A citywide canopy cover percentage offers a broad understanding of urban forest extent, while neighborhood level analysis can reveal disparities and inform equitable tree planting and maintenance priorities. Sustaining and expanding canopy cover over time requires intentional investment in tree planting, preservation, and maintenance. Factors such as development, pest and disease outbreaks, and severe weather events pose ongoing risks to canopy continuity. Aerial imagery, LIDAR, and field data can be used to monitor canopy trends over time and adjust management strategies to maintain and promote a healthy, diverse, and resilient urban canopy. Aerial imagery, i-Tree Canopy modeling software, and random point sampling techniques were used to model current landcover. Landcover types were classified into the following categories: Grass/Herbaceous (H), Tree/Shrub (T), Impervious Road (IR), Impervious Buildings (IB), Impervious Other (IO), Agricultural (AG), Soil (S), and Water (W). Results of this analysis conclude that 23% of our landcover can be classified as tree or shrub cover, 74% of landcover can be classified as pervious, and 26% as impervious. (H) 39% (T)23% (IR) 10% (IO) 10% (IB) 7% (AG) 8% (S) 2% (W) 1% 2025 Landcover Type Grass/Herbaceous (H) Tree/Shrub (T) Impervious Roads (IR) Impervious Other (IO) Impervious Buildings (IB) Agricultural (AG) Soil/Bare Ground (S) Water (W) 26% 74% Pervious Landcover Percentage Impervious Surface Area Pervious Surface Area Figure 20: City Landcover Analysis Created Using i-Tree Modeling and Random Point Sampling Techniques Figure 21: City Pervious Landcover Analysis Created Using i-Tree Modeling and Random Point Sampling Techniques Map 1: Citywide impervious surface percentages-Source: USGS, ESRI Takeaways: Areas in purple and dark red show areas with greater impervious surfaces. These are primarily concentrated in the downtown area and areas where large parking lots are present. Trees should be planted in these areas where possible to reduce urban heat island effects and buffer the effects of impermeable surfaces. Map 2: Areas with high urban heat index (UHI)-Source: TreeCanopy.US, ESRI Takeaways: Highlighted areas around the City’s downtown and along Cascade Ave. have the highest urban heat index values. This correlates to higher amounts of impervious surfaces and lower tree canopy. Trees should be planted in these areas where possible to reduce urban heat island effects and buffer the effects of impermeable surfaces. Two other helpful resources for assessing canopy cover are Treecanopy.us and the Tree Equity Score. Both are online web applications that use LIDAR imagery taken from planes and satellites and created in collaboration between the University of Vermont, American Forests, The United States Forest Service, Arbor Day Foundation, PlanIT Geo, and other partners. LIDAR data is considered more accurate than the random point sampling techniques above but is available less frequently because of collection costs. Therefore, it should be used as a lagging indicator of tree canopy. The TreeCanopy.US application compares LIDAR canopy data from 2017 and 2022. LIDAR data is regularly collected by federal agencies and generally available in five-year intervals. The City will update current benchmarks as data becomes available. In 2017, River Falls’ overall canopy cover was 28.3% increasing to 30.6% in 2022 — A net increase of 2.3%. Canopy cover, canopy change, and impervious surfaces of nearby communities are shown in the table below: River Falls Hudson New Richmond Eau Claire 30.6% 35.3% 26.4% 30.1% 2.3% 0.0% -1.0% -3.1% 29.8% 30.4% 31.7% 28.4% CITY 2022 Canopy Cover Canopy Change (2017 – 2022) Impervious Surface (%) Table 5: Community Comparison of Canopy Cover Changes Compiled from TreeCanopy.US Web Application Data The Tree Equity Score takes historical canopy data combined with census data to show areas that have less canopy cover and pose a greater risk to the public by creating an index. It identifies areas that have populations of people who may be more sensitive to the effects of higher temperatures based on factors like age and income. The City is divided into census blocks and a tree equity score is generated based on a target goal of 30% canopy cover for each block. Below are the factors that make up the index and a summary of estimated canopy cover for each block. Census Block Group Tree Equity Score Current Canopy Cover (30% Target) Priority 550939602001 48 17% High 551091209011 71 20% High 550939604001 81 24% Moderate 551091209012 98 29% Low 550939603002 98 29% Low 550939603003 100 31% Low 550939603001 100 33% Low 550939604003 100 39% Low 550939604002 100 41% Low 550939604004 100 47% Low Tree Canopy by Census Block Group Table 6: Comparison of Tree Equity Scores by Census Block Group Figure 22: Factors Used to Calculate Tree Equity Score Map 3: Comparison of canopy cover percentage by Census Block Group-Source: TreeCanopy.US, ESRI Takeaways: Tree canopy cover varies throughout the City. Tree planting should prioritize areas with lower canopy cover, when possible, to promote equitable canopy distribution. Map 4: Number of trees by block. Areas in red contain fewer inventoried trees- Source: River Falls Tree inventory, Takeaways: Areas in red contain fewer inventoried boulevard trees. This map should be used alongside the tree canopy by census block group map to guide plantings focused in areas with lower canopy and tree densities. Map 5: Tree equity scores for each census block group - Source: River Falls Tree inventory, Takeaways: Areas in red and orange have the lowest Tree Equity Score and focused tree plantings in these areas will help reduce canopy coverage disparities. Map 6: Canopy cover comparison between 2017 and 2022-Source: TREECANOPY.US, ESRI Takeaways: Purple areas show areas where canopy cover reduction has occurred since 2017. Green areas show existing canopy cover. Map 1: Citywide tree density heatmap-Source: River Falls tree inventory Data, ESRI Takeaways: Highest tree densities are concentrated in the largest residential areas and in Glen Park. Tree maintenance operations have a critical impact on the long -term health, vitality, and fiscal sustainability of our urban forest and can serve as indicators of how actively and effectively forests are managed. In recent years many trees have been removed largely due to the impacts of emerald ash borer on our community. Other trees have also needed to be removed for various reasons including storm damage, disease, decay, and other environmental factors. In the last five years, 2,039 public trees have been removed by the City or by City contractors, 1,752 of which were ash. This removal rate is atypical and reflects the impact of EAB. Many of the trees removed have not yet been replaced, but the City is committed to planting trees in upcoming years as ash t ree removals are expected to reach completion. 1, 750 public trees have been planted in the last five years. An additional 400 ash trees will be removed in 2026. After ash removals are completed, this equates to a net loss of 689 trees. It is notable that m any of the removed trees were mature trees that provided benefits that new trees will take years to provide. This means more trees than were removed need to be planted to reach the canopy cover that existed prior to the impacts of emerald ash borer. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Trees Planted vs Removed 2020-2025 Total Trees Removed Total Trees Planted Figure 23: Total Trees Planted and Removed in the Last Five Years TREE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS TREE PLANTING AND REMOVALS TREES REMOVED (Contractor) 0 22 59 96 91 514 782 YEAR 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total TREES REMOVED (City) 18 112 301 364 186 276 1257 TREES PLANTED (Contractor) 34 98 173 67 319 77 768 TREES PLANTED (City) 113 140 169 161 174 225 982 TOTAL TREES REMOVED 18 134 360 460 277 790 2039 TOTAL TREES PLANTED 147 238 342 228 493 302 1750 Table 7: Tree Planting and Removals Between 2020 and 2025 Figure 24: Trees Planted and Removed in the Last Five Years WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? MISSION, VISION, STRATEGIC GOALS URBAN FORESTRY MISSION STATEMENT: “To Preserve and perpetuate one of the community’s most valuable natural resources and assets, its municipal forest of trees on public property. This includes trees on boulevards, parks, and other City properties.” URBAN FORESTRY VISION STATEMENT: “A healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest for current and future generations.” PLANNING STRATEGIC FORESTRY GOALS RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS Connection HEALTH ACCESS PARTNERSHIP Livability Access Resources Partnerships Resiliency HOW DO WE GET THERE? STRATEGIC GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION • Reduce Risk Through Proactive Assessment and Management • Update Tree Related Ordinances and Policies PLANNING • Increase Genus and Species Diversity • Encourage and Promote Native Tree Plantings • Improved Tree Health Care • Increase Canopy Cover Citywide • Provide Equitable Canopy Throughout All Neighborhoods • Mitigate the Impacts of Urban Heat Island Effects • Develop Publicly Available Educational Resources • Promote Community Engagement and Education Opportunities • Increase Internal Collaboration Efforts • Partner with local Organizations, Institutions, and Businesses HEALTH ACCESS PARTNERSHIP PLANNING – STRENGTHENED GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING Objective: Reduced Risk Through Proactive Assessment and Management Current Condition: Having up-to-date data is critical for efficient and effective management of urban forests. Accurate, up -to-date information on our forest assets is not readily available. While a digital tree inventory exists, much of the data is not reliable due to out-of-date information or is lacking key forest health indicators. Without accurate information on tree species, size, condition, and location, it is difficult to prioritize and plan operational activities such as pruning, removals, and new plantings. Updating and maintaining this inventory will support efficient resource allocation, better risk management, and improved long-term stewardship of our urban forest. Further, updating the City’s tree inventory will allow better tracking and management of pruning cycles. Establishing tree planting guidance will promote thoughtful long-term stewardship that mitigates the risk of future financial and social risks. Recommendations: Update Existing Tree Inventory with up-to-date species, size, and condition rating for all boulevard and park trees. Examine Pruning Cycles to ensure timely intervention that ensures risks of limb or tree failure is mitigated and tree health is supported. Establish A Tree Planting Plan to replace canopy lost due to EAB and guide planting locations, species selections, and criteria for planting prioritization. Targets: • Complete update of existing public trees and addition of missing park and street trees • Create a public facing dashboard showing important metrics of urban forest health • Review and update pruning cycles • Create and implement 5-year planting plan Metrics: • Progress (Percent Completion) toward comprehensive tree inventory update • Creation of public facing dashboard • Completion of pruning cycle review and update • Completion of 5-year tree planting plan PLANNING – STRENGTHENED GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING Objective: Update Tree-Related Ordiances and Policies Current Condition: The City’s forestry planning has historically been conducted by various positions and departments and needs to be brought together under one comprehensive plan. Formal policy is n eeded to direct resource allocation, guide urban forest management efforts, and improve interdepartmental coordination and collaboration. Current ordinances need to be updated to improve protection of the City’s u rban forest resources and examine ways to promote canopy cover within City boundaries. Forestry goals need to continue to be integrated into broader City goals as identified in the City of River Falls Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: Adopt An Urban Forest Management Plan to guide future decision making and resource allocation. Update Tree-related Ordinances to reflect goals identified in the urban forest management plan and protect trees within City limits. Draft Policies for Development and Construction Best Practices to ensure high value trees are protected. Integrate Urban Forestry Goals into Broader City Planning Efforts including but not limited to new development and upcoming City projects. Develop Funding Strategies to accomplish urban forestry goals through the City’s budgeting processes and identify alternative funding opportunities such as grant funding. Targets: • Adoption of an urban forest management plan • Updated urban forestry ordinances • Establish tree related policies for new development Metrics: • Completion and adoption of plans and policies • Awarded grant funding and forestry related budget HEALTH – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST HEALTH AND RESILIENCE Objective: Increase Genus and Species Diversity Current Condition: Based on current inventory information, genus and species diversity does not meet urban forestry standards. The DNR’s recommended 20- 10-5 rule states that the urban forest should not be comprised of no more than 20% of any family, 10% of any genus, or 5% of any species. This rule is applied to overall urban forest composition and should guide individual tree plantings. This guideline ensures that urban forests are resilient and not dramatically impacted by pests or diseases that target specific groups of tr ees within the forest population. Historic trends of planting trees in higher percentages than this guideline contributed to the dramatic impacts of emerald ash borer. Trees including maple and ash have commonly been overplanted as street and park trees. The City’s current forest composition does not meet these tree diversity guidelines with an overreliance on maples (Acer) which make up 46% of the City’s identified trees. Recommendations: Update Approved Tree Planting List to guide proper species selection, promote species diversity, and prohibit planting of unsuitable species. Creating Planting Guidelines and Target Goals to ensure diversity, maximize environmental benefits, and reduced pest an d disease associated risks. Intentional Tree Plantings to improve and supplement current forest composition. Targets: • No single tree species makes up more than 5% of total population • No single tree genus makes up more than 10% of total population • Maple (Acer) may not comprise more than 5% of any given planting project • Non-street tree plantings include 10% coniferous species Metrics: • Update of approved tree planting list • Progress toward genus diversity goals • Progress toward species diversity goals HEALTH – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST HEALTH AND RESILIENCE Objective: Encourage and Promote Native Tree Plantings Current Condition: Native trees are generally better suited to local soils, climate, environmental conditions, and typically exhibit greater resilience to drought and other stressors than non -native species. Trees with a native range within the Midwest should be prioritized with preference given to those whose native range is closest to River Falls. Beyond their adaptability, native trees provide important ecological benefits and support local biodiversity by offering more suitable habitat and food sources for native insects, birds, and other wildlife. By incre asing the use of native species in future plantings, the City can enhance both the long -term sustainability of its urban forest and ecological health. Prioritization of native trees species must be balanced with tree diversity goals. Invasive tree species also pose a risk to native trees due to lack of natural predators and ecological advantages. Invasive tree species should be removed from all park and boulevard areas and replaced with native species. Recommendations: Emphasize Species Native to the Midwest to promote resilience and improve wildlife habitat by setting planting guidelines and target goals. Develop Resources and Educational Materials to promote native tree plantings to residents. Remove Invasive Tree Species from park and boulevard areas. Targets: • Greater than 60% native tree species composition overall forest composition • All planting projects should be made up of at least 50% native tree species • Removal of invasive trees from boulevard and park areas Metrics: • Increased percentage of native versus non-native trees • Removed invasive species from park and boulevard areas Map 2: Map of Midwest Region as Defined by Forestry Plan HEALTH – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST HEALTH AND RESILIENCE Objective: Improved Tree Health Care Current Condition: In recent years, the City has prioritized responding to the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) epidemic. While this response has been critical, other maintenance needs now exist. The City has many trees requiring corrective pruning and other dead or declining trees in need of removal. Regular and proper pruning is essential for ensuring the long-term health, safety, and structural integrity of trees. When pruning is done improperly, it can create wounds that invite decay, reduce structural strength, and shorten a tree’s lifespan. Equally important is the practice of proper tree planting. Trees that are planted incorrectly often experience long-term health problems and premature failure, commonly due to girdling roots, poor root development, or butt rot at the base of the trunk. Girdling roots are a commonly observed problem in both public street trees and privately planted trees and typically results from improper planting techniques. Addressing these issues through consistent, proactive maintenance and adherence to proper planting standards will improve tree health, extend lifespan, and reduce long-term management costs for the City and its residents. Recommendations: Promote Proper Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Care through increased internal training focused on best practices for tree planting, pruning, and health. Promote Community Education, Materials, and Programs that encourage proper tree planting, pruning, and health. Promote Proper Tree Siting to reduce tree related conflicts (i.e., Utilities, space requirements, view obstructions, etc.) that may have adverse impacts on tree health. Targets: • Improved tree and forest health Metrics: • Reduced number of annual tree removals • Number of trees pruned per year • Reduced mortality rate for newly planted trees • Increased learning opportunities ACCESS – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST Objective: Increased Canopy Cover Citywide Current Condition: Current estimates of citywide tree canopy vary depending on the methodology used. Random point sampling techniques suggest a canopy cover of approximately 23%, while analysis using 2022 LiDAR data from the U.S. Forest Service, accessed through the Treecanopy.us application, indicates a higher canopy cover of around 30%. LiDAR data is generally considered higher accuracy, as it provides high- resolution imagery that captures canopy structure more precisely than sampling methods. While LiDAR provides a clearer and more detailed assessment of canopy cover, its availability is limited and is generally not collected annually, which restricts the City’s ability to monitor canopy changes in real time. Together, these methods provide valuable insights into the condition of the City’s urban forest. The LiDAR-based estimate establishes a more reliable baseline, while ongoing sampling can help track incremental changes between LiDAR updates. Continued use of both approaches will allow the City to balance accuracy with available information to monitor progress toward canopy goals over time. Recommendations: Assess Citywide Canopy Cover to identify areas where increased canopy cover is needed and suitable locations for tree planting. Increased Annual Tree Planting Efforts to restore canopy lost to EAB and expand current canopy cover. Promote and Encourage Tree Plantings by Private Parties to encourage citywide canopy expansion. Targets: • Increase citywide canopy by 8% by 2045 (Target of 35% citywide canopy) • Plant at least 250 trees per years for the next 5 years • Plant at least 2,500 trees by 2035 Metrics: • Progress toward citywide canopy cover percentage ACCESS – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST Objective: Provide Equitable Canopy Throughout All Neighborhoods Current Condition: While overall citywide canopy is important, the distribution of canopy throughout the City is also important to ensure all residents have access to the benefits of public forest. An analysis of the differences between canopy cover by census block groups reveals a range in canopy cover from 17% to 47%, with an average of 31%. This uneven distribution highlights the need for more equitable tree planting to ensure that all residents have access to the environmental, social, and economic benefits provided by trees. It is important to consider that older neighborhoods tend to have greater canopy cover, due in part to the presence of more mature trees, while newer or redeveloped areas often have more trees with less canopy. To account for this, tree density by block should also be examined to assess variation. When considered together, canopy cover and tree density provide a more complete picture of how equitably trees are distributed throughout the community. Findings show that both measures point to disparities in tree and canopy densities across different parts of the City. While it is not always possible to plant trees at every available site due to space, infrastructure, or site condition limitations, the City is committed to prioritizing planting efforts in areas with lower canopy and tree density. This approach will support a more equitable distribution of urban forest benefits for all residents. Recommendations: Conduct a Neighborhood Urban Canopy Cover Assessment to identify localized areas within City boundaries needing tree density and canopy improvements. Plant Trees to Increase Canopy Equity between census block groups. Targets: • At least 30% tree canopy cover in every census block group • No more than 10% tree canopy variation between census block groups Metrics: • Increases in canopy cover by census block group ACCESS – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST Objective: Prioritize Tree Plantings in Regional and Neighborhood Parks Current Condition: Many of River Falls’ parks have been heavily impacted by the loss of ash trees due to EAB, resulting in significant reductions in shade and overall canopy cover. This loss affects both the ecological and social value of City parks, as shaded areas are important for enhancing recreation and contribute to public health benefits. Parks serve as community assets and are accessible to all residents, making them priority locations for replanting efforts. Many of the City’s parks contain open greenspaces that are well-suited for new tree plantings without conflicting with existing recreational uses or infrastructure. These areas provide opportunities to restore canopy cover, improve habitat, and enhance the overall aesthetic and ecological function of our parks. Proactive planting in parks can also help mitigate future risks to park trees. For example, Glen Park has a high density of oak trees, placing it at greater risk of future canopy loss from oak wilt or other emerging pests and diseases. Diversifying the species composition within this park and others will help safeguard against catastrophic canopy loss, ensure continued shade for park users, and enhance park and greenspace areas. These goals further enhance connection with natural resources as people walk, bike, or engage in outdoor recreation. Recommendations: Inventory Park Trees to assess forest health and needs. Diversify Park Trees through intentional plantings. Enhance Park Canopy through diverse tree plantings. Targets: • Plant at least 200 park trees by 2035 • Add all park trees to the tree inventory Metrics: • Number of new park trees planted • Number of park trees • Number of park trees inventoried ACCESS – ENHANCE URBAN FOREST Objective: Mitigate the Impacts of Urban Heat Island Effects Current Condition: Many cities, including River Falls, are increasingly recognizing the importance of reducing urban heat island effects as part of their resilience and public health strategies. Urban heat islands occur when localized areas experience significantly higher temperatures than surrounding rural or natural landscapes. This phenomenon is closely tied to the prevalence of impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and rooftops, which absorb and retain more heat than naturally vegetated surfaces. As a result, these materials radiate stored heat back into the environment, elevating local air temperatures, especially during the evening and overnight hours. The impacts of higher surface and air temperatures contribute to greater energy consumption and can pose health risks, especially for vulnerable populations such as children, older adults, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. In extreme cases, prolonged exposure to heat can lead to heat stress or heat-related illness. Within River Falls, impervious surfaces are estimated to comprise around 26% of the City’s total land area. Impervious surfaces contribute to localized hotspots where effects are most pronounced. Trees play a critical role in mitigating urban heat island impacts. By providing shade, trees reduce surface and air temperatures, lessening the demand for artificial cooling and creating more comfortable public spaces. Trees intercept solar radiation and absorb heat through their canopy and evapotranspiration processes, further buffering against rising temperatures. Strategic tree planting in areas with high impervious surface cover can significantly reduce localized heat and contribute to public health and energy savings. Because of this, addressing urban heat through expanded canopy cover in areas with a high urban heat index(UHI) is an important component of River Falls’ urban forest management strategy. Recommendations: Conduct an Urban Heat Islands Analysis to identify areas with high urban heat index (UHI) values Identify Planting Opportunities to reduce urban heat island effects Plant Trees in Areas With High UHI Values where feasible Targets: • Reduced urban heat island effects Metrics: • Reduction in citywide UHI values PARTNERSHIP – INCREASE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Objective: Develop Publicly Available Educational Resources Current Condition: Although some resources are currently available on the City’s urban forestry website, there is an opportunity to expand public education related to forestry and proper tree care practices. Educational outreach and the City’s online footprint related to urban forestry remains limited. Encouraging engagement and participation in tree care and urban forestry helps further forestry goals. Expanding investment in online engagement and educational resources will provide residents with accessible, practical guidance on proper tree planting, maintenance, and pest management. A user-friendly webpage, coupled with social media engagement, educational efforts, and interactive tools, can foster stronger community involvement, and promote better stewardship of both public and private trees. Strengthening this digital presence will lead to healthier public and private trees, broader public understanding of the value of the urban forest, and improved long-term outcomes for the City’s canopy. Recommendations: Develop and Provide Online Resources focused on proper tree planting, pruning, native species planting, and tree selection. Increase Social Engagement to promote education related to proper tree health care and urban forestry practices. Targets: • Available and accessible tree care resources • Partner with UW-River Falls, UW Extension, or other groups to provide educational opportunities. Metrics: • Increased online resources available. • Provide tree and forest health related educational opportunities. PARTNERSHIP – INCREASE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Objective: Promote Community Engagement and Education Opportunities Current Condition: The City currently participates in several community engagement activities, including River Falls Earth Fest and annual Arbor Day tree plantings. These events provide valuable opportunities to raise awareness and connect residents to the importance of the urban forest. While these efforts are meaningful, engagement can be expanded. Expanding community engagement and educational opportunities can help foster deeper, more consistent participation in achieving the City’s urban forestry goals. Additional initiatives such as volunteer planting days, joint projects, school partnerships, or workshops on tree care would not only strengthen community involvement but also build a shared sense of stewardship for River Falls’ urban forest. Recommendations: Continue Current Engagement and identify potential areas for expansion. Host Tree Care Related Workshops that focus on tree care education. Targets: • Increased engagement with external partners Metrics: • Engagement opportunities and partnerships PARTNERSHIP – INCREASE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Objective: Increase Internal Collaboration Efforts Current Condition: Forestry related work is currently conducted primarily between Public Works and the newly created Conservation and Parks Division within the Community Development Department. With the creation of this new division, roles and responsibilities will need to continue to be delineated and systems for effective collaboration and communication will need to be implemented to achieve desired forestry goals. Forestry related work is highly collaborative and requires coordination between Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities. Recommendations: Delineate Roles and Responsibilities between departments including but not limited to Utilities, Public Works, Community Development, Conservation and Parks. Increase Communication and Collaboration between departments to ensure efficient and effective collaboration between staff. Targets: • Increased communication and collaboration between staff Metrics: • Employee feedback PARTNERSHIP – INCREASE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Objective: Partner with Local Organizations, Institutions, and Businesses Current Condition: The City interacts with many external stakeholders for ongoing projects related to forestry. Public-private partnerships and relationships with other public institutions is necessary to expand River Falls’ urban forest. These initiatives are necessary for objectives like expanding citywide canopy cover and overall improved tree health. Recommendations: Identify potential partnerships with external organizations such as UWRF, school district, nonprofits, businesses, and other local organizations. Pursue joint partnerships and projects in alignment with the City’s urban forestry goals. Targets: • Increased partnership between City staff and external stakeholders Metrics: • Number of projects involving external stakeholders POLICIES AND BEST PRACTICES PLANTING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The City seeks to establish and maintain a healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forest through strategic tree planting. All planting activities conducted on City-owned property, public right-of-way, and other designated spaces must comply with the most current ANSI A300 Part 6 Tree Planting and Transplanting Standards as well as the ANSI Z60.1 American Standard for Nursery Stock. Figure 25: Proper Tree Planting Guidelines and Specifications DIVERSITY STANDARDS The City has set in place diversity guidelines to improve overall diversity and resilience. No more than 5% of any single species or 10% of any genus should comprise any planting of 100 trees or greater. For plantings of fewer than 100 trees this guideline should be followed unless the planting is intended to correct current forest imbalances. No individual planting should have more than 5% maple trees (Acer spp.) to help curb current species imbalances. Climate-adapted species native to the Midwest should be prioritized in all plantings with a target of 60% native species composition. Planting of boulevard trees must only include species included in the Approved Boulevard Tree List (Appendix D). Trees planted in non-boulevard areas such as parks and greenspaces must be on the Approved Greenspace Tree List (Appendix D). These lists will be reviewed annually and adapted at the discretion of the City Forester. LOCATION SPACING Planting locations will be determined by the City Forester and City staff based on site conditions, infrastructure compatibility, and community forestry guidelines as specified in the City’s Forestry Management Plan and policies. Under no circumstances should trees be planted under powerlines if there is potential for the selected tree species to grow into power lines. Any tree planted under powerlines must be classified as a “small” tree on the Approved Boulevard Tree List (Appendix D). Should homeowner desire to plant a tree in the right-of-way, they may do so at their own expense after filling out the Homeowner Boulevard Tree Form on the City website and getting written approval by the City Forester. The City Forester is responsible for determining whether a tree should be planted on public and right-of-way land and whether the location is suitable. The following is the order in which tree planting will be prioritized: 1. Trees planted to meet management plan goals and objectives 2. Trees to replant previously removed trees in boulevards and streets—where suitable 3. Trees requested by residents Tree spacing requirements are noted in the City’s tree ordinance (8.12.070) and will be adhered to when selecting tree sites. The City aims to maintain tree coverage along all City boulevards while adhering to tree spacing specifications. Figure 26: Tree Planting River Falls Figure 27: Tree Planting River Falls TREE INSTALLATION All nursery stock purchased or accepted by the City must meet ANSI Z60.1 standards and be free of pests, diseases, and structural defects. Trees that fail to meet these standards will be rejected at the contractor’s expense. Planting by City staff or contractors must be performed in accordance with ANSI A300 specifications, including proper planting depth, visible root flare, adequate planting pit dimensions, and the removal of all synthetic materials such as strapping, wire baskets, and burlap prior to backfilling. Mulch should be applied at a depth of two to four inches while being kept away from the trunk to prevent decay. Trees should only be staked when necessary for stability, such as with bare root stock, and all staking materials must be removed within one growing season. A two year establishment period during which periodic watering and maintenance are performed will promote survival and healthy growth. Trees that fail during the warranty period (if applicable) must be replaced at the contractor’s expense. The City will water all newly planted trees as needed during this establishment period to promote tree survival and health. Newly planted trees will be inspected within the first year of establishment to monitor survival and structural integrity. All new plantings should be recorded in the City’s tree inventory for long-term management and tracking. The City will enforce compliance with planting standards for all contractors performing work under municipal contract. Non-compliant trees must be removed and replaced at the contractor’s expense, and the City reserves the right to withhold payment until all deficiencies have been corrected to the satisfaction of the City Forester. VOLUNTEER PLANTINGS AND DONATIONS The City promotes community participation in tree planting efforts. Public planting initiatives and volunteer programs are to be coordinated through the Conservation and Parks Division to ensure compliance with City policy, species selection, and alignment with ANSI standards. When feasible, public outreach and education should accompany these programs to encourage long-term stewardship and increase awareness of the benefits provided by the urban forest. Tree donations are to be coordinated with the City Forester to ensure proper review of site suitability. PRUNING AND REMOVAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES It is the policy of the City to perform tree pruning in accordance with nationally recognized best practices to protect public safety, promote tree health, and preserve the long-term structure of the urban forest. All pruning activities carried out on City owned property, within public rights-of- way, or under municipal contract shall comply with the most current ANSI A300 Part 1 Pruning Standards, ISA Best Management Practices, and safety requirements. Pruning is conducted with the objectives of removing hazardous or defective branches; improving tree structure; providing clearance for vehicles, pedestrians, and utilities; and sustaining tree health and longevity. Topping, heading cuts, flush cuts, lion-tailing, or any practice not consistent with ANSI A300 standards is prohibited. Figure 26: Primary Pruning Objectives Figure 27: Effects of Tree Topping A routine tree pruning cycle will help facilitate pruning frequency and priority. Newly planted trees should be pruned between one to three years after installation to ensure newly installed trees have good structure. This cycle is determined by the City Forester in conjunction with the Public Works Manager based on species, size, location, condition, and staff capacity with a goal of establishing a regular management cycle that proactively reduces risk and minimizes emergency response needs. Priority will be given to trees located in high-use areas, adjacent to critical infrastructure, or exhibiting signs of structural weakness. Utility infrastructure clearing must also follow ANSI A300 standards of pruning and will be administered by the Electric Superintendent in conjunction with the City Forester. All pruning cuts are to be made just outside of the branch collar or appropriate lateral branches to ensure proper healing and reduce the risk of decay. Pruning is not to exceed 25% of a tree’s live crown in a single season except when necessary to mitigate immediate hazards or in the case of storm damage response. Pruning tools will be sterilized when necessary to prevent the spread of pests and disease. Figure 28: Diagram Showing Proper Branch Removal PRUNING CYCLE DETERMINATION Research shows that tree condition starts to decline if pruning is deferred greater than five years. Costs dramatically increase as the length of the pruning cycle is increased. A pruning cycle length of five years optimizes maintenance costs and returns. This relationship is shown in the charts below: Figure 29: Cost and Savings Versus Pruning Cycle Length-Source: Miller and Sylvester 1981 Figure 30: Tree Condition Versus Pruning Cycle Length- Source: Miller and Sylvester 1981 All pruning work performed by contractors will be subject to inspection and approval by the City Forester. Non-compliant work may result in the requirement to remove and replace improperly pruned trees at the contractor’s expense, and the City may withhold payment until corrective action is taken. Trees deemed by the City Forester to pose a significant risk to safety, property, or forest health should be removed. The City Forester is responsible for inspecting trees in the rights-of-way and public property. Private trees that obstruct streetlights, street signs, traffic signals, pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, vehicular traffic, or pose a risk to safety may receive notification requiring intervention from the City Forester per Ordinance No. 2019-13, 8.12.060. Residents may prune their own trees, but residents are not permitted to prune, remove, or otherwise alter trees located on public property without prior authorization from the City. Volunteer pruning or removal events for public trees, if conducted, must be coordinated with City staff to ensure compliance with municipal standards and the ANSI A300 guidelines. Tree removals occur primarily during winter months and are conducted by staff and City contractors. The City maintains a three-year contract with the option for a two-year extension for tree care services. Services include tree pruning, tree and stump removal, ash tree treatment, and emergency response for public property and rights-of-way. Trees with a DBH of greater than 19” or posing significant challenges to staff removal will be removed by contractor. Homeowners will be informed of tree work prior to work commencing by informational doorhangers. The City’s tree trimming zones are shown below. Map 3: River Falls Tree Trimming Zones STORM RESPONSE AND RISK MITIGATION Urban trees provide critical ecosystem services but also can pose potential risks to public safety and infrastructure during severe weather events. Effective storm response and risk mitigation are essential components of a resilient urban forest management strategy. This section outlines protocols and proactive measures employed to reduce hazards, protect public safety, and ensure efficient recovery following storms. TREE RISK ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING Maintaining an up-to-date tree inventory includes collecting information about the health of individual trees. Tracking the percentage of tree dieback is an important indicator of tree health. Significant dieback indicates a decline in tree health and an increased risk of tree or limb failure. Trees with significant dieback, as determined by the City Forester, should be removed. Trees that are deemed high risk to safety or property by the City Forester should also be removed. PREVENTATIVE CARE Routine pruning improves tree structure, health, and reduces risk of tree failure. City staff and contractors will engage in routine pruning to eliminate hazardous trees and branches. The City Forester will work with the Electric Superintendent to ensure critical above ground and underground electric infrastructure is kept clear of vegetation and proper pruning techniques are used. Further, the City Forester will ensure no tree species is planted in a location with the potential to conflict with public infrastructure. This will mitigate risks associated with tree-infrastructure conflicts. STORM RESPONSE In the events of extreme weather that significantly impacts trees, City staff and municipal contractors may be mobilized to clean up damaged trees that are deemed hazardous or affect response. Trees will be prioritized as follows: 1. Trees posing immediate risk to life or property 2. Trees blocking emergency access and major roadways 3. Trees impacting critical infrastructure 4. Public trees that do not meet the above criteria Following cleanup efforts, homeowner inquiries and public tree inspection requests should be directed to the City Forester. GIS AND RECORDKEEPING Factor 1 (very bad) 2 3 4 5 (very good) Roots Significant root damage or rot. Does not seem to be enough healthy roots to sustain tree. Extensive root damage or decay. Minor damage or rot. Girdling roots and/or buried root flare could be present. Slight damage or rot. Potential girdling root may be present, but not currently impactful. No visible root damage, rot, or girdling roots. Root flare appears appropriate. Trunk Hollowness or half -circle cross - section; over half of trunk diameter is rotten or damaged. Extensive decay, cambium damage, impacting up to 50% of the diameter's width. Early decay signs or large parts of bark missing Minor damage and/or compartmentalized rot. Sound and solid throughout. Very minor bark damage okay. Structure (major limbs) Multiple major limbs are broken, missing, dead or rotten Multiple major limbs with damage or rot A major limb is dead, missing, broken or mostly rotten A major limb with minor damage or rot No major limbs missing, broken, rotten or dead Crown (minor branches) Most of crown (>80%) appears dead Significant dieback in crown, approximately 40-80% Notable tip dieback, about 20 -40% of total branches Dense live branching, with some dieback, 5 - 20% Dense live branching, with no more than 5% dieback Leaves Leaf color and size are abnormal and unhealthy. Many wilted or dead leaves. Leaf color or size is abnormal and unhealthy. Many wilted or dead leaves. Leaf color or size is abnormal or unhealthy. Some wilted or dead leaves Leaf color or size appear slightly abnormal. Very few wilted or dead leaves Leaf color and size appear normal. Very minimal wilted or dead leaves Tree maintenance activities are to be recorded in the City’s GIS tree inventory. It is the responsibility of the Conservation and Parks Division to oversee the maintenance of this inventory and all trees should be surveyed every 5 -10 years. Public Works st aff will assist in keeping information up to date when tree related activities are completed, including tree planting, pruning, and removal dates. Infor mation related to management plan goals will also be compiled into online “dashboards” that provide a sn apshot of current forest health and inform management decisions. Each inventoried tree is evaluated using a standardized Tree Health Assessment Index to provide a consistent, objective measure of its overall condition. Five key components are assessed: the roots, trunk, structure (major limbs), crown (minor branches), and leaves. Each component receives a condition rating from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Very Good). Because the roots, trunk, and structure are critical to a tree's health and stability, these categories are weighted more heavily in the overall score. The weighted scores are combined and converted to a percentage, creating a Tree Health Index that allows staff to consistently monitor tree condition, identify declining trees, prioritize maintenance and removals, and make data-driven urban forest management decisions. BUDGET The City is at a critical transition point as we pivot from managing the impacts of EAB to taking a proactive approach in growing a healthy urban forest. Since 2019 when EAB was first discovered in River Falls, most of the Forestry budget was dedicated to managing EAB: primarily for inventorying, assessing, treating, and ultimately removing ash trees. From 2014 to 2019 the annual budget was $63,882 per year, but since 2020 when the City enacted the EAB management plan, the annual budget increased to an average of $207,842. The vast majority of that budget went to tree removals, with an average of 343 trees removed per year. While the City needs to be prepared for the next major threat to its urban forest, it is expected that tree removals will normalize to a rate closer to 50 trees per year once all infected ash trees are removed which will save approximately $140,000 per year. In order to continue recovery efforts, the City must maintain its tree planting efforts to mitigate the loss of trees infected by EAB while bolstering existing tree maintenance to ensure long term health. Based on studies and surveys conducted by the National Arbor Day Foundation, International City/County Management Association, and the Wisconsin DNR, benchmarks for a City with a population of River Falls size is as follows: Spending Level Per Capita Annual Budget Minimum Tree City USA benchmark $2.00 $32,000 Low service level $5.00 $80,000 Wisconsin average $7.50 $120,000 National average (Tree City USA communities) $9.60 $154,000 High service level $12.00 $192,000 A high service level has been necessary to deal with EAB and its ramifications, but as operations normalize to a post-EAB regimen it is recommended to meet the national average of approximately $154,000 annually. Annually, this would allow for a removal rate of 50-100 trees, planting 250-300 trees, and hiring for the maintenance of 20-30 trees that are outside the capacity of the Public Works team. Our urban forest is an essential service and to ensure a sustainable future for it, we need to meet or exceed the national average for our Forestry expenditures. Staff will continue to apply annually for the DNR Urban Forestry Grant to supplement the budget and will pursue additional grants as needed to bolster forestry efforts. $0.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $400,000.00 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Forestry Operating Budget (2017-2026) Figure 31: Forestry Operating Budget Between 2017 and 2026 YEAR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 BUDGET $54,042.90 $82,426.95 $79,460.50 $104,567.75 $177,697.59 $152,239.28 $139,880.00 $139,880.00 $402,700.00 $362,900.00 STAFF Effective implementation requires appropriate staffing levels, technical expertise, and organizational capacity. Urban forest management is a multidisciplinary effort that involves arboriculture, planning, and public works. Meeting forestry goals requires frequent collaboration between planning and operations. The Conservation and Parks Division holds primary responsibility for high level planning and public interfacing while Public Works is responsible for day -to-day operations. Both are essential for the effective implementation of urban forestry goals and objectives. The Conservation and Parks Manager will serve as the City Forester Ex Officio with the approval of the City Council. The Public Works Manager will serve as the head of operations and will direct operations as advised by and in collaboration with the City Forester. Operational activities include, but are not limited to, tree pruning, planting, removal, and maintenance activities. Planning efforts are the responsibility of the City Forester wit h assistance by the Natural Resource Coordinator. The City Forester may also work with Engineering and Planning Staff and external agencies such as the WIDNR. The City Forester is responsible for the execution of the Forestry Management Plan and enforcemen t of the tree ordinance. The City Forester will be the public point of contact for tree related questions and concerns and will assess and approve tree siting and species selection for trees plant ed in public landscapes, public right-of-way, and development plans. To ensure high standards of safety and technical proficiency, all staff involved in tree care operations should receive regul ar training in arboriculture best practices, urban forestry principles, and relevant industry standards such as ANSI 300 and ANSI Z133. The City will continue to support staff in maintaining certifications and provide access to continuing education through workshops, webinars, and other trainings. The City will seek to ensure it has at least one certified arborist or similarly credentialed staff to ensure high professional arboriculture standards are met. TIMELINE AND TRACKING The Forestry Management Plan is designed to provide overarching policy goals, objectives, and standards to direct the long-term vision for the City of River Falls’ urban forest. This plan is written with a 20-year timeframe in mind and updated goals and priorities should be identified at the end of this timeline. This plan should be treated as a living document and changes may be necessary to address shifting priorities and information. While targets and metrics are critical to accomplishing strategic goals, this plan cannot foresee all forestry r elated needs or changes. This policy document provides a framewor k of best practices for proactive forest managemen t and staff may need to shift investments based on current needs. Progress toward each identified strategic goal and objective should be reported annually on the City’s urban forestry webpage to monitor progress toward stated goals and reported to the City’s Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). SUMMARY OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METRICS • Reduce Risk Through Proactive Assessment and Management • Complete tree inventory update (Park and Street trees) • Pruning cycle review and update • Creation of 5-year planting plan • Update Tree Related Ordinances and Policies • Adopt a forestry management plan • Update tree-related ordinances • Draft policies for development and construction best practices • Awarded grant funding or expanded forestry resources. • Completion • Completion • Completion • Completion • Completion • Completion • Increased Funds • Emphasize Increasing Genus and Species Diversity • Progress toward genus diversity goals • Progress toward species diversity goals • Encourage and Promote Native Tree Plantings • Progress toward Midwest native tree composition goals • No invasive tree species in boulevard right of way • No genus more than 10% • No species more than 5% • 60% Native • Eliminate invasive species • Improved Tree Health Care • Number of annual removals • Pruning frequency • New tree mortality rate • Number of trainings • Decreased removals • Increased pruning • Decreased new tree mortality • Increased training Planning Strategic Goals & Objectives Health Strategic Goals & Objectives GOALS OBJECTIVES METRICS GOALS OBJECTIVES METRICS Pursue Equitable Canopy Throughout All Neighborhoods Increased Canopy Cover City-Wide Prioritize Tree Plantings in Regional and Neighborhood Parks Mitigate The Impacts of Urban Heat Island Effects • Progress toward canopy cover goals • Increase in canopy percentage • Number of trees planted in parks • Urban heat index (UHI) values • 30% canopy cover in all census block groups • 8% canopy increase by 2045 • Plant 2,500 trees by 2035 • Reduction in UHI values SUMMARY OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND METRICS Develop Publicly Available Educational Resources Promote Community Engagement and Education Opportunities Increase Internal Collaborative Efforts Partner with Local Organizations, Institutions, and Businesses • Online resources available • Engagement opportunities • Employee feedback • Number of projects involving external stakeholders • Online resources available • Increased engagement with external partners • Increased communication and collaboration • Increased partnerships Access Strategic Goals & Objectives Partnership Strategic Goals & Objectives GOALS OBJECTIVES METRICS GOALS OBJECTIVES METRICS APPENDIX A: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES APPENDIX B: OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN REFERENCE APPENDIX C: EXISTING FOREST COMPOSTION (AS OF JULY 21, 2025) Common Name Genus Count % of Known Species Common Name Genus Count % of Known Species Totals American Hornbeam Carpinus 13 0.23% Locust, Northern Acclaim Gleditsia 18 0.31% Known Tree Species 5774 Spruce, White Picea 118 2.04% Magnolia Tree Magnolia 1 0.02% Unknown Tree Species 2252 Apple, Honeycrisp Malus 5 0.09% Maple, Amur Acer 17 0.29% Total Trees 8026 Apple, Sweet 16 Malus 2 0.03% Maple, Armstrong Gold Acer 6 0.10% Number of Different Tree Species 74 Apple, Unknown Malus 7 0.12% Maple, Autumn Blaze Acer 39 0.68% Apple, Zestar Malus 6 0.10% Maple, Fall Fiesta Acer 4 0.07% Ash Fraxinus 385 6.67% Maple, Freeman Acer 290 5.02% Ash, Mountain Sorbus 20 0.35% Maple, Norway Acer 433 7.50% Ash, Showy Mountain Sorbus 9 0.16% Maple, Red Acer 690 11.95% Aspen, Quaking Populus 8 0.14% Maple, Royal Red Acer 6 0.10% Baldcypress Taxodium 2 0.03% Maple, Silver Acer 418 7.24% Basswood, American Tilia 39 0.68% Maple, Sugar Acer 709 12.28% Birch, Paper Betula 38 0.66% Oak, Bur Quercus 119 2.06% Birch, River Betula 18 0.31% Oak, Northern Pin Quercus 34 0.59% Birch, Yellow Betula 1 0.02% Oak, Northern Red Quercus 226 3.91% Box Elder Acer 18 0.31% Oak, Pin Quercus 23 0.40% Buckeye, Autumn Splendor Aesculus 21 0.36% Oak, Swamp White Quercus 247 4.28% Buckeye, Ohio Aesculus 111 1.92% Oak, White Quercus 136 2.36% Buckthorn Rhamnus 1 0.02% Other Other 19 0.33% Butternut Jugulans 11 0.19% Pear, Parker Pyrus 2 0.03% Catalpa, Northern Catalpa 79 1.37% Pear, Unknown Pyrus 4 0.07% Cedar, Red Juniperus 52 0.90% Pine, Eastern White Pinus 84 1.45% Cedar, White Thuja 23 0.40% Pine, Jack Pinus 2 0.03% Cherry Prunus 8 0.14% Pine, Red Pinus 17 0.29% Cherry, Black Prunus 17 0.29% Pine, Scotch Pinus 3 0.05% Cherry, Choke Prunus 1 0.02% Plum Prunus 1 0.02% Cherry, Pin Prunus 1 0.02% Poplar Populus 4 0.07% Cottonwood Populus 18 0.31% Redbud Cercis 56 0.97% Crabapple, Flowering Malus 180 3.12% Rock Elm Ulmus 1 0.02% Crabapple, Red Splendor Malus 3 0.05% Russian Olive Elaeagnus 1 0.02% Elm, Siberian Ulmus 20 0.35% Serviceberry, Autumn Brilliance Amelanchier 17 0.29% Hickory, Shagbark Carya 1 0.02% Spruce, Blue Picea 91 1.58% Honeylocust Gleditsia 515 8.92% Spruce, Norway Picea 29 0.50% Ironwood Ostrya 33 0.57% Sycamore Platanus 20 0.35% Lilac, Ivory Silk Syringa 2 0.03% Unknown Unknown 1 0.02% Linden, American Tilia 48 0.83% Walnut, Black Jugulans 37 0.64% Linden, Green Spire Tilia 105 1.82% Willow Salix 4 0.07% Locust, Black Robinia 23 0.40% Yellowwood Cladrastis 3 0.05% APPENDIX D: APPROVED TREE PLANTING LISTS Common Name Scientific Name Size Mature Height Mature Spread Native to WI? Key Traits Serviceberry Amelanchier spp. Small 15-25' 15-20' Native Full sun to partial shade, berries, spring flowers, fall color Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Small 15-25' 20-25' Native Full sun to partial shade, white flowers Corneliancherry Dogwood Cornus mas Small 15-25' 15-20' Non-Native Full sun, early bloom, slow growing, shrub or tree forms Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Small 15-20' 10-15' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, fragrent flowers Crabapple Malus spp. Small 15-25' 15-20' Cultivar Full sun to partial shade, flowering, some varieties produce fruit American Mountain Ash Sorbus americana Small 15-30' 15-20' Native Full sun, showy flowers and fall leaves Ohio Buckeye Aesculus spp. Medium 30-40' 30-40' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade , spring flowers, compact size, produces nuts River Birch Betula nigra Medium 30-40' 20-30' Native Full sun, exfoliating bark American Hornbeam/Musclewood Carpinus caroliniana Medium 20-30' 20-30' Native Full sun to full shade, tough understory tree Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Medium 20-30' 20-30' Native Full sun, Pink spring blooms, heart-shaped leaves Hawthorn Crataegus spp. Medium 20-30' 20-35' Native Full sun to partial shade, some varieties have thorns Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Medium 30-40' 20-35' Non-Native Full to partial sun,fruit can be messy Amur Maackia Maackia amurensis Medium 20-30' 20-30' Non-Native Full sun, hardy, summer flowers Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Medium 25-40' 20-30' Native Full sun to full shade, tough understory tree Showy Mountain Ash Sorbus decora Medium 20-30' 15-20' Native Full sun, vibrant fall leaves, ornimental fruit Japaneese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata Medium 20-30' 15-20' Non-Native Full sun, hardy, late season flowering Freeman Maple Acer × freemanii Large 40-60' 30-40' Hybrid Full sun, fast growth, vibrant fall color State Street Maple Acer miyabei Large 35-45' 25-35' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, salt/drought tolerant Red Maple Acer Rubrum Large 40-60' 40-60' Native Full sun to partial shade, prefers moist soil conditions, fall color Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Large 50-75' 30-50' Native Full sun, Great fall color, best in low-salt areas, vibrant fall color Horsechesnut Aesculus hippocastanum Large 50-75' 40-65' Non-Native Full sun to partially shaded, showy flowers, produces nuts Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis Large 60-75' 60-75' Native Full to partial sun, unique bark Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Large 50-70' 19-45' Native Full sun, pollution intolerant Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Large 60-80' 40-50' Native Full sun to partial shade, salt sensitive, prefers well drained soils, produces nuts Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Large 60-80' 30-50' Native Full to partial sun, prefers well drained soils, produces nuts Catalpa Catalpa speciosa Large 40-60' 30-45' Non-Native Full sun, dry to wet soils, pods can be messy Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Large 40-60' 40-60' Native Full sun, salt tolerant Yellowwood Cladrastis kentukea Large 30-50' 40-50' Non-Native Full sun, showy flowers Turkish Filbert Corylus colurna Large 40-50' 15-35' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba Large 40-60' 25-35' Non-Native Full sun, hardy, pollution tolerant, purchase only male varieties Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos Large 50-60' 35-45' Native Full sun, salt tolerant Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus Large 60-75' 40-60' Native Full sun, tolerant of poor soil Tamarack/Larch Larix Laricina Large 40-80' 30-50' Native Full sun, prefers wet soils, needle bearing (loses needles in winter) Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera Large 70-90' 35-50' Non-Native Full sun to partial sun, large growing Magnolia Cucumber Tree Magnolia acuminata Large 50-80' 50-80' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, fragrent flowers Black gum Nyssa sylvatica Large 50-60' 20-30' Native Full sun, slow growing, prefers moist soils, vibrant fall color London Planetree Platanus × acerifolia Large 70-100' 60-70' Hybrid Full sun to partial shade, exfoliating bark American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Large 70-100' 60-80' Native Full sun, prefers space, moist to wet soils White Oak Quercus alba Large 60-80 40-50 Native Full sun, well drained soils, produces acorns Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Large 50-70' 50-70' Native Full sun, tolerates wet and dry soils, exfoliating bark, low acorn production Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Large 50-60' 50-60' Native Full sun, prefers alkaline soil, infreqent acorn crop Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Large 60-80' 60-80' Native Full sun, hardy, long lived, pollution tolerant, produces acorns Chinkapin Oak Quercus muehlenbergii Large 40-60' 40-60' Non-Native Full sun, prefers dry soil, drought tolerant, infrequent acorn crop Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra Large 60-75' 60-75' Native Full sun faster growing oak, tolerates alkalinity and mositure, produces acorns Black Oak Quercus velutina Large 50-60' 50-60' Native Full sun, Slow growing, produces acorns, alkalinity intolerant Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Large 50-70' 25-35' Native Full sun, deciduous conifer, tolerates wet andcompacted soils, American Linden Tilia americana Large 50-70' 30-50' Native Full sun to partial shade, quick growth Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata Large 40-50' 30-40' Cultivar Full sun, dense canopy, fragrant flowers Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa Large 50-70' 30-50' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, dense foliage, symetrical Disease Resistant Elms Ulmus spp. Large 60-80' 60-70' Cultivar Full sun to partial shade, hardy, Dutch Elm disease resistant Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata Large 40-60' 40-50' Non-Native Full to partial sun, elm alternative, salt tolerant City of River Falls Approved Boulevard Tree List  Common Name Scientific Name Size Mature Height Mature Spread Native to WI? Key Traits Serviceberry Amelanchier spp. Small 15-25' 15-20' Native Native, berries, spring flowers American Hornbeam/Musclewood Carpinus caroliniana Small 20-30' 20-30' Native Full sun to full shade, tough understory tree Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Small 20-30' 20-30' Native Full sun, Pink spring blooms, heart-shaped leaves Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Small 15-25' 20-25' Native Full sun to partial shade, white flowers Cornelian Cherry Dogwood Cornus mas Small 15-25' 15-20' Non-Native Full sun, early bloom, slow growing, shrub or tree forms Hawthorn Crataegus spp. Small 20-30' 20-35' Native Full sun to partial shade, some varieties have thorns Upright Juniper Juniperus scopulorum Small 15-25' 8-10' Cultivar Evergreen, good for screening Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Small 15-20' 10-15' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, fragrent flowers Crabapple Malus spp. Small 15-25' 15-20' Cultivar Full sun to partial shade, flowering, some varieties produce fruit State Street Maple Acer miyabei Medium 35-45' 25-35' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, salt/drought tolerant Ohio Buckeye Aesculus glabra Medium 30-40' 30-40' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade , spring flowers, compact size, produces nuts Red Maple Acer Rubrum Medium 40-60' 40-60' Native Full sun to partial shade, prefers moist soil conditions, fall color River Birch Betula nigra Medium 30-40' 20-30' Native Full sun, exfoliating bark, flood tolerant Yellowwood Cladrastis kentukea Medium 30-50' 40-50' Non-Native Full sun, showy flowers Turkish Filbert Corylus colurna Medium 40-50' 15-35' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Medium 30-40' 20-35' Non-Native Full to partial sun,fruit can be messy Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana Medium 30-50' 10-20' Native Full sun, evergreen, drought tolerant Tamarack/Larch Larix Laricina Medium 40-80' 30-50' Native Full sun, prefers wet soils, needle bearing (loses needles in winter) Amur Maackia Maackia amurensis Medium 20-30' 20-30' Non-Native Full sun, hardy, summer flowers Magnolia Cucumber Tree Magnolia acuminata Medium 50-80' 50-80' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, fragrent flowers Apple Malus Spp. Medium 15-25' 15-25' Non-Native Full sun, edible fruit Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Medium 25-40' 20-30' Native Full sun to full shade, tough understory tree Norway Spruce (upright) Picea abies Medium 40-60' 20-30' Cultivar Full sun, evergreen American Plum Prunus americana Medium 15-25' 15-25' Native Full sun to partial shade, fruit bearing Pin Cherry Prunus pennsylvanica Medium 20-30' 15-25' Native Full sun Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Medium 15-30' 15-20' Native Full sun to partial shade Pear Tree Pyrus spp. Medium 25-40' 20-30' Non-Native Full sun, evergreen Peachleaf Willow Salix amygdaloides Medium 35-50' 25-35' Native Full sun to partial shade, prefers wet conditions American Mountain Ash Sorbus americana Medium 15-30' 15-20' Native Full sun, showy flowers and fall leaves Showy Mountain Ash Sorbus decora Medium 20-30' 15-20' Native Full sun, vibrant fall leaves, ornimental fruit Showy Mountain Ash Sorbus decora Medium 20-30' 15-20' Native Full sun, vibrant fall leaves, ornimental fruit Japaneese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata Medium 20-30' 15-20' Non-Native Full sun, hardy, late season flowering Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Medium 50-70' 25-35' Native Full sun, deciduous conifer, tolerates wet andcompacted soils, White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Medium 30-50' 10-20' Native Full sun to partial shade, evergreen Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata Medium 40-50' 30-40' Cultivar Full sun, dense canopy, fragrant flowers Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata Medium 40-60' 40-50' Non-Native Full to partial sun, elm alternative, salt tolerant Balsam Fir Abies balsamea Large 45-75' 20-25' Native Full sun to shaded, evergreen Fraser Fir Abies fraseri Large 30-50' 20-25' Non-Native Full sun, evergreen City of River Falls Approved Greenspace Tree List  Common Name Scientific Name Size Mature Height Mature Spread Native to WI? Key Traits Freeman Maple Acer × freemanii Large 40-60' 30-40' Hybrid Full sun, fast growth, vibrant fall color Black Maple Acer nigrum Large 50-70' 30-50' Native Native, sugar maple relative Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Large 50-75' 30-50' Native Full sun, Great fall color, best in low-salt areas, vibrant fall color Horsechesnut Aesculus hippocastanum Large 50-75' 40-65' Non-Native Full sun to partially shaded, showy flowers, produces nuts Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis Large 60-75' 60-75' Native Full to partial sun, unique bark Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Large 50-70' 19-45' Native Full sun, pollution intolerant Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Large 60-80' 40-50' Native Full sun to partial shade, salt sensitive, well drained soils, produces nuts Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Large 60-80' 30-50' Native Full to partial sun, prefers well drained soils, produces nuts Catalpa Catalpa speciosa Large 40-60' 30-45' Non-Native Full sun, dry to wet soils, pods can be messy Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Large 40-60' 40-60' Native Full sun, salt tolerant Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba Large 40-60' 25-35' Non-Native Full sun, hardy, pollution tolerant, purchase only male varieties Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos Large 50-60' 35-45' Native Full sun, salt tolerant Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus Large 60-75' 40-60' Native Full sun, tolerant of poor soil Black Walnut Juglans nigra Large 50-75' 50-75' Native Full sun, plants and turf don't do well under tree, produces nuts Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera Large 70-90' 35-50' Non-Native Full sun to partial sun, large growing Black gum Nyssa sylvatica Large 30-50' 20-30' Native Full sun, slow growing, prefers moist soils, vibrant fall color White Spruce Picea glauca Large 50-80' 25-30' Non-Native Full sun, evergreen Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Large 35-55' 20-30' Native Full sun, evergreen Red Pine Pinus resinosa Large 50-80' 20-40' Native Full sun, evergreen White Pine Pinus strobus Large 50-80' 30-40' Native Full sun, evergreen Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris Large 40-60' 30-40' Non-Native Full sun, evergreen, orange bark London Planetree Platanus × acerifolia Large 70-100' 60-70' Hybrid Full sun to partial shade, exfoliating bark American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Large 70-100' 60-80' Native Full sun, prefers space, moist to wet soils Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Large 70-100' 50-70' Native Fast growing, messy, weak wooded Bigtooth Aspen Populus grandidentata Large 40-60' 30-50' Native Full to partial shade, fast growing Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Large 40-50' 25-35' Native Full sun, fast growing Black Cherry Prunus serotina Large 50-80' 30-50' Native Full sun to partial shade Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Large 40-70' 15-30' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, evergreen White Oak Quercus alba Large 60-80 40-50 Native Full sun, well drained soils, produces acorns Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Large 50-70' 50-70' Native Full sun, tolerates wet and dry soils, exfoliating bark, low acorn production Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Large 50-60' 50-60' Native Full sun, prefers alkaline soil, infreqent acorn crop Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Large 60-80' 60-80' Native Full sun, hardy, long lived, pollution tolerant, produces acorns Chinkapin Oak Quercus muehlenbergii Large 40-60' 40-60' Non-Native Full sun, prefers dry soil, drought tolerant, infrequent acorn crop Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra Large 60-75' 60-75' Native Full sun faster growing oak, toleratant of alkalinity and soil mositure, produces acorns Black Oak Quercus velutina Large 50-60' 50-60' Native Full sun, Slow growing, produces acorns, alkalinity intolerant Weeping Willow Salix Babylonica Large 30-50' 30-40' Non-Native Full sun, can be messy, weak wood Black Willow Salix nigra Large 30-50' 30-40' Native Full to partial shade American Linden Tilia americana Large 50-70' 30-50' Native Full sun to partial shade, quick growth Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa Large 50-70' 30-50' Non-Native Full sun to partial shade, dense foliage, symetrical Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis Large 40-70' 25-35' Native Partial sun to full shade, evergreeb Disease Resistant Elms Ulmus spp. Large 60-80' 60-70' Cultivar Full sun to partial shade, hardy, Dutch Elm disease resistant City of River Falls Approved Greenspace Tree List (Continued) Sources American Forests. Tree Equity Score National Explorer. https://www.treeequityscore.org/map. Arbor Day Foundation. TreeCanopy.US. https://treecanopy.us. City of River Falls. Trend Report 2024. River Falls, WI: Community Development Department. https://www.rfcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/6938/Trend-Report-2024. Gilman, Edward F., James R. Clark, and Alex L. Shigo. Best Management Practices: Tree Pruning. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2019. Miller, Robert W., and William A. Sylvester. “An Economic Evaluation of the Pruning Cycle.” Journal of Arboriculture 7, no. 4 (1981): 109–112. Nowak, David J., Daniel E. Crane, Jack C. Stevens, Robert E. Hoehn, Jeffrey T. Walton, and Jerry Bond. A Ground-Based Method of Assessing Urban Forest Structure and Ecosystem Services. 2008. Nowak, David J., Eric J. Greenfield. “Tree and Impervious Cover in the United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012): 21–30. Nowak, David J., Joe R. McBride, and Russell A. Beatty. “Newly Planted Street Tree Growth and Mortality.” Journal of Arboriculture 16, no. 5 (1990): 124–129. Watson, Gary, and E. B. Himelick. Best Management Practices: Tree Planting. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Replanting with Diversity: An Essential Ingredient to a Successful and Resilient Urban Forest. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Brooks Ostendorf, Conservation and Parks Manager Erica Ellefson, Public Works Manager DATE: August 19, 2026 TITLE: Conservation, Parks, and Public Works Staff Report This staff report is specific to the Conservation, Parks, and Public Works Divisions. I) Eagle Scout Service Project Update – Jackson Tody a. In March of this year, Jackson Tody – member of the local River Falls Boy Scout Troop – presented to PRAB his proposal to construct a dog agility course at the River Falls Dog Park. The proposal included a fundraising component, purchase, and construction of four elements: a tunnel, ramp, hurdles, and weaving posts. Jackson met his fundraising target and coordinated with the City on the location of the course within the large dog park area and installation date of the course. He and his team of volunteers successfully delivered and installed the equipment on Friday, July 24. Thank you to Jackson for his contribution to the Dog Park and congratulations on completing your Eagle Scout Service Project! 3 Community Development Department: July 2026 Page 1 of 3 Introduction This report is provided monthly to update the Plan Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and other interested parties on Community Development efforts of the past month as it relates to the City’s Strategic Initiatives and the Department work plan. 2026 Community Development Major Projects *Denotes a Council Strategic Initiative CONNECTED COMMUNITY Kinnickinnic River Corridor Plan Phase I * o Senator Baldwin included the Kinni Corridor Project design funding in her list for 2027 congressionally directed spending initiatives. We’ll know more later this year if it advances. Safe Streets Action Plan* o The Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan was adopted by Council on May 12th. Glen Park Phase II* o Staff is working to determine next steps for implementing Phase 2 of the Glen Park Master Plan. Locust Street design o Preliminary roadway design is complete. Engineering design is expected to be completed in Fall 2026. The project will provide a looped watermain connection to the Oak Hill subdivision and provide a roadway and multi -use trail connection from Apollo Road to West Locust Street (adjacent to the School District Bus Garage). The project is anticipated to go before council upon design completion to request authorization to proceed with the project. Mapping o Map of available sites for development o Map of current development in River Falls ECONOMIC VITALITY Downtown Project* o Our 2026 BUILD grant application to the Federal Highway Administration was not selected for a grant award. The Safe Streets for All Implementation Grant application has been submitted for a downtown reconstruction project and we expect to be notified in Fall 2026 if that grant application is successful. Continued Infill in Corporate Parks/Innovation Center Expansion* o Work with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) continues on the grant to expand the Innovation Center. o In January 2026, Sterling Ponds II, LLC purchased a 4.8-acre lot in the Sterling Ponds Corporate Park. o In February 2026, the City Council approved the sale of an approximately 5.8 -acre lot in the Sterling Ponds Corporate Park and a Development Agreement with Stellerie Bop, LLC. On April 17th Stellerie Bop LLC purchased the property. o On April 28th the City Council approved the sale of a portion of Lot B in the Whitetail Ridge Corporate Park. Ensure sustained (re)development of the City from the prospect stage through construction o Brookgreen – Occupancy granted for Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Clubhouse. Buildings 7-10 are under construction. o Oak Hill – 3 permits issued, 1 COs issued. o The Preserve – 0 permits issued, 0 COs issued o Thompson Heights – 0 permits issued, 1 COs issued o Wildflower Meadows – 0 permits issued o The Wildflower Meadows subdivision on Powell Avenue is under construction. Water and Sewer utilities are currently being installed. Community Development Department: July 2026 Page 2 of 3 o An application for a Planned Unit Development Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) has been submitted for The Creamery – a brewery, taproom, and event center with four short -term rental units at W. Cedar Street and River Street. Plan Commission recommended approval of the request at their meeting on July 7, 2026. City Council approved the SIP at their meeting on July 28, 2026. o At the July 7, 2026 meeting, Plan Commission approved a special sign permit request from Sycamore II for a monument sign; the permit was requested in order to locate the sign closer to the property line than the ordinance allows. The proposed location was reviewed to ensure sightlines are maintained for vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed sign meets all other ordinance requirements. o Plan Commission reviewed two proposed ordinance amendments at their July 7th meeting: ▪ Plan Commission recommended approval of an ordinance that makes it clear that property owners are responsible for maintenance of the boulevard adjacent to their property. This has been a long-standing expectation but was not written clearly in the ordinance. ▪ Plan Commission discussed a change to the requirement that residential fences abutting a street be set back three feet and landscape plantings be maintained between the fence and the right-of-way. Over time, the landscaping requirement has been hard to en force and the three-foot setback is not necessary for health and safety reasons (sidewalks and trails can be installed in the right -of-way safely). Plan Commission voted to advance an ordinance amendment to Council, with a favorable recommendation, that would remove the three-foot setback and landscaping requirement. ▪ These proposed ordinance amendments are anticipated to be reviewed by Council at the end of August. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Examine Impact Fees* o Finance Dept is working with a consultant to examine impact fees for development Economic Development o The Economic Development Manager is a member of RFEDC, WEDA, River Falls Chamber, and St. Croix Valley Innovation Center Management Committee. QUALITY MUNICIPAL SERVICES Library Remodel* o The majority of the library remodel is complete. Fire Station Remodel* o Fire Station demolition began the week of February 9th and is ongoing. Vertical pre-cast concrete walls are up and there will continue to be short term roadway closures on Second Street and Elm Street for utility construction and site work. Division Street crosswalks o The Safe Streets for All Action Plan includes a concept plan for an improved pedestrian crossing at East Division and Wasson Lane. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Permit Type JULY YTD Permit Value JULY Permit Value YTD Building Permits 18 164 $7,179,093 $39,408,000 New Home Permits 3 47 $670,000 $12,386,000 Community Development Department: July 2026 Page 3 of 3 WIDNR Urban Non-Point Source Pollution grant o MSA Professional Services is completing a City-wide phosphorus model to document compliance with our stormwater MS4 Permit. Stewardship of Public Infrastructure o The 2026 Mill and Overlay project was awarded to Lepke Trucking and Excavating. Work will occur starting in July and will occur on Paulson Road. City staff prepared a grant application and the City was awarded a Wisconsin Local Roads Improvement Grant for $50,000 to support this project. Conservation and Parks Division o Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommended approval to City Council a combination of new park land and cash-in-lieu of land be accepted for park dedication for the Ironhorse neighborhood (EW Homes) at CYU Hwy M and 1060th Street. o Jackson Tody, Eagle Scout candidate, fundraised for and installed a dog agility course at the River Falls Dog Park as a part of his service project. The project was completed on July 24, 2026. o Improvements to the fishing pier and picnic area along the White Pathway were completed. Staff cleared invasive and overgrown vegetation to improve visibility from the path to Lake George. Over 300 native shrubs, perennials, and grasses were planted. The Community Development Department oversees the Plan Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Business Improvement District Board , Historic Preservation Commission , City Board of Appeals , Downtown Design Review Committee , Extraterritorial Zoning Committee (ETZ), Extra Territorial Board of Appeals, and River Falls Economic Development Corporation.