Tree Removal / Care
While the perceived risk of death by falling trees (a part of the “tree risk” complex) is influenced by media and often hyped (the objective risk has been reported to be close to 1 : 10.000.000, almost as low as death by lightning), singular events have encouraged a “proactive” stance so that even lightly damaged trees are likely to be removed in urban and public traffic surroundings. As a tree ages and nears the end of its safe useful life expectancy (SULE), it’s perceived amenity value is decreased greatly. A risk assessment normally carried out by local council’s arborist to determine the best course of action. As with all public green spaces, trees in green urban spaces and their careful conservation is sometimes in conflict with aggressive urban development even though it is often understood how urban trees contribute to liveability of suburbs and cities both objectively (reduction of urban heat island effect, etc.) and subjectively. Tree planting programs implemented by a growing number of cities, local councils and organizations is mitigating the losses and in most cases increasing the number of trees in suburbia. Programs include the planting of 2 trees for every 1 tree removed, while some councils are paying land owners to keep trees instead of removing them for farming or construction.
Tree care is the application of arboricultural methods like pruning, trimming, and felling/thinning in built environments. Road verge, greenways, backyard and park woody vegetation are at the center of attention for the tree care industry. Landscape architecture and urban forestry also set high demands on professional tree care. High safety standards against the dangers of tree care have helped the industry evolve. Especially felling in space-limited environments poses significant risks: the vicinity of power or telephone lines, insufficient protective gear (against falling dead wood, chainsaw wounds, etc.) and narrow felling zones with endangered nearby buildings, parking cars, etc.. The required equipment and experience usually transcends private means and is often considered too costly as a permanent part of the public infrastructure. In singular cases, traditional tools like handsaws may suffice, but large-scale tree care usually calls for heavy machinery like cranes, bucket trucks,harvesters, and woodchippers.
Road side trees are especially prone to biotic stress by exhaust fumes, toxic road debris, soil compaction, and drought which makes them susceptible to fungal infections and various plant pests. When tree removal is not an option, because of road ecologyconsiderations, the main challenge is to achieve road safety (visibility of road signs, blockage-free lanes, etc.) while maintaining tree health.
Midland is a city in the U.S. state of Michigan in the Tri-Cities region of Central Michigan. It is the county seat of Midland County. The city’s population was 41,863 as of the 2010 census. It is the principal city of the Midland Micropolitan Statistical Area, part of the larger Saginaw-Midland-Bay City Combined Statistical Area. In 2010, Midland was named the no. 4 Best Small City to raise a family in by Forbes magazine.
By the late 1820s, Midland was established as a fur trading post of the American Fur Company supervised by the post at Saginaw. Here agents purchased furs from Ojibwe trappers. The Campau family of Detroit operated an independent trading post at this location in the late 1820s.
The Dow Chemical Company was founded in Midland in 1897, and its world headquarters are still located there. Through the influence of a Dow Chemical plant opening in Handa, Aichi, Japan, Midland and Handa have become sister cities. The Dow Corning Corporation and Chemical Bank are also headquartered in Midland.
In 1969 the city unilaterally defined a Midland Urban Growth Area (MUGA), which at the time was a territory two-miles around the city limits of Midland in an attempt to control urban sprawl.  The central policy was that as the only capable supplier of drinking water, the city would provide water services to commnities outside the MUGA such as the nearby village of Sanford, but would not provide to water services to the area within the MUGA without annexation to the city of Midland thus controlling most of the growth in the county. Since 1991 however, the policy has since been revised with a series of Urban Cooperation Act Agreements with surrounding townships which has allowed case-by-case redrawings of the MUGA line to allow Midland to sell water to the surrounding townships without annexation.