Gowanus Street Tree Management Plan

Gowanus Canal Conservancy

Spring 2017 Contents

Introduction ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Purpose ...... 3 Data Background ...... 3 Overview ...... 4 Part One: A Snapshot of Street Trees in the Gowanus Area ...... 6 The Economic Benefits of Street Trees in the Gowanus Area ...... 6 Street Tree Diversity in the Gowanus Area ...... 8 Native Street Tree Species in the Gowanus Area ...... 10 Street Tree Stewardship in the Gowanus Area ...... 11 Street Tree Age in the Gowanus Area ...... 12 Sidewalk Infrastructure in the Gowanus Area ...... 15 Part Two: Relevant Trends and Challenges ...... 16 Redevelopment and Land Use Changes ...... 16 Disease and Infestation ...... 17 Climate Change: Extreme Weather, Sea Level Rise, & Flooding ...... 18 Sewer Infrastructure Upgrades ...... 18 Uneven Stewardship ...... 19 Municipal Spending on Street Trees & Related Activities ...... 19 Part Three: A Vision for Street Trees in the Gowanus Area ...... 20 Part Four: Recommendations ...... 21 Recommendation 1: Plant More Street Trees ...... 21 Recommendation 2: Prioritize Native & Adapted Trees for Diversity ...... 21 Recommendation 3: Strategize Mature Tree Stewardship ...... 23 Recommendation 4: Protect Against Emerald Ash Borer and Oak Wilt ...... 23 Recommendation 6: Invest in Street Infrastructure ...... 24 Recommendation 7: Improve Coordination with Government and Private Sector ...... 25 Recommendation 8: Strategize Stewardship & Advocacy ...... 25 Recommendation 9: Collect Data ...... 26 Works Cited ...... 28 Appendix 1: Gowanus Mapping Zones 2013-2015 ...... 33 Appendix 2: Asian Longhorned Beetle Quarantine ...... 34 Appendix 3: Standards for Citing New Street Tree Beds ...... 35 Appendix 4: Locations of Young Pyrus Calleriana and Zelkova Serrata ...... 36 Appendix 5: High Level Storm Sewer Infrastructure Upgrades ...... 37 Appendix 6: Ash Trees—Treatable and Untreatable for EAB ...... 38 Appendix 7: Stewardship Intensity in the Gowanus Area ...... 39 Appendix 8: Oak Tree Locations in the Gowanus Area ...... 40 Appendix 9: Dead Tree and Stump Locations in the Gowanus Area ...... 41

1 Introduction Background The Gowanus Canal is a 1.8-mile long shipping channel that flows at the intersection of seven demographically diverse and divergent neighborhoods in the borough of Brooklyn. The city blocks immediately surrounding the canal were predominately industrial throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but recent real estate development projects are gradually transforming low-rise manufacturing and storage facilities into high-rise luxury apartment complexes, particularly in the Carrol Gardens neighborhood west of the Canal. At the Canal’s northern end, the residential neighborhoods of Boerum Hill and Cobble Hill have experienced rapid gentrification in the past 15 to 20 years (Goldschein 2012), while to the south and east, the mixed-land-use neighborhoods of Red Hook and Gowanus are predominately low-income, with a mix of low-rise private housing and high-rise public housing projects adjacent to industrial facilities (Schmeltz et al. 2013). To the Canal’s east, the traditionally residential brownstone neighborhood of Park Slope has also seen property values and rents rise throughout the twenty- first century (Paterson 2007).

Over the course of the nineteenth century, the Canal and its surrounding industrial land uses gradually replaced acres of tidal salt marshes that drained into nearby New York Harbor (Alexiou 2015). The Canal served as a catchment for the borough’s earliest efforts at conveying stormwater and wastewater in a combined underground sewage system, beginning with the Bond Street Sewer project of the mid-nineteenth century (ibid). In 2014, the Canal was still the receiving water body for 14 combined sewage outfalls conveying more than 350 million gallons of untreated sewage each year (Schlanger 2014). In 2010, the Canal was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s list of “Superfund” sites after an engineering investigation revealed significant pollution from more than a century of industrialization, illegal dumping, and combined sewage overflows (“Gowanus Canal Superfund Site | Region 2 | US EPA” 2013). The Canal continues to be a sink for non-point sources of pollution that include street surface runoff and sewage overflows triggered by heavy storms.

A group of residents formed the Gowanus Canal Conservancy in 2006 as a grassroots effort to improve the environment in and around the Canal. The Conservancy set out to manage the Canal as a natural resource, using small-scale interventions to gradually improve water quality, reduce air pollution, increase habitat for native fauna, and create new open-spaces for people living near the Canal. In their efforts to reduce the amount of sewage that flows into the canal during heavy storms, the Conservancy organizes volunteers to care for street trees in the spring, summer, and autumn months. In 2015, a nearly 100-block area surrounding the Gowanus Canal was found to be planted with approximately 3,000 street trees. Each street tree bed serves as a sponge-like catchment for storm water and the leaves, branches, and trunks of the trees themselves can accumulate gallons of water on their surface during and immediately following a storm

2 (McKeand and Vaughn 2013). Thus, caring for the area’s thousands of street trees and taking steps to keep them alive and healthy may help to improve water quality in the Gowanus Canal.

Street tree care, or “stewardship,” is a practice comprised of various actions, including: pruning dead, dying, or diseased tree limbs to prevent fungal rot in structural heartwood; pulling weeds in tree beds that can compete with a tree for water and soil nutrients; watering trees during drought periods; aerating soil in tree beds to reduce compaction and improve water absorption; and adding layers of compost and mulch to tree bed soil to prevent compaction, improve soil quality, and guard against erosion. A small core group of two to four volunteers affiliated with the Conservancy work on street tree stewardship efforts throughout the year, mainly focusing their work on trees in industrial areas east of the canal. The core group also helps coordinate and lead teams of one-time volunteers attending semi-regular “Clean and Green” workdays sponsored by the Conservancy. Volunteers with relatively little training work mainly on weeding, mulching, and watering tree beds. Volunteers pruning tree limbs must complete a multi-week training program for “citizen pruners” that licenses them to saw or lop limbs that are noticeably dead, diseased, or damaged.

The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) has jurisdiction over street trees planted in the Gowanus Canal watershed. Staff within the Department of Central Forestry, a city-wide division of the agency, select new street tree planting locations, specify tree species for each location, and remove and replace dead trees as resources become available. Central Forestry coordinates with the Brooklyn Borough Forestry division on large-scale tree stewardship efforts, including large limb pruning on a ten-year maintenance cycle. Yet NYC Parks mostly relies on volunteers like those marshaled by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy to keep newly planted trees throughout the watershed alive (Moskell and Allred 2013).

Purpose The Gowanus Urban Forest Management Plan presented in the pages that follow aims to achieve three overarching goals. First, the plan draws on two street tree inventories completed in 2012 and 2016 to draw a clear picture of current conditions and trends for street trees in the urban forest surrounding the Canal. Second, the plan illustrates a vision for the future of street trees immediately surrounding the Canal and its larger water/sewer-shed. Third, the plan lays out concrete actions steps to be taken by Gowanus Canal Conservancy and NYC Parks for improving the state of street trees in the area.

Data Background

In 2012 and 2013, the Gowanus Canal Conservancy trained and mobilized volunteers to map approximately 1,000 street trees in an area surrounding the Gowanus Canal bounded by Baltic Street, 4th Avenue, 9th Street, 3rd Avenue, 11th Street, Hamilton Avenue, Court Street, 2nd

3 Street, and Hoyt Street (see Appendix 1). In 2015, the Conservancy participated in the city-wide Street Tree Census and mobilized volunteers to map street trees across a wider swath of the Gowanus watershed (see Appendix 1). Their efforts produced a map of 3,000 street trees (see Map 1). The data from both inventorying efforts is used throughout this management plan report.

Overview The following document is divided into five parts. The first part briefly expands on the background presented above, describing the Gowanus Canal and the street trees in its immediate surroundings as components of a dynamic social-ecological system. The second part draws on data from two street tree inventories to analyze the status of 3,000 street trees adjacent to the canal and forecast trends for these trees in the near and mid-term future. Part Three outlines a multi-year vision for the future of street trees in the urban forest surrounding the canal, while Part Four proposes tactile recommendations for strategic action based on forecasts and vision. Part Five proposes tactical actions and creative innovations that may emerge in response to more dynamic and less predictable trends in the area.

This plan aims to support and guide the ongoing work of the Conservancy and NYC Parks in expanding, improving, and maintaining the stock of street trees immediately surrounding the canal over the next five years. As a planning document focused on an inherently dynamic landscape, it invites constant deliberative reflection and revision on the part of the Conservancy and its partners in NYC Parks, taking new data and unforeseen circumstances into account to adjust priorities, amend vision statements, and redeploy limited resources. For example, the recent emergence of Oak wilt in Brooklyn (Frost 2016) will pose a new set of unforeseeable challenges to urban forestry in the borough and, consequentially, around the Canal.

4

Map 1: 3,000 Street Trees in the Gowanus Area

5 Part One: A Snapshot of Street Trees in the Gowanus Area

The following section reviews the status of approximately 3,000 street trees in the urban forest immediately surrounding the Gowanus Canal as of 2016, drawing on data collected by volunteers during the 2015 New York City street tree census. The following five factors are reviewed: 1) The economic benefits of street trees surrounding the Gowanus; 2) Tree species diversity; 3) native species and habitat; 4) tree age; and 5) street infrastructure adjacent to trees.

The Economic Benefits of Street Trees in the Gowanus Area

Street trees are a vital component of New York City’s basic infrastructure; workhorses that provide a multitude of benefits to the people that call this city home. Based on the 2016 NYC Street Tree Census, the 3,000 street trees immediately surrounding the Gowanus Canal provide environmental services valued at $360,000 per year. These services include energy savings, carbon dioxide capture, air quality improvement, rain water capture, and aesthetic improvements. These values were calculated using iTree Streets, an analysis tool for urban forest managers that uses tree inventory data to quantify the dollar value of annual environmental and aesthetic benefits. I-Tree is a continuously improved, state-of-the-art, and peer-reviewed suite of urban and community forestry analysis and benefits assessment software tools. Street tree data collected by local volunteers as part of the 2015 TreesCount! Street tree census provided the data to extrapolate these values. The diameter of each tree’s trunk, the tree species and the condition of the tree from the census data was imported into the iTree software, which was then able to use existing data to calculate the environmental and aesthetic benefits of each tree in the database and assign dollar values to these benefits.

Energy Savings—New York City is warmer than surrounding suburbs and rural areas due to the “urban heat island” effect (Kim 1992; Rosenzweig and Solecki 2001; Taha 1997), wherein dark roadbed and building surfaces absorb proportionally more of the sun’s ultraviolet light than the more reflective vegetated land cover typically found in suburban and rural areas. The captured solar energy is then emitted as infrared energy, or heat, creating a greater demand for artificial building cooling in cities during summer months. Building cooling systems, are, in turn, energy- intensive and often rely on non-renewable energy sources that contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. Thus, the lack of reflective vegetative surfaces in cities like New York creates a positive feedback loop of local heat islands, intensified energy consumption, and, warming emissions. Planting trees in New York City has been shown to be one of the most effective methods of mitigating heat island effects (Rosenzweig, Solecki, and Slosberg 2006). Street trees shade roadways, sidewalks, and buildings and reflect a greater proportion of sunlight than the surfaces they shade. Street trees may also reduce energy consumption associated with temperature regulation in nearby buildings by modulating wind speeds (Simpson 1998; Arens

6 and Williams 1977). In the Gowanus area, street trees $142,455 worth of energy savings each year, or approximately $50 per tree in the area.

Carbon Sequestration—Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a leading driver of global warming and climate change (Rosenzweig and Solecki 2001). Trees reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by converting it into an energy source through the process of photosynthesis. The carbon is then transformed into a tree’s biomass—its roots, wood, bark, branches, and leaves— where it is stored until a tree dies and decomposes (Novak 2012). Trees also reduce CO2 emissions resulting from non-renewable energy consumption for building cooling (see above). The combined value of carbon sequestration and emission prevention provided by trees in the Gowanus Area is $3,141 per year.

Air Quality—Urban air pollution has a negative impact on human health, causing or exacerbating coughing, headaches, lung, throat, and eye irritation, and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma (McPherson et al. 1994). Trees likely help make the air in the Gowanus area more breathable in two ways: First, they absorb harmful gasses such as ozone and nitrogen dioxide through their leaves; Second, their leaves and bark intercept and trap pollution particles that would otherwise be available in the air for people to inhale. The estimated value of air quality improvements provided by street trees in the Gowanus area is $23,652.

Water Quality—New York City has a combined sewer (CS) system that collects rainwater from streets, sidewalks, and roofs in the same pipes as wastewater flushed and drained from buildings. During heavy storms, wastewater treatment facilities are incapable of processing the higher flow of combined sewage and rainwater through the system, and the excess is discharged into local waterways as Combined Sewage Overflows (CSO). The Gowanus Canal is the site of fourteen combined sewage “outfalls” or discharge pipes, and the canal is often polluted with sewage from surrounding neighborhoods. Street trees can help reduce the frequency and duration of CSOs in two ways: First, tree leaves, branches, and trunks catch and hold rainwater on their surfaces, allowing it to evaporate or gradually slough off long after a storm has ended. Second, street tree beds are pervious surfaces that absorb rain and allow it to percolate deep into the ground (Stovin, Jorgensen, and Clayden 2008). The estimated value of street rainwater interception provided by street trees in the Gowanus Area is $28,680.

Other Benefits—Street trees provide additional benefits that are not as readily monetized as those reviewed above. Urban trees have been shown to improve public health by creating beautiful outdoor spaces that welcome active outdoor recreation (Lohr 2012). One study has shown that children living in greener neighborhoods have lower body mass indices (Bell, Wilson, and Liu 2008). Another study suggests that simply looking at trees can help lower blood pressure and promote recovery from stress (Ulrich 1984) while the presence of trees in the urban landscape may reduce incidences of violent crime (Wolf 2006). Street trees can also provide a buffer

7 against urban street noise (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999), a problem throughout the Gowanus area with its high-traffic streets, nearby elevated highways, and industrial land uses. Trees also make neighborhood shops more successful. Consumers will spend 9% to 12% more on products in stores on tree-lined streets (Dixon and Wolf 2007). Beyond benefits for humans, urban trees offer habitat for wildlife in urban areas (Adams 1994).

*

The 3,000 trees lining streets on blocks immediately surrounding the Gowanus Canal generate approximately $200,000 per year in combined energy savings, carbon sequestration, air quality improvements, and rainwater catchment. Additional benefits are not as easily quantified using analytic tools like iTree, but there is no reason to believe street trees in the Gowanus area don’t provide benefits related to public health, crime prevention, sound attenuation, business development, and wildlife habitat. Additional studies conducted in partnership with New York City-based research institutions may help to shed more light on the additional benefits provided by street trees around the Gowanus. Such studies may, in turn, help create generalizable knowledge about urban forests useful to scholars and managers in other urban places.

Street Tree Diversity in the Gowanus Area

The health of an urban forest is dependent, in part, on a diverse population of street trees made up of a variety of family, genera, and individual species. Street tree monocultures are susceptible to fungus, disease, and insects that can kill entire populations of trees in a particular genus. A review of the diversity of the Gowanus street tree population shows that there is room for improvement in diversifying the local stock of trees species. Measures should be taken to reduce or eliminate the planting of over-represented species and set ambitious diversity targets for future tree plantings.

History has shown that planting monocultures can prove disastrous for urban forest health. In the early 1990s, American Chestnut as one of the most dominant tree species in the eastern United States. A fungal pathogen originating in Asia spread to American Chestnuts in the U.S. and killed 3.5 billion of the trees across the country (Fulbright 1987). Dutch Elm’s Disease began to spread in U.S. cities in the 1930s. The species made up a large portion of urban street tree inventories, and the disease led to the decimation of urban forests. For example, an estimated 45% of Chicago’s street tree inventory was lost to the disease (Dreistadt, Dahlsten, and Frankie 1990). In recent years, insects such as the Asian Long-Horned Beetle and the Emerald Ash Borer have killed entire Maple and Ash populations in urban areas throughout the U.S. (Kovacs et al. 2010; Dodds and Orwig 2011).

8 Planning and planting for tree diversity minimizes disturbance during a widespread insect, fungal, or disease event (Alvey 2006). Planting a diversity of family, genus, and species ensures that in the event of a catastrophic tree mortality event, only a small percentage of the overall tree population will be impacted, minimizing costly tree quarantines, removals, disposals, and replacements and ensuring the continuation of ecosystem service provision from the overall street tree inventory. Diversity is also an important component of a healthy urban forest ecosystem, providing a variety of habitats for urban wildlife (Alvey 2006; Ikin et al. 2015). Planting a variety of tree families, genera, and species can help promote species richness in an era of declining biodiversity worldwide (Alvey 2006).

A methodology developed by Galvin (1999) provides a rubric for assessing the biodiversity of a given street tree inventory: no more than 30% of any single family, 20% of any single genus, or 10% of any single species should be represented in an inventory. Table 1 displays the family, genus, and species of all trees representing more than 1% of the total street tree population in the Gowanus area, based on data collected for the 2015 NYC street tree census. Two species, Gleditsia triacanthose and Platanus x acerifolia exceed the 10% threshold. Ginkgo biloba, Quercus palustris, and Zelcova serrata are close to the 10% threshold. While Galvin’s methodology assesses overall tree diversity in a city or neighborhood, it is also helpful to consider diversity in even smaller units. For example, if one playground or a single city block were planted with only one tree species, even if this species makes up only 2% of the total

9 neighborhood diversity, this one park or block could instantly loose 100% of their canopy and associated environmental benefits if a disease or insect threated the species in question.

Native Street Tree Species in the Gowanus Area

The area that would come to be known as New York City was teeming with life more than four hundred years ago. A varied landscape of hills, valleys, fields, wetlands, beaches, waterbodies, and waterways boasted a rich diversity of flora and fauna prior to Dutch settlement in the early 1600s (Sanderson and Robertson 2013). Since the Dutch and British colonial era, humans have intentionally and accidentally introduced plants from around the world to New York City. These non-native plants now make up a large percentage of the region’s plant population (Aronson et al. 2015).

Invasive and non-native plant species can have an overall negative impact on the ecosystems to which they are introduced. Non-native species can outcompete and displace native and adapted species. Many of these introduced plants have no natural predators in their new environs and, consequently, their populations can spread and multiply rapidly. In such cases, non-native plants displace existing native populations and create monocultures that fail to support other species with food sources and habitat. A study conducted in central Massachusetts found that Norway Maple trees originally planted in nearby cities gradually invade surrounding rural forests and displace native trees. Norway Maple monocultures in New England forests decrease ecological productivity and make the tree stock vulnerable to disease, insects, and fungi (Bertin et al. 2005) (see previous section on tree diversity). Native plants, in contrast, contribute to the stability and productivity of urban ecosystems. Native trees are also well adapted to local climates and support native wildlife (Clark et al. 1997; Aronson et al. 2015).

New York City Council passed Local Law 399 in October 2010 to promote in biodiversity in public landscapes. The law mandates that species deemed invasive can no longer be planted on city-managed property. It also sets new diversity and native species targets for street trees. Section C of the law states, “Of all trees proposed to be planted on sidewalks, a minimum of seventy-five percent of the plantings shall be drought and salt tolerant and a minimum of thirty percent of the plantings shall be native species” (New York City Council 2013).

10

Improved street tree specifications practices, spurred in part by Local Law 399, have increased the number of native trees in the Gowanus area. 36% of street trees in the area can be classified as native. Table 2 displays tree species representing more than 1% of the total population of street trees in the Gowanus area and their natural provenance. 53% are classified as introduced species. These trees make up most of the local canopy and generate vital ecosystem services. They are not to be devalued simply because they are not native to the region. However, NYC Parks can make a conscious effort to plant a higher percentage of native species in the area in the future in order to maximized the potential benefits that natives offer, especially as hosts to local wildlife.

Street Tree Stewardship in the Gowanus Area

Effective urban forest management can improve the health, longevity, and quality of ecosystem services produced by street trees (Dwyer et al. 2000). The rate of tree planting has increased in many cities, but overall municipal budgets and appropriations for street tree maintenance have not followed suit (Pincetl 2010). Residents voluntarily take on the tasks associated with caring for and maintaining street trees in cities and towns across the United States, making up for shortfalls in municipal spending. Volunteer “stewardship” consists of any activity that improves the health of street trees, including pruning diseased, dead, or damaged limbs, watering,

11 mulching, and amending the soil in tree beds, installing guards and signs aimed at protecting street trees, and removing trees and trash that accumulate in tree beds.

Street trees require more intense maintenance and stewardship than trees planted in parks, gardens, or less heavily trafficked parts of a city. Street tree soil is often compacted and nutrient poor. Paved surfaces prevent rainwater from entering the soil for uptake by tree roots. Invasive weeds growing in tree beds compete with young trees for resources. Humans can accidentally or purposefully damage trees. Stewardship can alleviate these stresses and improve overall tree health. A 2011 study of young street tree mortality in New York City found that signs of stewardship near street trees were associated with higher incidences of tree survival (Lu et al. 2011).

Participating in stewardship can also have positive effects on stewards themselves, such as fostering new social connections (Svendsen and Campbell 2008). In a survey conducted nearly twenty years ago, stewards reported feeling that their lives were improved by their volunteer efforts and expressed satisfaction from learning new skills, meeting new people, and spending time outdoors (Gobster and Hull 2000). Planting and caring for trees can also be emotionally healing for stewards after a local disaster (Tidball et al. 2010).

Volunteers for the 2015 New York City street tree census gathered data on observations of stewardship activity on or near each street tree they inventoried. A sign of stewardship could be a “curb your dog” sign, a tree guard, mulch placed around a tree, or plantings in a tree bed. The census revealed that 51% of trees in the Gowanus area had at least one sign of stewardship during the census, compared to 30% of trees in Brooklyn and 24% of trees city-wide. Table 3 shows the total signs of stewardship logged in the Gowanus area. Yet signs of stewardship were unevenly distributed across the Gowanus area (see Part Two of this report).

Table 3: Stewardship Activities Observed in Gowanus STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES PER TREE TOTAL % 1 to 2 1245 42%

3 or 4 236 8% 4 or more 34 1% None 1448 49%

Street Tree Age in the Gowanus Area

Mature street trees are more valuable to city dwellers than young trees (Marritz 2012). Large and healthy trees sequester 70 times more air pollution than their younger counterparts (Nowak 2002). The figure below compares the amount of air pollution intercepted by a large tree compared to a small tree. Mature trees also absorb more storm water, and grow larger canopies

12 providing more shade and wildlife habitat (Nowak, 2002). Yet young trees face difficult living conditions and suffer high mortality rates in urban settings like New York City (Lu et al. 2011; Nowak, McBride, and Beatty 1990), dying before they can reach full maturity.

Figure 1: Air Pollution Removed Annually by Small and Large Trees

Volunteers for the 2015 New York City street tree census measured the diameter of each tree they inventoried. Though diameter does not predict a definite tree age, the ranges of diameters in an inventory can be used to understand the general age stratification of street trees in the Gowanus area. 35% of trees in the Gowanus area are under six inches in diameter, and fewer than 2% of street trees are more than 24 inches in diameter (see Figure below). The larger percentage of young trees found in the Gowanus area is likely attributable to the MillionTreesNYC planting initiative of 2007 to 2015, which saw a sharp increase in the number of new street trees planted by NYC Parks throughout the city.

13 Figure 2: Relative Tree Age Distribution of Gowanus Street Trees

30 20 10 0 (%) 0 - 3 3 - 6 6 - 12 - 18 - 24 (%) 12 24 - 30 - 18 36 - > 42 30 36 42

Mature trees in the Gowanus area are mostly represented by just two species: Platanus x acerifolia, or London Plane, and Quercus palustris, or Pin Oak (see Figure below) We see greater diversity of species amongst younger trees because of efforts by NYC Parks to purposefully introduce new species to the inventory in recent years. Consequently, mature tree canopy in the Gowanus area is more susceptible to disease and infestation.

Figure 3: Relative Age Distribution of Top 10 All Tree Species (%)

London planetree Honeylocust Ginkgo Pin oak

100 Japanese zelkova Citywide Total Green ash BDL OTHER Swamp white oak

(%) Littleleaf linden Callery pear BDL OTHER Callery pear Japanese zelkova Pin oak 0 Ginkgo Honeylocust Littleleaf linden London planetree Swamp white oak Green ash DBH Class

14

Sidewalk Infrastructure in the Gowanus Area

Street trees often grow in “beds” or “pits” cut into paved sidewalks. As a street tree grows, its trunk occupies more of the area of its surrounding bed and its roots spread beneath the surface of the surrounding sidewalk. In many cases, tree roots crack or displace concrete sidewalk slabs, creating uneven surfaces that are hazardous to pedestrians. Some trees, such as Gleditsia triacanthos (approximately 13% of trees in the Gowanus area), exhibit rooting habits that are particularly prone to creating such hazardous conditions. Trees that grow larger than their beds or create uneven surfaces on surrounding sidewalks are prone to damage.

Volunteers for the 2015 New York City street tree census recorded observations of sidewalk damage adjacent to tree beds, from small cracks in sidewalk slabs to slabs that were entirely displaced by uplifting roots or other causes. Nearly half of the sidewalks adjacent to street trees in the Gowanus area were found to have some type of damage. More mature trees may have grown in beds that are undersized, causing root girdling and soil compaction and necessitating sidewalk enlargements for improved tree health.

15 Part Two: Relevant Trends and Challenges

The following section reviews ongoing trends and challenges that influence the structure and function of street trees surrounding the Canal. They are: 1) Redevelopment and land use changes in the area of Brooklyn surrounding the Canal; 2) Trends in disease and infestation amongst street trees in New York City; 3) Extreme weather events and canal flooding due to sea level rise and storms; 4) Ongoing sub-grade infrastructure upgrades near the Canal aimed at reducing local flooding combined sewage overflows into the Canal; 5) Uneven interest and dedication to volunteer street tree stewardship across the Gowanus area; and 6) Variability in municipal investments in tree planting and maintenance and dead tree and stump removal.

Redevelopment and Land Use Changes

The neighborhoods surrounding the Gowanus Canal are experiencing redevelopment and gentrification pressures that have both direct and indirect implications for the health of local street trees. Though this report does not aim to provide a comprehensive overview of redevelopment and land use issues in the Gowanus area, we offer a snapshot of major trends as they relate to the urban forest. A 2003 rezoning of the 4th Avenue commercial corridor on the eastern edge of the Gowanus area resulted in the construction of multiple high-rise residential buildings during the past fourteen years on sites formerly occupied by low-density industrial land uses (Pereira 2016). A 430-unit rental building opened at 365 Bond Street on the Southwest edge of the Canal in mid-2016 having received a zoning variance for residential construction in the area (Albrecht 2016b). The variance is, perhaps, a sign of more residential development to come. A city-led effort to rezone the Gowanus neighborhood was set aside in 2010 after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared the canal a Superfund site (Savitch-Lew 2016). Bridging Gowanus, a document resulting from a multi-year participatory planning process involving residents of the communities surrounding the canal, will inform a government-led effort to revisit the rezoning that stalled in 2010 (NYC Department of City Planning 2017). Though local stakeholders have called for mixed land uses and the preservation of manufacturing in the area, residential land uses are likely to increase in number in the years ahead.

The gradual shift toward more residential land uses in the area surrounding the Gowanus Canal may have a short-term negative impact on the health of street trees in the area. Despite rigorous municipal standards for street tree protection on or near construction sites (NYC Department of Parks and Recreation 2017), some street trees will inevitably suffer from soil compaction caused by heavy machinery and accidental limb and trunk damage caused by nearby construction activity. Contractors may, in some instances, find it more cost effective to remove an existing street tree to make way for construction activities and pay a value assessed by a municipal agent. Larger, more mature trees are likely to create greater impediments to construction, and are

16 therefore more likely to be petitioned for removal (despite being assessed at higher values than younger, more recently planted trees).

Disease and Infestation

New York State has long been a “hotbed” for diseases and infestations that negatively impact the health of all trees, including those found in urban forests (Ferro 2014). Two invasive insect infestations have been particularly concerning to urban foresters in New York City in recent years: Asian Longhorned Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer. The recent emergence in Brooklyn of Oak Wilt Disease, a fungal infection, has created a new concern for local urban foresters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture declared Manhattan and Staten Island free of Asian Longhorned Beetle (“ALB”) in 2013 after the pest was first discovered in Brooklyn in the mid- 1990s. However, a quarantine control zone continues to exist for parts of Queens and Brooklyn that include the entirety of the Gowanus area, despite no new evidence of infestations within the zone since 2013 (see Appendix 1). Any tree found to be infested with the beetle within the quarantine area “must be removed immediately and the wood chipped to within a specific dimension” (“Control Measures : Asian Longhorned Beetle Alert” 2013).

Though the Emerald Ash Borer (“EAB”) has yet to be detected in New York City, the current reach of the insect’s infestation in the United States and the speed with which it is spreading suggests that it will arrive in the region soon. Emerald Ash Borer was first detected in Michigan in 2002 and has since spread to 27 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Michigan State University 2017). EAB was first detected in New York State in 2009 in Cattaragus County and has since spread to other counties outside the New York City region. EAB uses all species in the Fraxinus genus as a host and trees infested with the beetle have a 100% mortality rate within two to four years of infestation (MacFarlane and Meyer 2005). EAB can travel fat and far to find new host trees. One study found that EAB can travel approximately one mile in adulthood and some have been seen to travel up to 1.5 miles (BenDor et al. 2006).

While the spread of ALB in New York City seems to be controlled, the pending arrival of EAB will likely result in the death of the 59 Fraxinus trees planted around the Gowanus area. While the Fraxinus population makes up a relatively small percentage of the overall street tree inventory in the area (just 2%), some steps may be taken by NYC Parks and local stewards to protect these trees and ensure their ongoing provision of ecosystem services (see Part Four of this report).

Oak Wilt Disease was detected in Brooklyn and neighboring Long Island municipalities in late 2016 (Frost 2016). The fungal disease is incurable and can spread from an infested tree to a

17 nearby healthy tree via their roots. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation enacted a quarantine that prohibits the “removal of any standing, cut or fallen oak trees, living or dead. Removing tree parts, including branches, logs, stumps or roots, is also forbidden” (Frost 2016). Local property owners and street tree stewards have been encouraged to call a state hotline to report oak trees that exhibit sudden leaf loss in July or August. There are 433 oaks in the Gowanus area, all requiring monitoring for Oak Wilt beginning in 2017 (see Appendix 8).

Climate Change: Extreme Weather, Sea Level Rise, & Flooding

A 2015 report from the New York City Panel on Climate Change notes increases in mean annual temperature (3.4°F increase) and mean annual precipitation (8-inch increase) in New York City from 1900 to 2013 (“New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Executive Summary” 2015). The report anticipates mean annual temperatures and precipitation rates to continue to rise through 2080s, with greater incidences of heat waves and extreme rain as a result. The report also forecasts a rise in sea level in New York City commensurate with the global average, with increases in coastal flooding resulting (“New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Executive Summary” 2015).

The Gowanus Canal area mostly falls within the 100-year floodplain and the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood risk area (Spector 2014), compounding the likely impacts of sea level rise and increased precipitation forecasted for the remainder of the century. Extreme storms like Hurricane Sandy in 2012 will continue to cause coastal flooding in the area, inundating street tree beds on streets near the canal with brackish and polluted water. The Gowanus area is already the site of semi-regular flooding during heavy rainstorms (Albrecht 2016a), and municipal agencies are investing more than $60 million in storm sewer infrastructure to mitigate current flooding. NYC Parks has also adapted tree planting standards to specify flood tolerant trees for designated flood risk areas across the city.

Sewer Infrastructure Upgrades

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection is installing High Level Storm Sewer (HLSS) infrastructure on a string of city blocks running along 3rd Avenue from Carroll Street to Degraw Street, approximately 1,000 feet from the eastern edge of the Gowanus Canal. The new sewers are aimed at reducing flooding in the Gowanus area and preventing incidences of combined sewer overflows into the canal. Like the redevelopment projects described above, the work involved in installing these new high volume sewers has the potential to damage or kill nearby street trees despite efforts to protect trees using physical barriers. An additional ten blocks of infrastructural upgrades heading north from Degraw Street to State Street are slated to begin construction in 2019 (see Appendix 5).

18

Uneven Stewardship

The 2015 street tree census revealed a greater intensity of stewardship in the Gowanus area than across the entirety of New York City. Yet the intensity of stewardship within the area is unevenly distributed, with trees showing more visible signs of stewardship clustered in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the area surrounding the Canal (see Map 3). These clusters may be attributed to the work of volunteers associated with the Gowanus Canal Conservancy in the southeast and the presence of block associations and active business/neighborhood improvement districts in the northeast (see Appendix 7). Stewardship can include (but is not limited to) watering, mulching, and fertilizing soil, and sowing herbaceous plants in tree beds, installing signs and protective tree guards near trees, and pruning dead, diseased, and damaged tree limbs.

Recruiting and retaining volunteer stewards can be a challenge for any environmental organization (Lawrence 2006; Ryan, Kaplan, and Grese 2001; Moskell, Allred, and Ferenz 2011). The Gowanus Canal Conservancy relies on a steady stream of one-time volunteers to augment the work performed by a small core of longtime stewards. The organization also coordinates with block associations and individual residents scattered across the Gowanus area, exchanging resources and providing supplemental labor for special tree care events. A “Street Tree Summit” hosted by the Conservancy in early 2017 attracted previously unengaged residents to a facilitated conversation about stewardship training and ongoing coordination. The summit suggested that there are untapped opportunities for engaging more stewards in the area with new outreach and retention strategies.

Municipal Spending on Street Trees & Related Activities

During the seven-year-long MillionTreesNYC initiative (2007-2015), NYC Parks planted approximately 220,000 new street trees throughout the five boroughs. The agency also worked with partners in the non-profit sector to train a new cadre of volunteer street tree stewards. Though budget allocations for large-scale pruning and other forms of street tree maintenance have increased in recent years (Foderaro 2015b, 2015a), spending on new tree planting and volunteer stewardship training is likely to decline with the end of the MillionTreesNYC initiative. NYC Parks also faces a backlog of stump (estimated at 25,000 in 2015) and dead street tree removals, which are costly to execute. As of the 2015 street tree census, there were 46 standing dead trees and 61 stumps pending removal in the Gowanus area (see Appendix 9).

19 Part Three: A Vision for Street Trees in the Gowanus Area

By 2022, most of the 3,000 street trees in the Gowanus area will be regularly cared for by a knowledgeable steward. Each individual tree will be adequately pruned and watered, its soil sufficiently cultivated, mulched, and nourished with compost. A growing number of street tree beds will feature native perennial herbaceous plants chosen as food sources and habitat for migrating pollinators. The inventory will be slightly more diverse, with greater numbers of native and adapted trees planted in newly cut tree beds and as replacements for dead trees and stumps. There will be few backlogged tree and stump removals and the area will have achieved street tree saturation. Although the canopy will still be relatively young, the longevity of existing mature trees will be improved through tree bed enlargements, tree guard installations, supplemental structural pruning, and, in the case of Ash trees, selected applications of EAB deterrents. A vibrant network of volunteer stewards and small stewardship groups will operate in the area with Gowanus Canal Conservancy serving as a convener and facilitator. Private landowners and homeowners will feel more invested in the health of the local urban forest and assume responsibility for the trees nearest their properties. Although sub-grade construction will threaten the health and longevity of some trees along 3rd Avenue and its adjoining streets, Gowanus Canal Conservancy will work closely with construction crews to carefully proactively protect more street trees taking steps above and beyond standard practice. Overall, the people who live, work, and play in the Gowanus area will enjoy the ecosystem service benefits of a larger and more robust street tree inventory, with cleaner air and water, cooler temperatures, and greater access to wildlife habitat in the heart of the city.

20 Part Four: Recommendations

Management decisions and stewardship practices have a significant impact on the benefits that urban forests generate. Mature and healthy trees provide significantly more benefits. They cast more shade, intercept more air pollution and rainwater and sequester more carbon in their wood and leaves. However, if a young tree is planted and dies early, a considerable amount of energy and carbon resources are expended for little benefit. The following recommendations aim to achieve the vision put forward in Part Three of this report, creating a stronger, more resilient, and more widespread street tree canopy in the Gowanus area.

Recommendation 1: Plant More Street Trees

The MillionTreesNYC campaign led to a significant increase in the inventory of street trees in the Gowanus area, reducing the number of obvious opportunities for planting new street trees in newly cut or existing curbside beds. Gowanus Canal Conservancy, working with partners in Central Forestry, should take the following steps to ensure that a street tree is planted in every viable site throughout the Gowanus Area:

1. Search for New Bed Cutting Opportunities Gowanus Canal Conservancy can support Central Forestry by performing an area-wide sweep for new bed cutting opportunities, using municipal standards (see Appendix 2) to filter for sites that are most likely viable given other constraints. Special care should be taken to identify remnant planting opportunities near non-point sources of air pollution, particularly near the elevated Brooklyn-Queens Expressway at the southern end of the Canal. New sites should be spatially inventoried with an accompanying table indicating nearest street address and shared with Central Forestry staff.

2. Raise Funds to Remove Dead Trees and Stumps Gowanus Canal Conservancy can work with Central Forestry to identify supplemental funds (through grants, private donations, and/or participatory budgeting) to speed up dead tree and stump removal in the Gowanus area, making approximately 100 exiting beds available for new plantings.

Recommendation 2: Prioritize Native & Adapted Trees for Diversity

Gowanus Canal Conservancy and its partners in local government should prioritize native and locally adapted trees as they move forward with fully exploiting every possible planting site in the Gowanus Area, going above and beyond the requirements of Local Law 399 (see Part 1).

21 1. Plant Native and Flood Tolerant Trees Considering flood tolerance and native species preferences, the following tree species are recommended for prioritized street planting in the Gowanus area by Central Forestry: Amelanchier canadensis Celtis occidentalis Cercis reniformus Gymnocladus diocus Juniperus virginiana Liquidambar styriciflua Nyssa sylvatica Quercus bicolor Quercus Lyrata Quercus macrocarpa Quercus muehlenbergii Quercus rubra Taxodium distichum

2. Plant Native Herbaceous Perennials in Tree Beds Recognizing that the stock of native street trees in the Gowanus area will not increase significantly in the short term, Gowanus Canal Conservancy can continue to create habitat and food sources for migrating pollinators by planting native herbaceous plants in tree beds. Drawing on lessons learned from the 9th Street Native Plant Corridor initiative, the Conservancy should create pilot initiatives to encourage property owners to plant and care for native vegetation in area tree beds. These initiatives may coalesce with Brooklyn Botanic Garden’s annual Greenest Block in Brooklyn initiative, providing supplemental opportunities for horticultural training and access to free plant materials.

3. Aim for Diversity in New Tree Specifications While prioritizing native and flood tolerant trees for the Gowanus area, Central Forestry should continue to adhere to departmental policies on diversifying the city’s street tree inventory (Stephens 2010). Given existing species distributions (see Table 1), foresters should avoid specifying the following trees for the Gowanus area going forward: Platanus x acerifolia Gleditsia triacanthos Ginkgo biloba Quercus palustris Zelkova serrata

22

Recommendation 3: Strategize Mature Tree Stewardship

Mature trees provide greater ecosystem services in the form of stormwater capture, canopy shading, and air filtration. Yet larger trees can be more difficult for volunteer stewards to adequately manage. Taking these factors into account, Gowanus Canal Conservancy and its partners in local government should take the following steps to strategize mature tree stewardship:

1. Regularly Monitor Mature Trees for Pests and Diseases Gowanus Canal Conservancy should train volunteer stewards and other neighborhood stakeholders to monitor for EAB and Oak Wilt. Volunteers attending regular work events hosted by Gowanus Canal Conservancy can receive basic pest and disease training. The Conservancy can also communicate updates about EAB and Oak Wilt to partnering organizations in the Gowanus Area, providing up-to-date information that can help stakeholders identify threats and alert forestry officials.

2. Raise Private Funds to Supplement Periodic Block Pruning NYC Parks hires forestry contractors to prune tall, mature trees on a seven year cycle in various neighborhoods across the city (Gorce 2016). Some mature trees may require more regular structural pruning than the municipal budget cycle allows for, depending on local stressors. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should work with NYC Parks (Central Forestry) to secure funding for supplemental mature tree pruning in the Gowanus area.

3. Focus Young Tree Pruning Efforts on Pyrus calleriana and Zelkova serrata Pyrus calleriana and Zelkova serrata both have branching habits that, over time, can result in structural problems and weakened tree limbs in mature specimen (Ivy 2017; Gilman and Watson 1994). Gowanus Canal Conservancy should encourage and support regular volunteer stewards to receive advanced structural pruning training focused on these two tree types (see Appendix 4 for relevant tree locations).

Recommendation 4: Protect Against Emerald Ash Borer and Oak Wilt

Preventative measures can be taken to protect Ash trees from EAB. Systemic insecticides are insect-killing chemicals injected into or poured onto the roots of a tree. These treatments have been shown to kill EAB before it can invade and destroy a host tree. Gowanus Canal Conservancy and its partners in local government should take the following steps:

1. Treat Eligible Ash Trees Only trees above 12” in diameter and in excellent condition should be considered for

23 treatment, as smaller trees in poor health do not respond reliably to treatment. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of two treatments. For smaller trees (12” to 14.5” DBH), an annual imidicloprid soil drench is recommended. For larger trees above 14.5” DBH, biennial Emamectin benzoate trunk injection is the best option (Herms et al. 2009). By these standards, only 17 of the 59 Ash trees in the Gowanus area are eligible for treatment. 11 would be protected with annual imidicloprid soil drench and six could be treated biennially with Emamectin benzoate (see Appendix 6).

2. Reach Beyond Street Trees Gowanus Canal Conservancy is uniquely positioned to bridge the divide between multiple landowners in the Gowanus area to raise awareness about EAB infestation and treatment options for non-street trees. Ash trees in parks, on private property, and on properties managed by city agencies other than NYC Parks are equally susceptible to EAB attack and should be managed for the overall health of the area’s urban forest. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should coordinate a local EAB summit with NYC Housing Authority maintenance staff, local tree stewards, school custodians and their supervisors, and private landowners to coordinate EAB management efforts.

3. Monitor for Oak Wilt Though there is no cure for Oak Wilt, monitoring for signs of the disease in July and August can help professional foresters maintain an effective quarantine. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should mobilize volunteers to perform an “Oak Walk” at least once in late summer to identify early signs of the disease in the area and report it to city and state officials.

Recommendation 6: Invest in Street Infrastructure

Street infrastructure plays an important role in the health and resilience of street trees. Though sometimes costly, investments in infrastructure maintenance can go a long way toward ensuring that young street trees reach maturity and continue providing urban areas with essential ecosystem services. Gowanus Canal Conservancy and its partners in government and the private sector should take the following steps to invest in street infrastructure improvements in the Gowanus area:

1. Raise Private Funds to Enlarge Beds and Repair Sidewalks for Mature Trees Nearly half of all sidewalks surrounding street trees were found to have some degree of damage during the 2015 street tree census, some possibly caused by mature tree roots growing in undersized beds. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should work with local elected officials and philanthropic organizations to create a special sidewalk repair fund to augment municipal funding through NYC Parks. The fund may encourage property

24 owners to more proactively deal with sidewalk damage and re-size older tree beds to contemporary standards (between 40 and 50 square feet).

2. Install Metal Tree Guards Strategically Metal tree guards help protect street trees against vandalism and protect the soil in their beds from compaction caused by pedestrian traffic. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should work with local elected officials to raise funds for expanded tree guard installation, focusing first on commercial high-traffic corridors and on residential blocks where guard installation can be used as an outreach and organizing tool for new stewards.

Recommendation 7: Improve Coordination with Government and Private Sector

Although Gowanus Canal Conservancy is a local leader in recruiting and mobilizing volunteer street tree stewards, the organization cannot effectively manage every street tree in the Gowanus area on its own. Private property owners, renters, business leaders, and partners in local government all have important roles to play in maintaining the area’s street tree inventory. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should take the following steps to build stronger and smarter connections with other street tree stakeholders in the Gowanus area:

1. Hold Quarterly Meetings with Central Forestry Staff Gowanus Canal Conservancy and Central Forestry should capitalize on their collegial relationship and establish quarterly meetings to improve coordination, communication, and collaboration on a variety of initiatives.

2. Develop Outreach Strategies for Different Stakeholders Gowanus Canal Conservancy should secure funding to work with outreach experts to create targeted street tree engagement strategies for stakeholders in the following areas: 1) Real estate developers, construction contractors, and new residential building managers; 2) 1- and 2-family homeowners; 3) Industrial land owners and their tenants; 4) Block associations; and 5) Business Improvement Districts or commercial business associations. Each stakeholder is motivated by different variables and must be approached to engage in street tree stewardship on different strategic terms.

Recommendation 8: Strategize Stewardship & Advocacy

1. Foster a Street Tree Stewardship Network in Gowanus Building on the 2017 Gowanus Street Tree Summit, Gowanus Canal Conservancy should foster the development of a Street Tree Stewardship Network in the Gowanus area. The Network would serve as an information, resource, and skill sharing clearinghouse for all

25 existing street tree stewards and provide a landing ground for new stakeholders engaged through various outreach strategies (see above). Though patchy in geographic coverage at first, the Network may grow to cover areas where stewardship seems to be relatively low as of 2015 (see Part 1).

2. Provide New Stewardship Training Opportunities With the sunset of MillionTreesNYC, there are fewer opportunities for new volunteers to learn about basic street tree stewardship. During the 2017 Gowanus Street Tree Summit, multiple newcomers voiced hope that Gowanus Canal Conservancy would offer free stewardship training at some point in the future. Drawing on insights from its other successful education and training programs, the Conservancy should develop and lead a pilot street tree stewardship training program for area residents.

3. Continue Clean & Green Events Periodic “Clean & Green” events hosted by the Gowanus Canal Conservancy bring volunteers from outside the Gowanus area to help with an array of stewardship activities around the canal. These weekend events provide regular volunteer leaders with supplemental labor to care for a greater number of street trees in the Gowanus area. The Conservancy should continue to make street tree stewardship a regular feature of its Clean & Green events.

Recommendation 9: Collect Data

1. Log Stewardship Work Using NYC Street Tree Map The NYC Street Tree Map (tree-map.nycgovparks.org) allows volunteer stewards to log various acts of stewardship performed on any given tree across New York City. In the future, the map may allow stewards to search for trees based on recent stewardship records, allowing them to better coordinate and prioritize their day-to-day work. In the meantime, volunteers associated with Gowanus Canal Conservancy can help NYC Parks monitor stewardship by using the map to log all their work.

2. Monitor Tree Health Scientists at the U.S. Forest Service has developed a protocol for monitoring street tree health. The protocol was originally tested in the Gowanus area in 2014, but follow-up tree health assessments have not been performed. Gowanus Canal Conservancy should partner with the U.S. Forest Service and colleagues at The Nature Conservancy to undertake an area-wide tree health assessment. Such an assessment, when paired with stewardship tracking data, may help scientists discern relationships between particular types of stewardship activity, tree species, tree health, and the urban environment, further informing better stewardship practices for the future.

26

27 Works Cited

Adams, Lowell W. 1994. Urban Wildlife Habitats: A Landscape Perspective. Minnesota Archive Editions edition. Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press. Albrecht, Leslie. 2016a. “$52 Million Project to Reduce Gowanus Flooding to Begin Soon.” DNAinfo New York. February 29. https://www.dnainfo.com/new- york/20160229/gowanus/52-million-project-reduce-gowanus-flooding-begin-soon. ———. 2016b. “How Contaminated Land on the Gowanus Became a Luxury Housing Development.” DNAinfo New York. May 3. https://www.dnainfo.com/new- york/20160503/gowanus/how-contaminated-land-on-gowanus-became-luxury-housing- development. Alexiou, Joseph. 2015. Gowanus: Brooklyn’s Curious Canal. New York ; London: NYU Press. Alvey, Alexis A. 2006. “Promoting and Preserving Biodiversity in the Urban Forest.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5 (4): 195–201. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003. Arens, Edward A., and Philip B. Williams. 1977. “The Effect of Wind on Energy Consumption in Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 1 (1): 77–84. doi:10.1016/0378-7788(77)90014-7. Aronson, Myla F., J, Steven N. Handel, Inga P. La Puma, and Steven E. Clemants. 2015. “Urbanization Promotes Non-Native Woody Species and Diverse Plant Assemblages in the New York Metropolitan Region.” Urban Ecosystems; Salzburg 18 (1): 31–45. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/10.1007/s11252-014-0382-z. Bell, Janice F., Jeffrey S. Wilson, and Gilbert C. Liu. 2008. “Neighborhood Greenness and 2- Year Changes in Body Mass Index of Children and Youth.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (6): 547–53. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.07.006. BenDor, Todd K., Sara S. Metcalf, Lauren E. Fontenot, Brandi Sangunett, and Bruce Hannon. 2006. “Modeling the Spread of the Emerald Ash Borer.” Ecological Modelling 197 (1–2): 221–36. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.003. Bertin, Robert I., Megan E. Manner, Brian F. Larrow, Timothy W. Cantwell, and Elizabeth M. Berstene. 2005. “Norway Maple (Acer Platanoides) and Other Non-Native Trees in Urban Woodlands of Central Massachusetts.” Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society; Bronx 132 (2): 225–35. Bolund, Per, and Sven Hunhammar. 1999. “Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas.” Ecological Economics 29 (2): 293–301. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0. Clark, James R., Nelda P. Matheny, Genni Cross, and Victoria Wake. 1997. “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability.” Journal of Arboriculture 23: 17–30. “Control Measures : Asian Longhorned Beetle Alert.” 2013. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. https://www.nycgovparks.org/trees/beetle-alert/control-measures. Dixon, Karen K., and Wolf. 2007. “Benefits and Risks of Urban Roadside Landscape: Finding a Livable, Balanced Response.” In Proceedings on the 3rd Urban Street Symposium p1-17. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science,(June 24-27. http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/benefits_and_risks_of_an_urban_roadside_landscape_dixon.p df. Dodds, Kevin J., and David A. Orwig. 2011. “An Invasive Urban Forest Pest Invades Natural Environments — Asian Longhorned Beetle in Northeastern US Hardwood Forests.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41 (9): 1729–42. doi:10.1139/x11-097. Dreistadt, Steve H., Donald L. Dahlsten, and Gordon W. Frankie. 1990. “Urban Forests and Insect Ecology.” Bioscience; Oxford 40 (3): 192.

28 Dwyer, John F., David J Nowak, Mary Heather Noble, and Susan M. Sisini. 2000. “Connecting People With Ecosystems in the 21st Century:An Assessment of Our Nation’s Urban Forests.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland, Oregon: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Ferro, John. 2014. “New York Is a Hotbed for Damaging Forest Pests.” Poughkeepsie Journal, May 31. http://www.caryinstitute.org/newsroom/new-york-hotbed-damaging-forest-pests. Foderaro, Lisa W. 2015a. “Fewer Limbs but Healthier Trees as New York’s Parks Budget Rebounds.” The New York Times, May 6. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/nyregion/fewer-limbs-but-healthier-trees-as-new- yorks-parks-budget-rebounds.html. ———. 2015b. “A Park to Sop Up Pollutants Before They Flow Into the Gowanus Canal.” The New York Times, December 15. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/nyregion/sponge- park-in-brooklyn-to-treatpolluted-waters-of-gowanus-canal.html. Frost, Mary. 2016. “Deadly, Incurable & Fast Spreading Oak Wilt Disease Detected in Brooklyn Trees.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle. December 30. http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2016/12/30/deadly-incurable-fast-spreading-oak- wilt-disease-detected-brooklyn-trees. Fulbright, Dennis W. 1987. Review of Review of Chestnut Blight, Other Endothia Diseases, and the Genus Endothia, by Martha K. Roane, Gary J. Griffin, and John Rush Elkins. The Quarterly Review of Biology 62 (2): 195–195. Galvin, M.F. 1999. “A Methodology for Assessing and Managing Biodiversity in Street Tree Populations: A Case Study.” Journal of Arboriculture 25 (3): 124–28. Gilman, Edward F., and Dennis G. Watson. 1994. “Zelkova Serrata ‘Green Vase.’” Fact Sheet ST-678. U.S. Forest Service. Gobster, Paul H., and Bruce R. Hull, eds. 2000. “Psychological Benefits of Volunteering in Stewardship Programs.” In Restoring Nature : Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities, 265–80. Washington, D. C.: Island Press. http://newcatalog.library.cornell.edu/catalog/3896773. Goldschein, Eric. 2012. “Gentrification Has Made This Old Brooklyn Neighborhood Unrecognizable.” Business Insider. March 2. http://www.businessinsider.com/cobble- hill-brooklyn-gentrification-photos-2012-3. Gorce, Tammy La. 2016. “How Does the City Decide What Trees to Prune, and When?” The New York Times, November 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/nyregion/how- does-the-city-decide-what-trees-to-prune-and-when.html. “Gowanus Canal Superfund Site | Region 2 | US EPA.” 2013. March 28. http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/gowanus/. Herms, D.A., D.G. McCullogh, D.R. Smitley, C. Sadof, R.C. Williamson, and P.L. Nixon. 2009. “Insecticide Options for Protecting Ash Trees from Emerald Ash Borer.” North Central IPM Center Bulletin. Ikin, Karen, Darren S. Le Roux, Laura Rayner, Nelida R. Villaseñor, Kathy Eyles, Philip Gibbons, Adrian D. Manning, and David B. Lindenmayer. 2015. “Key Lessons for Achieving Biodiversity-Sensitive Cities and Towns.” Ecological Management & Restoration 16 (3): 206–14. doi:10.1111/emr.12180. Ivy, Sarah L. 2017. “The Stink Over Bradford Pears.” Learn 2 Grow. http://www.learn2grow.com/gardeningguides/trees/featuredplants/StinkOverBradfordPea rs.aspx.

29 Kim, H. H. 1992. “Urban Heat Island.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 13 (12): 2319– 36. doi:10.1080/01431169208904271. Kovacs, Kent F., Robert G. Haight, Deborah G. McCullough, Rodrigo J. Mercader, Nathan W. Siegert, and Andrew M. Liebhold. 2010. “Cost of Potential Emerald Ash Borer Damage in U.S. Communities, 2009–2019.” Ecological Economics 69 (3): 569–78. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.004. Lawrence, Anna. 2006. “‘No Personal Motive?’ Volunteers, Biodiversity, and the False Dichotomies of Participation.” Ethics, Place & Environment 9 (3): 279–98. doi:10.1080/13668790600893319. Lohr, Steve. 2012. “Big Data’s Impact in the World.” The New York Times, February 11, sec. Sunday Review. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/big-datas-impact- in-the-world.html. Lu, Jacqueline, Erika Svendsen, Lindsay Campbell, Jennifer Greenfeld, Jessie Braden, Kristen King, and Nancy Falxa-Raymond. 2011. “Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality in New York City.” Cities and the Environment (CATE) 3 (1). http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/5. MacFarlane, David W., and Shawna Patterson Meyer. 2005. “Characteristics and Distribution of Potential Ash Tree Hosts for Emerald Ash Borer.” Forest Ecology and Management 213 (1–3): 15–24. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.013. Marritz, Leda. 2012. “Urban Trees: Let’s Grow Old Together.” Next City. October 10. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/urban-trees-lets-grow-old-together. McKeand, Tina, and Shirley Vaughn. 2013. “Stormwater to Street Trees: Engineering Urban Forests for Stormwater Management.” EPA 841-B-13-001. U.S. Environmetnal Protection Agency. http://www.davey.com/media/183712/stormwater_to_street_trees.pdf. McPherson, E. Gregory, David J Nowak, Rowan A Rowntree, and Pa.) Northeastern Forest Experiment Station (Radnor. 1994. Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Radnor, Pa.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo19648. Moskell, Christine, and Shorna Allred. 2013. “Integrating Human and Natural Systems in Community Psychology: An Ecological Model of Stewardship Behavior.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9532-8. Moskell, Christine, Shorna Broussard Allred, and Gretchen Ferenz. 2011. “Examining Volunteer Motivations and Recruitment Strategies For Engagement in Urban Forestry.” Cities and the Environment (CATE) 3 (1). http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/9. New York City Council. 2013. Local Law to Amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in Relation to Increasing Native Biodiversity in Public Landscapes. Vol. 0399– 2010. http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=784597&GUID=D330C7AB- F13D-4C98-B789-0B87500F103D&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search=native. “New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Executive Summary.” 2015. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1336 (1): 9–17. doi:10.1111/nyas.12591. Novak, Matt. 2012. “Predictions for Educational TV in the 1930s.” Smithsonian. May 29. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/predictions-for-educational-tv-in-the-1930s- 107574983/.

30 Nowak, David J. 2002. “The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality.” Syracuse, NY: U.S. Forest Service. Nowak, David J., Joe R. McBride, and Russel A. Beatty. 1990. “Newly Planted Street Tree Growth and Mortality.” Journal of Arboriculture 16 (5): 124–29. NYC Department of City Planning. 2017. “Gowanus Neighborhood Study.” Accessed May 7. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/gowanus/gowanus.page. NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. 2017. “Tree Protection Best Practices and Protocol : NYC Parks.” Accessed May 7. https://www.nycgovparks.org/trees/street-tree- planting/best-practices. Paterson, Philana. 2007. “Looking Back: How Yuppies Discovered Park Slope.” The Real Deal New York. October 18. https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/looking-back-how-yuppies- discovered-park-slope/. Pereira, Ivan. 2016. “Brooklyn’s Fourth Avenue Continues Its Transformation.” Am New York. August 21. http://www.amny.com/real-estate/fourth-avenue-in-brooklyn-spanning-park- slope-and-gowanus-is-transforming-1.12207583. Pincetl, Stephanie. 2010. “From the Sanitary City to the Sustainable City: Challenges to Institutionalising Biogenic (Nature’s Services) Infrastructure.” Local Environment 15 (1): 43–58. doi:10.1080/13549830903406065. Rosenzweig, Cynthia, and William Solecki, eds. 2001. Climate Change and a Global City: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change — Metro East Coast. Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the United States. New York City: Columbia Earth Institute, Columbia University. Rosenzweig, Cynthia, William Solecki, and Ronald Slosberg. 2006. “Mitigating New York City’s Heat Island with Urban Forestry, Living Roofs, and Light Surfaces.” A Report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6a84/7e63248369137027ced29c7808343f30255d.pdf. Ryan, Robert L., Rachel Kaplan, and Robert E. Grese. 2001. “Predicting Volunteer Commitment in Environmental Stewardship Programmes.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44 (5): 629–648. Sanderson, Eric W., and Chad Robertson. 2013. Mannahatta: A Natural History of New York City. Abrams Books. Savitch-Lew, Abigail. 2016. “City Says It Will Be Guided by ‘Bridging Gowanus’ in Rezoning.” City Limits. October 28. http://citylimits.org/2016/10/28/city-says-it-will-be-guided-by- bridging-gowanus-in-rezoning/. Schlanger, Zoe. 2014. “If It’s Raining, NYC’s Raw Sewage Is Probably Pouring Into the Waterways.” Newsweek. July 23. http://www.newsweek.com/it-raining-nycs-raw- sewage-probably-pouring-waterways-260784. Schmeltz, Michael T., Sonia K. González, Liza Fuentes, Amy Kwan, Anna Ortega-Williams, and Lisa Pilar Cowan. 2013. “Lessons from Hurricane Sandy: A Community Response in Brooklyn, New York.” Journal of Urban Health 90 (5): 799–809. doi:10.1007/s11524- 013-9832-9. Simpson, James R. 1998. “Urban Forest Impacts on Regional Cooling and Heating Energy Use: Sacramento County Case Study.” Journal of Arboriculture 24: 201–214. Spector, Allen. 2014. “Elevation.” Mapping Gowanus. http://allenspector.com/mappinggowanus/elevation.php.

31 Stephens, Matthew. 2010. “Tree Procurement Contracts: New York City’s Quest for Amazing Trees.” City Trees. Stovin, V. R., A. Jorgensen, and A. Clayden. 2008. “Street Trees and Stormwater Management.” Arboricultural Journal 30 (4): 297–310. doi:10.1080/03071375.2008.9747509. Svendsen, Erika, and Lindsay Campbell. 2008. “Urban Ecological Stewardship: Understanding the Structure, Function and Network of Community-Based Urban Land Management.” Cities and the Environment (CATE) 1 (1). http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol1/iss1/4. Taha, Haider. 1997. “Urban Climates and Heat Islands: Albedo, Evapotranspiration, and Anthropogenic Heat.” Energy and Buildings 25 (2): 99–103. doi:10.1016/S0378- 7788(96)00999-1. Tidball, Keith G., Marianne E. Krasny, Erika Svendsen, Lindsay Campbell, and Kenneth Helphand. 2010. “Stewardship, Learning, and Memory in Disaster Resilience.” Environmental Education Research 16 (5–6): 591–609. doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.505437. Ulrich, R. S. 1984. “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science 224 (4647): 420–21. doi:10.1126/science.6143402. U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Michigan State University. 2017. “Emerald Ash Borer.” Emerald Ash Borer Information Network. Accessed May 13. http://emeraldashborer.info/. Wolf, Kathleen L. 2006. “Roadside Urban Trees.” Balancing Safety and Community Values Arborist News. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f904/3567f1b44b53a9d9141771a1d418d57bc345.pdf.

32 Appendix 1: Gowanus Mapping Zones 2013-2015

33 Appendix 2: Asian Longhorned Beetle Quarantine

7 1 0 2 / 9 / 1 : e t a D S I G - Q P P s    ) a G )  e 6 H ) l W r  1 e p a  W i 0 v c F D A V i l

i L ! > 2 ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > t ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > X ! > ! > r - s d c 7 J o e 3 I 1 s U D G t X t 0 A 1 e s ( 2 ( a i

i $ 0

, l r s 2 h B u a ( ( L a

g A d e s s e - r

s n e e R Q e e d u A

P r r a o y P d l o T T -

B

e s

S t R d d I u y

y k a e e t t H r o l r t t i P o l n o e n s s u f v A j t e e u f g - e a a f f

o u e o u r A n n d D S C I I R P M W C n S e U g ! > d ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! n L e ! ! a ! > ! > l ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! s ! !  !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! y V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

! !

I H ! ! p ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U N !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! x ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! > ! ! ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! !  0 ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! ! ! >

! ! ! !  ! ! >  

! ! > ! > ! ! ! E ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > H ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! ! !  ! ! ! ! > ! > ! O ! ! ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > Q ! !  ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! !  ! ! ! ! !

  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! g R ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! !  O ! ! ! ! ! !  O L ! ! ! ! ! H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  U  ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! \ ! ! ! d ! ! ! K H ! ! ! ! ! H ! ! ! !  ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! ! U H H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > U H ! ! !  ! ! ! ! ! ! U V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W G ! ! ! ! ! ! ! V H F G ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! K ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! X P H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Z R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! K D W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I   R W L Z Q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W U H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

n ! ! ! ! W  K ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! H Y R D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R  D Q L ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! R ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! > L   ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! >  O ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! ! ! > n U S X  ! ! ! ! L ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > Q V ! ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > K U D  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! X ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U W D ! ! ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! >

a V L ! ! ! ! ! W ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > W \ ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > F $ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > X  G @ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > H  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! >  T ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

l Q 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >  N Q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > I  $ H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > S U L V   ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > S G  ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > V ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >  ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > R D ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > R H ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > R Q U H  ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > J H Q ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > L s W R Q ! ! U Y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Q ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >  O L  ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > I  I  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > U H  ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > V  W D K  R ! ! ! ! H ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Q R ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > H R D ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! >  R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > o ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

I L $  W U ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >  L ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > R R L ! ! V ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > X W W  ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > H G F  ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > W ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! >  7  ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! >  W   ! ! ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > Y  I  \ W R ! ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > G ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >  ! Q ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > H Q  ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > O W V D W ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > O @  ! ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! ! ! > ! > V D ! ! ! ! ! >  ! > ! > P R H ! ! ! > ! ! ! ! ! ! > H P O R ! ! ! R W H F  X Q U R Q  ! ! ! > ! > ! > ! >

& ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! >  L V ! > g ! > ! ! ! > W U D U ! > ! ! ! > Q R  X F H  ! ! ! ! >   F R ! ! S U Q R  ! ! & !    M ! ! L X L H F  Q  !  G J Q \ 6 H D  U Q O V E V  H S n U  \ H  R E L Y , 6 D ! > ! >  J R ! > ! > ! > W H U H X ! > L ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > L ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > R R Q  5 H W ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > L  L 8 Y ! > ! > W R U  P V  V ! > ! > U H   ! > O W o  ! > W * $ R  R Q J F  J R R G D  D ! > ) U F H   & U R H

I  I H L  Q

 >   Q ! > ! > G D U ! > ! > ! > W  ! > ! > L  ! > G S ! > ! > H  U S R L R ! > D ! > 6 D W ! > H 6  V D P ! > S   ! > Q   H  U P  ! > W   ! > ! > ! > ! > K X W 6 Q H H Q H W G G D G  D @  , U H S Q U N ! >  H F W 8 I R G  Q Q Q '    H X D U R W D @  +  U H L Q D H L I L V P     L 3 W D Q H I L G D  3 P  R H  Y Q W  P H I Q  K O I  O H >  2 H D U W Q R L H $ , 6 a l  R   V  W F S R V  K  V

P W D  F  ( U  V W  W   + H 6 7 W  V H  L F S L  P  L H O F H I &  U Q K 3 L Q H H E O  F  W G $  R K H , 7  G H L  $  K &   U N D  W 6 $ G  r W  ' \   Y V W  Q  H Q R  O  2 W P \ Q L U Y  G U  6 R Q Q R W @ E Q  < D 8  H K 6 Q U H J ' H  U H Q    U J W  R  I R t \ D D 6 H  V L 8 F    H U    O P  G Z D &  S  > H 8 O  G Q R Z Z Z  H Q H  U W  H D   W D H W 6 m  >  P D W < H  R ( D    \ H O G V F 1 K  L ' D W K    H S & D W  G 1 V H E W O X L G  U L G W   H    H  F G O H \  W D Q n  Q D 6 G W H H K R D \ L  V U H G  L \ W D ' U D L Q D V E S E H   ' 7 W I  Q W  E Q    U H  8 V D & 7 a H H W  G H    L Q R     Q W  G Q  V Q W K U H G H V H W  e D H R , G R P X R Q W , 6  H U N > G W ) 7 L F K F   D I L  H U G W W  K G F R W 6    U H  I P + L H  W D D $  H Q F V O  O H r I  P < K Q O Y 5 N 3 W X  O G D W O R D E \ H U Y $ U  R L L W D Q J (  Q  H R D $ W H U R J Z R F  H H K Q D   F F U L V Z D  H I S G  I  L +  < H  W H R  C X Q  W O  H R D , 0 \ Q L W 1 P E D  O Q K F  R W O Q V S  W W H U Z Q  g H H \ ¶   $ D  H H Q O S Z D H & H  D W 6 K 6  U W D D K I R / R O I R G P E V W    ,   U H L 1 L Q H U  U P R 3 Q 7 V & G G  L H H   V H  L S + H  W N H V Z R R V G U H Q Y G G O I R R  K 3 F F O , 6 K R R H D U Q J V R D W Q o ) ) E , Q 7 S $ $ $ D % D D D F K ) R D $ ' r P

n y o t i a u n t s a a s o u c N C i s e d l i 1 7 a M r 2 0 4 E w

e e i l v t r e e e v O B 0

k d ! > ! > e o r s ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > 2 ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

n r e w e r o e e u t s h y y ! > N ! > ! > ! > s ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > 4 ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > t ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > t ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > n ! > ! > e ! > ! > ! > g Q ! > ! > e n ! > ! > n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > h ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > e ! > ! > c n ! > u t o u o u ! > s o C Q C e ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

x

t ! > ! > L

W y ! >

n w

! > ! > k ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

o n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

! > P ! > n

! > ! > ! >

! > ! > ! > r ! > ! > ! >

! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! >

! >

o u t l

B

! > ! > a

e C B ! > ! > i ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > s ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > A ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > s ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > t y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > g l ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > k ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > i ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > t ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > o r ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > o u ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > o k ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > n ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > K ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Y ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > C ! > ! > ! >

! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > o ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > o u ! > ! > ! > ! > w ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > r ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > e ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > C ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > B N  a n  G t H  W 

a t  o

F D



L n

g

h a \

z

a r B

n

U D G r r

0 D

( e a V M f o s

e t t e n r a e t d u t S y m l

t t u o n d r c n e a i t y m r i p  g e n h o u e  G c A D U n d i s H  C W e  ! > n R r  F D  L a e \ a t l ! > ! > t ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > s ! > ! > J ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > U D G

I 0 D S ( k w r w e o i v Y e

r e w v N e O ¯ N

34 Appendix 3: Standards for Citing New Street Tree Beds

35 Appendix 4: Locations of Young Pyrus Calleriana and Zelkova Serrata

36 Appendix 5: High Level Storm Sewer Infrastructure Upgrades

Source: NYC Department of Environmental Protection. 2014. Gowanus Canal Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan.

37 Appendix 6: Ash Trees—Treatable and Untreatable for EAB

38 Appendix 7: Stewardship Intensity in the Gowanus Area

39 Appendix 8: Oak Tree Locations in the Gowanus Area

40 Appendix 9: Dead Tree and Stump Locations in the Gowanus Area

41