Philadelphia Street Tree Survey: South Philadelphia and Whitman

January 2013

January 2013

The symbol in our logo The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is is adapted from the dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning official DVRPC seal professionals, and the public with a common vision of and is designed as a making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we stylized image of the live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as improving transportation, promoting smart growth, a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, New Jersey. Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies.

DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website (www.dvrpc.org) may be translated into multiple languages. Publications and other public documents can be made available in alternative languages and formats, if requested. For more information, please call (215) 238-2871.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Study Purpose and Need ...... 3

Inventory Mechanics ...... 5

Neighborhood Interactions ...... 7

Tree Inventory Results ...... 9

Planting Site Recommendations ...... 15

Maintenance and Establishment Issues ...... 17

High Priority Planting Locations ...... 19

Street Tree Recommendations ...... 21

Tree Inventory Maps ...... 23

Figures Figure 1: Tree Priority Neighborhoods ...... 3 Figure 2: Distribution of Trees by Genus ...... 9 Figure 3: Distribution of Trees by Size ...... 10 Figure 4: Tree Genus Distribution ...... 25 Figure 5: Tree Planting Priority Streets ...... 26 Figure 6: Tree Planting Priority Streets and Tree Size ...... 27

Table Table 1: Number of Trees Inventoried by Species ...... 11

Introduction

DVRPC offers technical assistance to member governments for environmental planning and sustainability-related issues every year through the Environmental Planning Program of the DVRPC Work Program. Each year, DVRPC selects projects to work on that will further the goals of DVRPC’s long-range plan, Connections – The Regional Plan for a Sustainable Future. In Fiscal Year 2013, DVRPC assisted the City of Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Department (PP&R) with a street tree inventory to promote the following goals of Connections:

 Manage Stormwater and Improve Water Quality

 Promote Community Green Infrastructure

and specifically to promote the Connections policy:

 Promote the planting and stewardship of shade trees in suburban and urban areas to enhance property values, provide energy savings, store and sequester carbon, clean the air, and absorb stormwater.

Study Purpose and Need

The Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Department (PP&R) has Figure 1: Tree Priority Neighborhoods identified eight neighborhoods in the city with the highest priority for new trees. These tree priority neighborhoods were selected due to their low percentage of existing tree canopy, population density, and other factors. In planning for increasing the tree canopy of these neighborhoods, it is important to have a baseline understanding of the existing conditions of the urban forest. What is the diversity and age of tree species? Which tree species are thriving, and which are stressed? Which specific blocks should be the focus of new planting initiatives? Where are empty tree pits located? DVRPC initiated a pilot study of two of the tree priority neighborhoods in order to answer these questions so that future tree planting efforts can be better informed, focused, and more effective.

This pilot study inventoried the street trees of the South Philadelphia and Whitman neighborhoods of southeast Philadelphia, located between Snyder and Oregon Avenues from Broad Street east to Delaware Avenue. A section south of Oregon Avenue between Broad and Randolph Streets (the northern part of the Packer Park neighborhood) was added due to additional time available. These adjacent neighborhoods have the highest population density of all tree priority neighborhoods. They are also the only tree priority neighborhoods located in South Philadelphia, a section of the city with challenges for new trees due to its very narrow streets and a population sector considered to be antagonistic toward trees.

Source: DVRPC, 2012

Inventory Mechanics

DVRPC engaged a number of local stakeholders and partner agencies in conducting this inventory, including Philadelphia Parks & Recreation, the U.S. Forestry Service Philadelphia Field Station, Morris Arboretum, Azavea, and others. The inventory was compiled through the website PhillyTreeMap.org, developed by Azavea. Prior to the inventory, Azavea had developed a version of the website compatible for mobile devices. Azavea also generously donated the use of two iPads for use in the field to complete the study. DVRPC hired two Temple University landscape architecture graduate students to conduct the inventory.

Using the donated iPads, the graduate student interns conducted field work during the summer of 2012. They worked together throughout as a two-person team. The data was recorded directly into the website PhillyTreeMap.org. At the beginning stages of the study, certain features of the website were not fully operational, and data was recorded manually and then entered later into the website. The species, size (DBH), plot condition, and tree condition of each tree was recorded.

The interns determined the tree species of each tree based on knowledge gained through their landscape architecture education and work experiences. In cases in which a tree species was not known, they consulted tree identification books they had brought with them. When a particular variant could not be identified, the genus was recorded. The size of each tree was recorded by the diameter at breast height (DBH), measured through a diameter scale tape measure. Measurements were in inches and rounded to the nearest quarter inch. Site conditions for the trees included the presence of overhead power lines and sidewalk damage. The tree condition, or health, was recorded as a range from dead to excellent. Trees were identified as in critical or poor Interns inspect an oddly pruned tree. health due to signs such as epicormic sprouts, leaf scorch, wilting, internal decay, dieback, or other signs of stress or disease.

In addition, empty tree pits where trees were removed were catalogued and provided to PP&R. A total of 120 empty tree pits and 35 dead trees were recorded.

Neighborhood Interactions

The interns engaged in conversation with interested neighbors curious about what they were doing. Many neighbors wanted to know what the species of their tree was. For newer trees, neighbors asked questions about how big the tree would grow, if it would cause a mess on the sidewalk, and if it would cause damage to underground utilities. The reaction from neighbors was about equally divided between people in favor of having more trees versus those wanting to get rid of the street trees.

From the neighbors in support of trees, they voiced the opinion that the shade and beauty that trees provide is worth any negative issues trees may cause. They felt that the trees made their blocks more attractive, and welcomed the birds and other animals the trees attracted. The overall environmental benefit of cleaner air and cooling due to shade was well understood and expressed. However, neighbors were unaware of or not concerned with the impact on stormwater.

Neighbors opposed to trees cited the nuisance caused by trees, including mess left by falling leaves, flowers, and fruit. The risk of underground pipes being broken by tree roots was cited many times. Some residents also feared the risk of property damage from falling tree limbs. The presence of dead trees that had not been removed in spite of requests to the city was also a point of contention.

A tree-lined block provides shade and beauty.

Tree Inventory Results

Through this street tree inventory, over 1,500 trees were Figure 2: Distribution of Trees by Genus identified and recorded. At a total time of approximately 90 hours, there was an average survey time of less than four minutes per tree. There were 79 different tree species identified within 40 genus classifications. Approximately Other (32 three-fourths of all trees were one of five genus genera), 15% classifications: Prunus, Acer, Pyrus, Platanus, and Tilia. Quercus and Zelkova were also found in large numbers. Of Prunus, 25% Prunus all trees inventoried, the median size measured by DBH was Zelkova, 4% Acer 8.75″. The overall health of the street trees was good, with 63% of trees ranked as fair, good, very good or excellent. Pyrus Quercus, 4% Due to technical difficulties, the health of 23% of trees was

Platanus not recorded. Some trees, such as Prunus, were more likely Tilia, 6% to be ranked as good or fair, while other species, like Tilia Zelkova, were more likely to be considered very good. Another 13% were ranked as dead, critical, or poor. Quercus Prunus and Acer were the two dominant genera of trees in Platanus, 11% Zelkova Acer, 22% the survey area, making up 25% and 22% of all trees, Other (32 genera) respectively. There were 12 species of Prunus that were found, with the vast majority being Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium). Ten species of Acer were recorded, with Norway Pyrus, 13% Maple (Acer platinoides) being dominant. The median DBH was 6.75″ for Prunus trees and 7.75″ for Acer trees. The size distribution of these two genera was roughly similar, with a drop-off in population for trees larger than 12″ DBH. Source: DVRPC, 2012

Pyrus and Platanus made up 13% and 11% of all trees, respectively. The Pyrus trees were exclusively Callery Pear, with the exception of one Common Pear. The Platanus trees were exclusively London Planetree (AKA London Plane) (Platanus x acerifolia). The median DBH was 8.50″ for Pyrus trees and 27.00″ for Platanus trees. Most Pyrus trees were less than 11″ DBH, although there were some found to be greater than 20″ DBH. There were few small Platanus trees, with most being larger than 24″ DBH.

Tilia comprised 6% of all trees, and Quercus and Zelkova comprised 4% each. There were three species of Tilia (linden or basswood), seven species of Quercus (oak), and one species of Zelkova. The median DBH was 14.25″ for Tilia, 13.38″ for Quercus, and 12.00″ for Zelkova. All three genera ranged in size distribution from small to large.

Figure 3: Distribution of Trees by Size

140

120

100 Trees

80 of

60 Number 40

0 1"

9.99 8.99 7.99 6.99 5.99 4.99 3.99 2.99 1.99 10.99 11.99 12.99 13.99 14.99 15.99 16.99 17.99 18.99 19.99 20.99 21.99 22.99 23.99 24.99 25.99 26.99 27.99 28.99 29.99 30.99 31.99 32.99 33.99 34.99 35.99 36.99 37.99 38.99 39.99 40.99 41.99 42.99 43.99 44.99 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ than ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Less 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Source: DVRPC, 2012

10 Philadelphia Street Tree Survey: South Philadelphia and Whitman

Table 1: Number of Trees Inventoried by Species

Median Scientific Name Common Name Number Health * DBH (″)

Acer campestre Hedge maple 69 5 8.75

Acer negundo Boxelder 2 4 1.25

Acer nigrum Black maple 10 4 6.54

Acer palmatum Japanese maple 4 6 1.75

Acer platanoides Norway maple 118 4 10.83

Acer rubrum Red maple 74 5 7.25

Acer saccharinum Silver maple 25 5 4.50

Acer saccharum Sugar maple 3 4.5 3.50

Acer tataricum Tatarian maple 16 4 1.88

Acer x freemanii Freeman maple 7 5 3.00

Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven 1 2 9.75

Amelanchier arborea Downy serviceberry 1 6 7.71

Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry 2 5.5 5.50

Betula nigra River birch 1 3 13.40

Carpinus betulus European hornbeam 4 5 2.63

Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 7 6 2.13

Celtis occidentalis Northern hackberry 2 4.5 1.88

Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud 5 5 3.25

Cladrastis kentukea Yellowwood 5 5 2.00

Cornus florida Flowering dogwood 4 6 1.38

Cornus kousa Kousa dogwood 8 5 1.63

Cornus spp Dogwood 2 4.5 3.50

Median Scientific Name Common Name Number Health * DBH (″)

Corylus colurna Turkish filbert 1 4 3.00

Cotinus obvatus American smoke tree 1 3 4.50

Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington hawthorn 17 4.5 5.75

Eucommia ulmoides Hardy rubbertree 7 6 3.75

Ficus carica Common fig 1 7 1.50

Fraxinus americana White ash 6 5 9.75

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 18 4 9.38

Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo 3 5.5 5.00

Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust 36 4.5 7.40

Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky coffeetree 1 NA 3.25

Halesia diptera Silverbell 4 NA 1.50

Hibiscus syriacus Rose-of-sharon 1 4 1.75

Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar 1 6 9.00

Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain tree 2 5 14.25

Lagerstroemia indica Crapemyrtle 1 2 1.25

Lagerstroemia spp Common crapemyrtle 1 NA 3.46

Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 2 5 9.29

Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree 1 7 2.25

Maackia amurensis Amur maackia 18 5 12.13

Malus spp Apple 4 4 2.38

Malus transitoria Golden raindrops crabapple 2 3.5 1.63

Malus tschonoskii Crabapple 8 5 5.25

Morus rubra Red mulberry 1 6 6.17

12 Philadelphia Street Tree Survey: South Philadelphia and Whitman

Median Scientific Name Common Name Number Health * DBH (″)

Ostrya virginiana Eastern hophornbeam 4 4 1.54

Phellodendron amurense Amur corktree 1 6 1.50

Platanus x acerifolia London planetree 166 4 27.00

Prunus americana American plum 5 4 4.25

Prunus avium Sweet cherry 129 5 11.00

Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum 72 5 6.25

Prunus maackii Amur chokecherry 3 NA 1.50

Prunus padus European bird cherry 27 4 6.00

Prunus sargentii Sargent cherry 37 5 3.50

Prunus serrulata Kwanzan cherry 32 5 5.75

Prunus spp Plum 1 5 4.25

Prunus subhirtella Higan cherry 1 3 2.33

Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 4 5 2.25

Prunus x incam Okame cherry 42 5 4.19

Prunus yedoensis Yoshino flowering cherry 22 5 12.13

Pyrus calleryana Callery pear 196 5 8.50

Pyrus communis Common pear 1 4 7.37

Quercus acutissima Sawtooth oak 9 5.5 10.75

Quercus bicolor Swamp white oak 3 5.5 2.00

Quercus imbricaria Shingle oak 4 6 8.13

Quercus palustris Pin oak 1 6 17.25

Quercus phellos Willow oak 12 6 9.63

Quercus rubra Northern red oak 28 4 17.96

Median Scientific Name Common Name Number Health * DBH (″)

Quercus velutina Black oak 1 4 5.75

Sorbus aucuparia European mountain ash 6 5 5.75

Syringa reticulata Japanese tree lilac 24 5 1.66

Tilia americana American basswood 18 7 22.00

Tilia cordata Littleleaf linden 41 3 13.66

Tilia tomentosa Silver linden 38 5 13.53

Ulmus americana American elm 2 6.5 38.25

Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm 4 5 4.63

Ulmus pumila Siberian elm 2 5 5.38

Ulmus rubra Slippery elm 10 5 7.63

Zelkova serrata Japanese zelkova 56 5.5 12.00

Total 1,509 5 8.75 Source: DVRPC, 2012

Health* Definition

1 Dead

2 Critical

3 Poor

4 Fair

5 Good

6 Very Good

7 Excellent

NA Not Recorded

14 Philadelphia Street Tree Survey: South Philadelphia and Whitman

Planting Site Recommendations

Larger pit cuts where possible would be beneficial to the health of trees while reducing sidewalk damage. Many tree pits are smaller than the Philadelphia Parks & Recreation standard 3'×3' plot size. Some tree pits with trees had even been covered with concrete or asphalt to the base of the trunk. Where possible, pits should be enlarged to provide trees with the proper amount of soil, water, air, and ability to grow unhindered. Insufficient tree pits lead to more severe effects of drought, nutrient deficiencies, and damage to the tree, sidewalk, and underground pipes.

Tree guards, or fences, installed around trees would help protect trees in a number of ways, especially new trees. These guards should be constructed at the perimeter of the pit, not directly against the trunks, to allow healthy tree growth. Tree guards can protect Roots outgrow a small pit cut. against vehicular damage from opening doors, parking impact, and accidents. They can also discourage pet waste. Tree guards would also prevent bikes from being locked to trees, an all-too-common occurrence. These would also provide a barrier against pedestrians accidentally walking into trees and could discourage children from breaking branches.

Increased trash and recycling facilities throughout the city, particularly adjacent to local take-out businesses, could help reduce the amount of litter deposited in tree pits. In the absence of trash cans, tree pits become receptacles for trash deposited by pedestrians. Litter also enters tree pits through wind or stormwater runoff. Cigarette butts, dog excrement, cans and bottles, and other items of garbage are toxic to trees as well as public health. Providing the neighborhood with proper facilities to dispose of all forms of trash, as well as enforcing the fines associated with littering, could help protect tree health.

A tree guard protects trees from the urban environment.

Maintenance and Establishment Issues

Pruning around overhead wires is a cause for concern in the study area. The quality of the pruning work appears to be destructive to many trees. Many pruning cuts are made in a way that prevents the tree from healing its wounds properly, which may increase susceptibility to pests and disease. The current practices observed remove far too many branches at once and prune more of the canopy than is necessary to protect the overhead wires. In particular, older, more substantial trees such as London Planes have great difficulty with such severe pruning cuts. For trees under overhead wires, greater care should be taken to prune them when they are smaller so they can be trained to grow around the wires. Evidence of older successful pruning jobs was found around Marconi Plaza on 13th Street.

Establishment of new trees is another cause for concern in the study area. Many newly planted trees were suffering signs of drought (leaf wilting, leaf scorch, etc.) due to lack of adequate watering. Many pits would benefit from mulching. A baseline level of tree pruning to remove dead branches and train leaders to grow properly would be beneficial.

The interns noted what appeared to be evidence of fire blight on Prunus trees in the study area. Where one Prunus tree was affected on a block, others were as well. Fire blight is a bacterial infection that can be spread by rain, wind, or pruning tools. Signs of fire blight include blackened leaves and cankers on the branches and trunk.

Improving dead tree response and removal would be helpful to prevent property damage and improve the street tree culture of the neighborhood. Neighbors of dead trees reported trying to Over-pruning can cause twig dieback. get the trees removed for years unsuccessfully. Residents reported being less supportive of new trees being planted when there are dead trees that are not removed.

High Priority Planting Locations

Streets entirely lacking trees were located throughout, but were found primarily in the center and in some eastern portions of the study area. Wider, more heavily used corridors would benefit most from new trees. These corridors include tree-deficient portions of Snyder Street, Moyamensing Avenue, Wolf Street, Ritner Street, Porter Street, and Shunk Street. Frequent driveways and garages, commercial signage, and overhead wires make Oregon Avenue a difficult corridor for tree plantings. North-south corridors with high priority for tree plantings include portions of South Broad Street, 13th Street, 12th Street, 10th Street, 8th Street, 7th Street, 6th Street, 5th Street, 4th Street, and 3rd Street.

These more prominent streets are less likely to have underground utilities and more likely to have wider sidewalks that can better accommodate tree pits. Corridor streets also tend to have less shade cover from buildings. As wider streets, they are also responsible for larger volumes of stormwater runoff. Corridor streets serve as main arteries for residents and nonresidents, and improving the streetscape aesthetics through tree plantings will add to the quality of life of the entire neighborhood. Many of Many blocks in the study area completely lack trees, like 10th Street shown here. these streets lead to parks, and tree-lined streets will increase the feeling of connectivity between these parks and the surrounding neighborhood.

For east-west streets, planting on the north side of the street would be most beneficial to allow for generous southern exposure. For north-south streets, trees on either side would receive adequate sunlight.

Figures 5 and 6 on pages 26-27 highlight the high priority planting streets in the study area.

Street Tree Recommendations

Based on the tree health assessment conducted through this study, the following list of recommendations for different growing conditions has been developed. The species recommendations are not limited to those conditions exclusively, as many species can thrive in a variety of settings. These recommendations indicate what species may grow best in these unique situations in the urban environment.

The superscript “N” denotes a species that is native to Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Overall: These species can handle a wide variety of growing conditions in the urban environment. Understory Trees: These trees are good for filling in  Ginko (Ginko biloba) gaps among rows of larger established trees. These  Honey LocustN (Gleditsia triacanthos) trees can handle filtered/part-shade and competition as  Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera) well as full sun later in the tree’s life.  Silver Linden (Tilia tomentosa) N  Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra)  Red Maple (Acer rubrum) N  Japanese Zelkova (Zelkova serrata)  Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)  Tatarian Maple (Acer tataricum)  Boxelder MapleN (Acer negundo) Narrow Streets or Below Power Line: These trees  American HornbeamN (Carpinus caroliniana) grow smaller and/or can handle significant pruning.  Eastern RedbudN (Cercis canadensis)  Flowering DogwoodN (Cornus florida) N  Allegheny Serviceberry (Amelanchier laevis)  Native ash species (Fraxinus) N  Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis)  Native oak species (Quercus) N  Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida and other  European Mountain Ash (Sorbus aucuparia) Cornus)  Japanese Zelkova (Zelkova serrate)  Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera)  Cherry Species (Prunus) – Do not handle severe pruning well, especially when mature.

Northern Exposure Trees: These trees can survive in almost complete shade. The “*” denotes that the tree or shrub prefers a shadier environment and would not do well in other locations.

 Japanese Maple* (Acer palmatum)  Eastern RedbudN (Cercis canadensis)  Dogwood species (Cornus)  Ginko (Ginko biloba)

Wide Streets: The following are larger tree species that can be supported on main arterial streets.

 Native maple species (Acer)  American HornbeamN (Carpinus caroliniana)  Native ash species (Fraxinus)  Ginko (Ginko biloba)  Honey LocustN (Gleditsia triacanthos)  SweetgumN (Liquidambar styraciflua)  Native oak species (Quercus)  American BasswoodN (Tilia americana) The Slippery Elm is one of the hardiest trees in  Chinese Elm (Ulmus parviflora) the urban environment.

22 Philadelphia Street Tree Survey: South Philadelphia and Whitman

Tree Inventory Maps

The following three maps illustrate the data collected as part of this street tree inventory. Figure 4 displays the variety of tree genus classifications. The seven most common genera, making up 85 percent of all trees, are identified individually. The “other” category comprises 32 different genera. Figure 5 highlights the tree planting priority streets, which were selected based on the criteria outlined on page 19. In Figure 6, the trees are represented proportionally based on their diameter at breast height (DBH) along with the highlighted tree planting priority streets.

These descriptive maps are intended to help guide the PP&R and local tree tending groups to better understand the existing urban tree canopy characteristics in the study area so that future planting efforts can be made strategically.

K E

N MIFFLIN R MIFFLIN MIFFLIN N

U A I R Y

K Y R

H A E A

S R

P T

U T G W S O HOFFMAN HOFF E MAN

2 HOFFMAN R

S A

N A N

N O

D I

P A G E

U L W

L M

A S Figure 4:Tree Genus Distribution O

J N D E L I

J E DUDLEY S C DUDLEY S A

W S

I G 5 N

0 E

N MC KEAN M

O A

D R Y

N S

E O P

T ILY N EMILY EM EMILY EMILY I EMILY I R I

T I M L

D H I

A L

C C H MERCY I MERCY

U W MERCY MERCY T

R P

E U

P H H

T SNYDER 6 0

R d

K D

E n

C R

e u

CANTRELL A k o

N r

r C

I W W u g

M E

y O B

E WINTON C

a H l

H C

S I P A C

JACKSON D O

E E

D S

T TREE L TREE TREE R

I T G

N N I E

A S

E N TREE E

I E

L LY U DA W DALY M DALY A S

C Y

O E

A M D

D WOLF E WOLF L

Y K W

C C

R A

DURFOR R URFOR Mifflin O D DURFOR E DURFOR R

E N D Square E

P A

L N R FITZGERALD FITZGERALD I RALD L

A FITZGE A FITZGERALD O

A W E

N D

E N

RITNER L

P A

N E

I V

R U

T D

A Y C

E S R

C E

N S

G GLADSTONE GLADSTONE E

A R

R N N

E E

R N

T D I

M J

A K

R O

E A

D L

S A

S I R W

R N

ROSEBERRY W C H

E ROSEBERRY N

O M

3 A R N

O T

E I S

S I

0 A L I

E 3 L H

S L

A R

W 1 I

T T K

A A

PORTER S

7 A

E N

L O

P 0

R N U

C R

A J A

B B

W F D

K I

O R

C R

L E E

O E MER

VOLL L D

P H

A L K

D S

N P

G A

C I

R H

A E

O C T

A S

W N T 8

C A G SHUNK

S R N

N N M

I E

O A A

A J

L M

H S

R H

H C Y Murphy N

L E

E I

C E

I S

P SAINT MICHAEL

I S

H I

I Recreation

0 T R R

I T

C Center A

A A T Parks

D A

J F

W Z

H A

OREGON L P

Genus

A X MOLLBORE MOLLBORE M

MOLLBORE E T

I D

E Acer H

MOLLBORE L MOLLBORE R

MOLLBORE H

R L E L

P A

0 L

N A

L I

I W

O H V

N A

D R R

Marconi Plaza JOHNSTON E Platanus

I L

R N

E A

R N

A A

F C

D H

A C M

R O

H A

D A

H E

E N

T L

T M N

T Prunus D

R U

A L

0 A

C A R

L B

I W F M Pyrus

BIGLER

R E

T P

H I SCHUYLKILL EXP Quercus

T STELLA MARIS N

O U

R J F Tilia POLLOCK SCH UYL KILL EXP Zelkova 0 500 1,000 SCHUYLKILL SCHUYLKILL September 2012 Other ² Feet K E

N MIFFLIN R MIFFLIN MIFFLIN N

U A I R Y

K Y R

H A E A

S R

P T

U T G W S O HOFFMAN HOFF E MAN

2 HOFFMAN R

S A

N A N

N O

D I

P A G E

U L W

L M

A S Figure 5: Tree Planting Priority Streets O

J N D E L I

J E DUDLEY S C DUDLEY S A

W S

I G 5 N

0 E

N MC KEAN M

O A

D R Y

N S

E O P

T ILY N EMILY EM EMILY EMILY I EMILY I R I

T I M L

D H I

A L

C C H MERCY I MERCY

U W MERCY MERCY T

R P

E U

P H H

T SNYDER 6 0

R d

K D

E n

C R

e u

CANTRELL A k o

N r

r C

I W W u g

M E

y O B

E WINTON C

a H l

H C

S I P A C

JACKSON D O

E E

D S

T TREE L TREE TREE R

I T G

N N I E

A S

E N TREE E

I E

L LY U DA W DALY M DALY A S

C Y

O E

A M D

D WOLF E WOLF L

Y K W

C C

R A

DURFOR R URFOR Mifflin O D DURFOR E DURFOR R

E N D Square E

P A

L N R FITZGERALD FITZGERALD I RALD L

A FITZGE A FITZGERALD O

A W E

N D

E N

RITNER L

P A

N E

I V

R U

T D

A Y C

E S R

C E

N S

G GLADSTONE GLADSTONE E

A R

R N N

E E

R N

T D I

M J

A K

R O

E A

D L

S A

S I R W

R N

ROSEBERRY W C H

E ROSEBERRY N

O M

3 A R N

O T

E I S

S I

0 A L I

E 3 L H

S L

A R

W 1 I

T T K

A A

PORTER S

7 A

E N

L O

P 0

R N U

C R

A J A

B B

W F D

K I

O R

C R

L E E

O E MER

VOLL L D

P H

A L K

D S

N P

G A

C I

R H

A E

O C T

A S

W N T 8

C A G SHUNK

S R N

N N M

I E

O A A

A J

L M

H S

R H

H C Y Murphy N

L E

E I

C E

I S

P SAINT MICHAEL

I S

H I

I Recreation

0 T R R

I T

C Center A

A A

D A

J F

W Z

H A

OREGON L

A X MOLLBORE MOLLBORE M

MOLLBORE E T

E H

MOLLBORE L MOLLBORE R

MOLLBORE H

R L E L

P A

0 L

N A

L I

I W

O H V

N A

D R R

Marconi Plaza JOHNSTON E

I L

R N

E A

R N

A A

F C

D H

A C M

R O

H A

D A

H E

E N

T L

T M

N T D

R U

A L

0 A

C A R

L B

I W F

BIGLER

R E

T P

H I SCHUYLKILL EXP

T STELLA MARIS N

O U

R J TreF e Planting Priority Street POLLOCK SCH UYL KILL EXP Existing Tree 0 500 1,000 SCHUYLKILL SCHUYLKILL September 2012 ² Feet Parks K E

N MIFFLIN R MIFFLIN MIFFLIN N

U A I R Y

K Y R

H A E A

S R

P T

U T G W S O HOFFMAN HOFF E MAN

2 HOFFMAN R

S A

N A N

N O

D I

P A G E

U L W

L M

A S Figure 6: Tree Planting Priority Streets and Tree Size O

J N D E L I

J E DUDLEY S C DUDLEY S A

W S

I G 5 N

0 E

N MC KEAN M

O A

D R Y

N S

E O P

T ILY N EMILY EM EMILY EMILY I EMILY I R I

T I M L

D H I

A L

C C H MERCY I MERCY

U W MERCY MERCY T

R P

E U

P H H

T SNYDER 6 0

R d

K D

E n

C R

e u

CANTRELL A k o

N r

r C

I W W u g

M E

y O B

E WINTON C

a H l

H C

S I P A C

JACKSON D O

E E

D S

T TREE L TREE TREE R

I T G

N N I E

A S

E N TREE E

I E

L LY U DA W DALY M DALY A S

C Y

O E

A M D

D WOLF E WOLF L

Y K W

C C

R A

DURFOR R URFOR Mifflin O D DURFOR E DURFOR R

E N D Square E

P A

L N R FITZGERALD FITZGERALD I RALD L

A FITZGE A FITZGERALD O

A W E

N D

E N

RITNER L

P A

N E

I V

R U

T D

A Y C

E S R

C E

N S

G GLADSTONE GLADSTONE E

A R

R N N

E E

R N

T D I

M J

A K

R O

E A

D L

S A

S I R W

R N

ROSEBERRY W C H

E ROSEBERRY N

O M

3 A R N

O T

E I S

S I

0 A L I

E 3 L H

S L

A R

W 1 I

T T K

A A

PORTER S

7 A

E N

L O

P 0

R N U

C R

A J A

B B

W F D

K I

O R

C R

L E E

O E MER

VOLL L D

P H

A L K

D S

N P

G A

C I

R H

A E

O C T

A S

W N T 8

C A G SHUNK

S R N

N N M

I E

O A A

A J

L M

H S

R H

H C Y Murphy N

L E

E I

C E

I S

P SAINT MICHAEL

I S

H I

I Recreation

0 T R R

I T

C Center A

A A

D A

J F

W Z

H A

OREGON L

A X MOLLBORE MOLLBORE M

MOLLBORE E T

E H

MOLLBORE L MOLLBORE R

MOLLBORE H

R L E L

P A

0 L

N A

L I

I W

O H V

N A

D R R

Marconi Plaza JOHNSTON E

I L

R N

E A

R N

A A

F C

D H

C Tree Planting Priority Street M

R O

H A

D A

H E

E N

T L

T M

N T D

R U

A L

0 A

C A R

L B

I W Parks F

M BIGLER

R DBH (inches) E

T P

H I SCHUYLKILL EXP

T STELLA MARIS N

O U

0.7R 5 - 4.99 J

POLLOCK SCH 5.00 - 10.99 UYL KILL EXP 0 500 1,000 SCHUYLKILL 11.00 - 19.99 SCHUYLKILL September 2012 20.00 - 44.50 ² Feet

Publication Title: Philadelphia Street Tree Survey: South Philadelphia and Whitman

Publication Number: 13006

Date Published: January 2013

Geographic Area Covered: Philadelphia, PA

Key Words: Parks and Recreation, Philadelphia, streetscape, trees, urban forestry.

Abstract: This report documents the process and results from the street tree survey conducted by DVPRC during the summer of 2012.

Staff Contact: Amy K. Miller, AICP Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Environmental Planner 190 N. Independence Mall West, 8th Floor  (215) 238-2930 Philadelphia, PA 19106  [email protected] Phone: (215) 592-1800 Fax: (215) 592-9125 Internet: www.dvrpc.org