Street Tree Inventory Report Foster-Powell Neighborhood November 2014 Street Tree Inventory Report: Foster-Powell Neighborhood November 2014

Written by: Kat Davidson, Angie DiSalvo, Jen Gorski, Jeremy Grotbo, Lele Kimball and Jeff Ramsey Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry 503-823-4484 [email protected] http://portlandoregon.gov/parks/treeinventory

Foster-Powell Tree Inventory Organizers: Kate Carone, Karl MacNair, Meg McHutchison, Joseph Schlechter and Rick Till

Staff Neighborhood Coordinator: Jen Gorski and Lele Kimball

Data Collection Volunteers: Li Alligood, Naomi Bishop, Ben Brady, Jonathan Brandt, Jenn Brenner, Dylan Carlson, Kate Carone, Alayna Cato, Amie Chapman, Deidre Charlton, Katie Charlton, Angela Cortal, Kat Davidson, Jenai Fitzpatrick, Lise Gervais, Meara Gordanier, Sandra Johnson, Jennifer Karps, James Keiter, Sean Kelly, Steve Larson, Natasha Lipai, Virgil Llewellyn, Amy Lodholz, Sochetra Ly, Zosia Lynch, Jeffrey Lynott, Jan Maas, Jonathan Maas, Karl MacNair, Susie MacPherson, Meg McHutchison, Megan Meek, Taylor Meek, Louis Miles, Matthew Nenninger, Victoria Oglesbee, Erika Palmer-Wilson, Nick Panaras, Nathalie Paravicini, Jed Roberts, Joseph Schlechter, Paige Schlupp, Tina Serrano, Lori Snow, Betsy Tighe, Rick Till and Greg Weston

Data Entry Volunteers: Sachi Arakawa, Jason Berney, Alayna Cato, Peter Del Zotto, Nikhilesh Desai, Cecily Douglas, Mike Ellis, Erin Etchison, John Frewing, Zeph Friedman-Sowder, Lise Gervais, Dan Grilli, Lauren Kael, Patrick Key, Jerek Laursen, Christopher Lewis, Edelina Naydenova, Kathryn Strang, Jayme Taylor, Megan Van de Mark, Madison Weakley and Giovanna Zivny

Arborist-on-Call Volunteers: Fred Nilsen, Jim Sjulin and Ruth Williams

GIS Technical Support: Josh Darling, Portland Parks & Recreation

Financial Support: Portland Parks & Recreation ver. 11/1/2014

Portland Parks & Recreation 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1302 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 823-PLAY Commissioner Amanda Fritz www.PortlandParks.org Director Mike Abbaté Table of Contents

Key Findings ...... 1

About Portland’s Street Tree Inventory ...... 3 The importance of street trees ...... 3 The inventory process ...... 3

Foster-Powell Street Tree Inventory ...... 5

Neighborhood Characteristics ...... 5

Urban Forest Composition ...... 6 Species diversity and tree type composition ...... 6 Functional tree type ...... 8 Size class distribution ...... 9 Mature tree form distribution ...... 10 Importance value ...... 10

Tree Condition ...... 11

Planting Site Composition and Stocking Level ...... 12 Planting sites ...... 13 Stocking level ...... 13 Right tree in the right place ...... 14

Replacement Value ...... 15

Environmental and Aesthetic Benefits ...... 16

Recommendations ...... 19

Next Steps ...... 21

References ...... 23

Appendices ...... 25 A: Methods ...... 25 B: Street trees of Foster-Powell by tree type ...... 27 C: Street trees of Foster-Powell by size (map) ...... 30 D: Young street trees (trees ≤ 3” DBH) (map) ...... 31 E: Large street trees (trees > 24” DBH) (map) ...... 32 F: Poor and dead street trees (map) ...... 33 G: Planting site types (map) ...... 34 H: Planting site sizes (map) ...... 35 I: Available street tree planting spaces (map) ...... 36 J: Priority street tree planting spaces (map) ...... 37

Portland Parks & Recreation i Volunteers, guided by Portland Parks & Recreation Urban Forestry staff, collected data on all 2,325 street trees within Foster-Powell neighborhood to compile the neighborhood’s first complete street tree inventory. The data are being used to inform the creation of a Neighborhood Tree Plan to guide volunteers in caring for their community’s trees.

ii Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Key Findings

This report provides the results of a street tree inventory conducted in Foster-Powell neighborhood in 2014, along with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) Urban Forestry staff recommendations for the Foster- Powell tree team. Over the course of four work days, 50 volunteers contributed 276 hours collecting data on each of the neighborhood’s 2,325 street trees.

URBAN FOREST STRUCTURE • Foster-Powell’s street trees are dominated by linden, crabapple, plum, and maple and does not meet recommended species diversity guidelines. While 87 tree types were found in this inventory, only two families, Rosaceae and Sapindaceae, account for more than 50% of the resource leaving Foster-Powell’s street tree population vulnerable to pests, pathogens, and a changing climate. The dominance of broadleaf deciduous trees found in this inventory points to a need to diversify functional, as well as genetic diversity in order to maximize value and create a more resilient, sustainable urban forest.

• Young trees are overrepresented in Foster-Powell. This is likely the result of successful tree planting efforts in recent years and provides an opportunity for inexpensive young tree maintenance activities that will reduce future costs and ensure the longevity of these trees. If young trees are properly cared for today, Foster-Powell will have a healthier age distribution of street trees in the future.

• Large form trees are necessary to increase canopy cover and the benefits they provide for Foster-Powell’s residents. Only 20% of Foster-Powell’s street trees are large form species. Planting the estimated 117 large available spaces will help maximize tree canopy in Foster-Powell's rights-of- way.

PLANTING SITES AND STOCKING LEVEL • The predominance of small planting sites in Foster-Powell poses a challenge to the growth and longevity of street trees. Small sites represent 51% of planting spaces in the neighborhood. While it is important to plant all available spaces, in some areas this may not be enough to equitably distribute canopy in Foster-Powell. Creative expansion of planting sites or increased planting on private property may be the only ways to meet canopy goals.

• Street tree stocking level in Foster-Powell is 39%. Planting efforts should focus on the largest sites with no overhead high voltage wires first, as large form trees will provide the most long-term benefits to the neighborhood.

URBAN FOREST VALUE AND BENEFITS • Foster-Powell’s street trees produce approximately $133,000 annually in environmental and aesthetic benefits.The calculated replacement value of this resource is $4.8 million. Planting efforts focused on appropriately sized trees distributed across the neighborhood will ensure that future benefits are equitably distributed among all residents.

Portland Parks & Recreation 1 Clockwise from top left: 1) Paperbark maple (Acer griseum) planted in a large site, highlighting a missed opportunity for a larger form specimen. 2) A typical small planting strip with young trees. 3) The largest diameter right-of-way tree in Foster-Powell neighborhood is a Douglas- fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Firland Parkway on SE 72nd Avenue. 4) Foster-Powell’s low stocking level means that there are still a lot of places to plant trees.

2 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 About Portland’s Street Tree Inventory

THE IMPORTANCE OF STREET TREES Street trees are an important public asset in urban environments, serving as a buffer between our transportation corridors and our homes while enhancing the livability of our city. As integral components of a community’s green infrastructure, street trees provide multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits such as cleaner air and water, cooler summer temperatures, safer streets, and increased property values. Unlike traditional, “grey” infrastructure, which begins to deteriorate the moment it is installed, the benefits that street trees provide increase over the lifetime of the tree, making their planting and maintenance one of the best investments a city and its residents can make. While street trees are only one component of Portland’s urban forest, they are particularly important because they are the trees that residents Urban forests are complex, living interact with most. Having adequate information resources that interact both about the street tree population allows a community to make informed decisions about species selection, positively and negatively with the planting, and maintenance priorities. Information on surrounding environment. They the location, condition, and diversity of the street tree produce multiple benefits and have population enables our communities to steward this resource and ensure its continued benefits into the associated management costs. In order future. Undertaking a street tree inventory is not only to fully realize the benefits, a sound an investment in the current and future well-being of the trees, but in the community itself. understanding of the urban forest

THE INVENTORY PROCESS resource is needed. This understanding Portland’s Tree Inventory Project began with a pilot starts at the most basic level with a street tree inventory in 2010, and since then 26 neighborhoods have partnered with Urban Forestry forest inventory to provide baseline to inventory street trees and create action-oriented data for management decisions. Neighborhood Tree Plans. To date, volunteers have identified, measured, and mapped more than 100,000 street trees! Neighborhood groups interested in trees begin by gathering volunteers to help conduct an inventory. Urban Forestry staff provides training, tools, and event organization and together information is collected on tree species, size, health, site conditions, and available planting spaces. Urban Forestry staff analyzes data for each neighborhood and present findings to stakeholders at an annual Tree Summit in November. At the summit, neighborhood groups begin developing tree plans that set achievable strategies to improve existing trees, expand tree canopy, and connect the neighborhood with City and nonprofit resources. The resulting Neighborhood Tree Plan is based on the status and health of street trees and recommends specific actions to improve and expand this resource. Urban Forestry then partners with groups to organize stewardship events, including pruning, planting, and educational workshops. The Tree Inventory Project supports Portland’s Urban Forest Management Plan goals to manage the urban forest to maximize community benefits for all residents, to develop and maintain support for the urban forest, and to protect, preserve, restore, and expand Portland’s urban forest.

Portland Parks & Recreation 3 Neighborhood tree teams and volunteers are the backbone of this inventory. This partnership between residents and government is key to successful management of street trees in Portland, where Urban Forestry regulates street tree removal, planting, and maintenance through a permitting process, and property owners are ultimately responsible for the care and maintenance of trees. Creating a healthy urban forest depends on the active engagement of residents to care for their street trees. If you would like to get involved with Foster-Powell’s urban forest, contact the Foster-Powell Neighborhood Association by visiting http://fosterpowell.com/ or contact Urban Forestry. Data from the inventory are available to the public in spreadsheet or ArcGIS format. Visit the Tree Inventory Project website at http://portlandoregon.gov/parks/treeinventory to learn more about the project and download reports, data, and maps.

Clockwise from top left: 1) Is something missing here? Looking northwest along SE Foster Road. 2) Jujube (Ziziphus jujuba), a small tree with edible fruit traditionally eaten throughout Asia, flourishing in the planting strip. This is the first jujube in more than 100,000 trees inventoried in Portland—what a unique find! 3) A large black walnut (Juglans nigra) that is dwarfing the neighboring smaller stature species. 4) Foster-Powell’s alleyways create unique planting opportunities and challenges for residents.

4 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Foster-Powell Street Tree Inventory

Neighborhood Characteristics A neighborhood’s history and land use have an important effect on the presence and condition of street trees and on the urban forest in general. Over time, different development patterns have been more or less favorable to street trees. Areas of Portland’s neighborhoods that were designed without the inclusion of street trees or with small planting spaces limit the potential for street trees. With redevelopment of areas and new designs that include adequate space for trees, there is opportunity for increased use of street trees to expand overall tree canopy. Because care and maintenance of Portland’s street trees is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner, rates of homeownership and income can also influence the presence and condition of trees in a neighborhood as the cost of proper maintenance over a tree’s lifetime can be a barrier to planting and tree care. Foster-Powell is a triangular shaped neighborhood covering just under a square mile located in southeast Portland (Figure 1). Foster-Powell neighborhood lies within both the Willamette River and Johnson Creek watersheds. The Foster-Powell neighborhood is bounded by three major transit corridors: SE Powell Boulevard to the north, SE 82nd Avenue to the east, and SE Foster Road running diagonally to the southeast from its origin at SE Powell Boulevard and SE 50th Avenue.

Figure 1: Location of Foster-Powell neighborhood in Portland

0 SOUTH TABOR

E S SE POWELL BLVD

D S

6 Kern Park Essex Park CRESTON-KENILWORTH E

FOSTER-POWELL A

SE HOLGATE BLVD 2

E Laurelwood Park S SE LENTS FO ST ER RD

WOODSTOCK

MT. SCOTT-ARLETA

The Foster-Powell neighborhood began as the Kern Park streetcar subdivision in the early 1900s. When Foster Road was developed from an old wagon trail in the early 20th century, Foster Rd. was Portland’s widest street with 17-foot wide sidewalks modeled after Parisian boulevards. After economic decline during the 1970s and 1980s this area of southeast Portland is making a comeback with new shops and restaurants opening along SE Foster Rd. and there are plans for SE Foster Rd. streetscape improvements. With the influx of young families and immigrants to the neighborhood, Foster-Powell has gained a reputation for its ethnic diversity with Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Hispanic populations. Most of the commercial activity occurs on the fringes of the neighborhood, along SE Powell Blvd., SE Foster Rd., and SE 82nd Ave., while the interior is largely residential. The majority of residences are detached single-family homes built before 1960. Many of the residential blocks have gravel alley ways running through the middle creating unique opportunities and challenges for residents. Additionally, there are several locally

Portland Parks & Recreation 5 owned dining and drinking establishments around the exterior of the neighborhood, and a few community spaces including Holgate Library, a few schools, and various places of worship. There are three parks in Foster-Powell—Essex Park, Kern Park, and Laurelwood Park—along with the nine acre Multnomah Park Cemetery, and Firland Parkway on SE 72nd Avenue. Tree canopy covers 15% of Foster-Powell, well below Portland’s citywide canopy level of 29% (Metro 2008). Foster-Powell’s population density is higher than citywide averages, at 13 persons per acre (Table 1). Home ownership is slightly higher than citywide averages, as 58% of homes in Foster-Powell are owner-occupied. Furthermore, 54% of Foster-Powell households are considered low income.

Table 1: Neighborhood and citywide demographics

Demographics Foster-Powell Portland (2010 Census) Area 568 acres 85,376 acres Population 7,335 583,776 Density 13 persons/acre 7 persons/acre

67% white, 3% black, 9% Hispanic/ 72% white, 6% black, 9% Hispanic/Latino, Race Latino, 1% Native American, 13% Asian, 1% Native American, 7% Asian, 1% 2% Pacific Islander, 4% mixed race Pacific Islander, 4% mixed race

% of properties occupied 58% 54% by homeowners % of low income 54% 45% households

Urban Forest Composition

SPECIES DIVERSITY AND TREE TYPE COMPOSITION A diverse tree population in terms of species, age, form, and function maximizes urban forest benefits through time while minimizing costs and risk. Maintaining a diverse species mix is a critical way to promote a healthy and resilient urban forest. The conventional metric for evaluating urban forest species diversity is the 10-20- 30 rule (Santamour 1990), according to which the urban forest consists of no more than 10% of one species, 20% of one genus, or 30% of one family. However, this guideline has been found to be inadequate in some cases, leaving cities vulnerable to catastrophic forest loss due to pests and pathogens (Raupp et. al 2006). Considering Portland’s temperate climate, where a great variety of trees are able to thrive, limiting this to 5-10-20, as other progressive urban forestry programs have, should be the goal. Trees were identified to the genus or species level and categorized as “tree types” (Appendix A).

Results Foster-Powell’s public rights-of-way hosts a wide variety of tree types. The street tree population consists of 2,325 trees of 87 tree types (Appendix B). Linden is the most common tree type, representing 9.0% of all street trees (Table 2). Crabapple, plum, and other maples (those not identified to the species level, see Appendix A) are also common, representing 6.9%, 6.8%, and 6.8% of trees, respectively. The most common 15 tree types comprise 73.0% of the resource, leaving the remaining tree types to each represent 2.0% or less of the street tree population.

6 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Seventy-two genera are Table 2: The 15 most abundant street tree types in Foster-Powell represented in the Common # of % of Mean neighborhood (Table 3). Tree Type Name Trees Total DBH The Acer genus comprises a significant portion of the linden Tilia spp. 206 9.0% 12.2 resource at 22.3%, followed by crabapple Malus spp. 158 6.9% 3.1 Prunus at 12.8% and Tilia at plum Prunus spp. 157 6.8% 8.1 9.0%. All other genera comprise maple, other Acer spp. 155 6.8% 5.4 8.0% of the resource or less. maple, Norway Acer platanoides 147 6.4% 16.1 cherry Prunus spp. 130 5.7% 8.1 Thirty-three families pear Pyrus spp. 121 5.3% 7.3 are represented in the ash Fraxinus spp. 109 4.7% 5.3 neighborhood and the 15 most snowbell Styrax spp. 101 4.4% 2.0 abundant families comprise 93.4% of the resource (Table maple, red Acer rubrum 85 3.7% 8.0 4). Rosaceae and Sapindaceae hawthorn Crataegus spp. 82 3.6% 5.7 are the most common families maple, Japanese Acer palmatum 61 2.7% 3.2 and represent 32.2% and 23.3% birch Betula spp. 59 2.6% 7.4 of trees, respectively. All other maple, paperbark Acer griseum 56 2.4% 2.3 families represent 9.0% or less hornbeam Carpinus spp. 50 2.2% 7.3 of the resource each. all others 619 27.0% 6.4 Total 2,296 100.0% 7.2 The Bottom Line Foster-Powell does not meet the 5-10-20 guideline. Of concern Table 3: The 15 most abundant street tree genera in is the high proportion of the Acer Foster-Powell genus with more than two times # of % of the recommended percentage. Genus Tree Types in Genus Trees Total Also of concern is that nearly a third of all trees are in the Acer box elder, maple 511 22.3% Rosaceae family which is more Prunus cherry, peach, plum 295 12.8% than one and a half times the Tilia linden 206 9.0% recommended percentage at the Malus apple, crabapple 184 8.0% family level. Loss of street trees Pyrus pear 135 5.9% can have significant impact at the Fraxinus ash 109 4.7% neighborhood scale. Increasing Styrax snowbell 101 4.4% diversity at the genus and family Crataegus hawthorn 82 3.6% level can help reduce risk and Betula birch 59 2.6% expenses due to the introduction Carpinus hornbeam 50 2.2% of Asian longhorned beetle, Cornus dogwood 46 2.0% emerald ash borer, or other Parrotia Persian ironwood 33 1.4% potential pests and pathogens Cotinus smoketree 32 1.4% which predominately attack select Amelanchier serviceberry 30 1.3% families or genera. Magnolia magnolia 27 1.2% All others 396 17.2% Total 2,296 100.0%

Portland Parks & Recreation 7 Table 4: The 15 most abundant tree families in Foster-Powell

Family # of % of Tree Types Included in the Family Scientific Name Trees Total

apple, cherry, crabapple, hawthorn, mountain ash, ninebark, Rosaceae 739 32.2% peach, pear, plum, quince, serviceberry

Sapindaceae boxelder, goldenrain tree, horsechestnut, maple 535 23.3% Malvaceae linden 206 9.0% Betulaceae birch, hazelnut, hophornbeam, hornbeam 121 5.3% Oleaceae ash, fringe tree, lilac tree 120 5.2% Styracaceae snowbell 101 4.4% Cornaceae dogwood, dove tree, tupelo 57 2.5% Pinaceae cedar, Douglas-fir, hemlock, pine, spruce 39 1.7% arborvitae, cypress, false cypress, incense cedar, juniper, Cupressaceae 38 1.7% Western redcedar Fagaceae beech, chestnut, oak 37 1.6% Amur maackia, black locust, golden chain tree, honey Leguminosae 36 1.6% locust, mimosa tree, redbud, yellow wood Hamamelidaceae Persian ironwood 33 1.4% Anacardiaceae smoketree 32 1.4% Magnoliaceae magnolia, tulip poplar 29 1.3% Theaceae camelia, stewartia 22 1.0% All others 151 6.6% Total 2,296 100.0%

FUNCTIONAL TREE TYPE Trees are categorized into functional types: they are either broadleaf, conifer, or palm and either deciduous or evergreen. In Portland, where the majority of precipitation falls in winter, evergreens reduce storm water runoff during these wet months, improving water quality in our streams and rivers when this function is most needed. During the dry summer months, many evergreen conifers are less reliant on water availability than broadleaf deciduous trees which require more water to drive photosynthesis. Despite their advantages, conifers are challenging to place in rights-of-way, as they typically require larger spaces and their growth form conflicts with overhead wires and traffic sightlines. Figure 2: Functional tree types Results Broadleaf deciduous trees dominate the landscape, accounting for broadleaf 95.4% of all street trees in Foster-Powell (Figure 2). Coniferous deciduous evergreens comprise the next largest portion of Foster-Powell’s street 95% coniferous trees at 3.4%. Broadleaf evergreen trees comprise 1.0% of the total. evergreen 3% The Bottom Line broadleaf The street tree population is dominated by broadleaf deciduous trees. evergreen palm 1% Increasing use of evergreens would enhance certain benefits including 0%

8 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 reduced storm water runoff, and also provide winter cover and habitat for urban wildlife. Though conifers still need adequate water during establishment, in general, they require less water than broadleaf deciduous trees during the increasingly warm and dry Portland summers. Large planting sites with no overhead high voltage power lines provide an opportunity for planting these important trees.

SIZE CLASS DISTRIBUTION Age diversity ensures the continuity of canopy coverage and benefits through time. Although tree species have different life spans and mature at different sizes, older trees will generally have a larger size, as measured by diameter at breast height (DBH). As trees increase in size and age, the value of the tree and the magnitude of the benefits that the tree provides also increase until the tree nears the end of its lifespan and begins to decline. The general management principle underlying size class distribution is to maintain a consistent proportion of young trees in the population—recognizing that there will be some level of mortality as trees grow—while also keeping a good distribution of mid to large sized trees. This will ensure a sustainable age class structure and produce maximum urban forest benefits over time. Trees were categorized into diameter size classes (Appendices C, D, E). Trees that are 0 to 6.0” in diameter represent young trees. Trees that are 6.1to 18” in diameter represent midlife trees, as well as mature small form trees. Trees that are 18.1” or greater in diameter represent mature trees.

Results Foster-Powell streets host a wide range of tree sizes from the smallest sapling to the largest tree, a 44.9” DBH Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga( menziesii). In Foster-Powell, the greatest proportion of trees are in the smaller diameter size classes. An astonishing 41.0% of street trees are 0 to 3.0” and an additional 17.6% of trees are 3.1” to 6.0” DBH (Figure 3). Around a third of trees are mid-size trees with 20.2% between 6.1” and 12.0”, and 13.3% between 12.1” and 18.0” DBH. Only 7.9% are larger than 18.1” DBH, the majority of which are located in Firland Parkway on SE 72nd Avenue between SE Foster Road and SE Holgate Boulevard. Of tree types that represent at least 0.5% of the population, Figure 3: Trees by diameter size class the types with the largest 45.0% mean DBH are Douglas-fir and horse chestnut, with mean 40.0%

DBH of 27.3” and 24.6”, 35.0% respectively (Appendix B). Norway maple has the third 30.0% largest mean DBH at 16.1”. 25.0%

The Bottom Line 20.0% Because the largest proportion of trees in Foster-Powell are in 15.0% the smallest size classes, there 10.0% is an opportunity to address Trees Percent of Total important establishment 5.0% and pruning needs. This will 0.0% reduce future maintenance 0-3.0 3.1-6.0 6.1-12 12.1-18 18.1-24 24 costs and increase the life span Diameter Size Class (inches) of Foster-Powell’s street trees.

Portland Parks & Recreation 9 Proper pruning of young trees can also reduce the likelihood of future hazards and liabilities, such as a limb falling, which is not only potentially costly and dangerous, but can also increase the possibility of decay and mortality in a tree. Making the correct pruning decisions when trees are young ensures the least cost and most benefit to homeowners and the community over a tree’s lifetime. Ideally, Foster-Powell would have a greater proportion of large trees, and caring for today’s young trees is the only way to accomplish that goal.

MATURE TREE FORM DISTRIBUTION Mature tree size is determined by the height, canopy width, and general Figure 4: Tree form sizes form of the tree at maturity; tree types are classified as small, medium, or large. Generally, small trees grow to 30’ in height, medium trees grow to 70 feet 50’ in height, and large trees grow over 50’ in height (Figure 4). Large form trees also have the potential for greatest longevity, living longer 50 feet than most small form trees. 30 feet While some neighborhoods, due to their design, may not have many spaces big enough to accommodate large form trees, it is important that the spaces that do exist are planted with trees that will grow to be large SMALL MEDIUM LARGE at maturity. The cost to a community of under planting large spaces can Mature Tree Size be great over the course of a tree’s lifetime. Research has shown that while small and large form trees have similar annual costs of care and maintenance, a large form tree will live four times longer on average and provide over 16 times the benefits over its lifetime (CUFR 2006). In the case of certain benefits, the disparity is much greater; for example, large trees have been found to remove 60-70 times more air pollution annually than small trees (Nowak 1994).

Results Figure 5: Mature tree size Small form trees in Foster-Powell account for 43.3% of the resource, medium form trees account for 36.8% of the resource, and large form trees large 20% account for 19.9% of the resource (Figure 5). medium The Bottom Line 37% small Our long lived and large form trees provide substantially more benefits 43% than small and medium form trees. Therefore, planting trees that will be large at maturity helps to ensure that canopy cover and its benefits will be maintained or enhanced even as some trees die or are removed. Foster-Powell’s most common large form tree types include linden, red maple, and Douglas-fir. Planting, maintenance, and care for young, large form trees will ensure that they reach maturity, when they will provide the most benefits to the community and the environment.

IMPORTANCE VALUE Another way to evaluate how reliant a community is on a single tree type is importance value. Importance value is a calculation based on relative abundance and relative leaf area. In other words, it accounts for how many trees of the type there are and how much of the neighborhood’s canopy they represent at the time of inventory. The value is expressed as a percentage and it informs us which tree types dominate the urban forest structure. For example, a tree type might represent 10% of a population, but have an importance value of 25 because of their large average size. Conversely, another tree type representing 10% of the population may only have an importance value of 5 if it represents young or small form trees.

10 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Importance values tell us which tree types provide the bulk of the benefits for a particular snapshot in time and will change through time as trees grow and species composition changes. Reliance on only a few tree types of high importance value is risky as loss from a pest, pathogen, or a catastrophic event may put excessive strain on the urban forest even though only a single tree type may be affected. Importance values were calculated using iTree Streets, an urban forest analysis software suite developed by the USDA Forest Service. Table 5: Tree types with the highest importance values Results Norway maple and linden have the Importance Common Name Scientific Name highest importance values of 16.9 Value and 16.0 respectively (Table 5). Thus, Norway maple Acer platanoides 16.9 the Foster-Powell urban forest is linden Tilia spp. 16.0 reliant on these two species due to maple, other Acer spp. 5.8 their current size and abundance in cherry Prunus spp. 5.1 the neighborhood. The next highest pear Pyrus spp. 4.8 importance values are for other maple red maple Acer rubrum 4.5 (those not identified to species, see Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 4.4 Appendix A) at 5.8, cherry at 5.1, and plum Prunus spp. 4.2 pear at 4.8. All other tree types had ash Fraxinus spp. 3.2 importance values of 4.5 or less. crabapple Malus spp. 2.9 The Bottom Line horsechestnut Aesculus spp. 2.8 Trees with the highest importance birch Betula spp. 2.4 values, such as Norway maple and hawthorn Crataegus spp. 1.9 linden, should be de-emphasized in snowbell Styrax spp. 1.6 future plantings to ensure that the street All other trees 23.3 tree population is less susceptible to Total 100.0 loss from a pest or pathogen impacting those tree types. Foster-Powell’s heavy reliance on these tree types in the present means that their loss would have a serious impact on the neighborhood’s urban forest. Increasing the level of maintenance of these large, mature trees will help prolong their lifespan, reduce hazards, and keep these high value members of the urban forest contributing to the neighborhood. Tree Condition The urban environment is a challenging place for trees to thrive because of limited growing space, compacted soil, poor air quality, and direct damage from vehicles and pedestrians. Tree condition reflects species hardiness, site conditions, and maintenance history. Street trees that are well suited to Portland’s climate, are able to withstand the challenges of growing in an urban environment, and have been well maintained are generally the most successful. Tree condition was assessed by assigning trees to one of four categories: good, fair, poor, or dead. These general ratings reflect whether or not a tree is likely to continue contributing to the urban forest (good and fair trees) or whether the tree is at or near the end of its life (poor and dead trees). Because it was subjective for volunteers to determine the difference between good and fair ratings, these categories are reported together.

Portland Parks & Recreation 11 Results Figure 6: Tree condition In general, street trees in Foster-Powell are doing well with 91.1% rated good or fair. Only 7.7% are in poor condition, and 1.2% are dead Poor 8% (Figure 6, Appendix F). ood and Dead Fair 1% Of the most commonly found tree types, the healthiest trees are pear, 91% birch, red maple, and hornbeam, of which, more than 96% were rated good or fair (Table 6). In poorest condition are plum and cherry, of which more than 16% are rated poor.

Tree size, and thus life stage, did Table 6: Tree condition for the most abundant tree types impact tree condition ratings. The greatest percentage of dead % of Total (# of Trees) Common Name Tree Type trees occurred within the 0 to Good/Fair Poor 3.0” DBH class, with 1.7% dead. ash Fraxinus spp. 92.7% (101) 7.3% (8) The bulk of these young trees birch Betula spp. 96.6% (57) 3.4% (2) likely died due to lack of adequate cherry Prunus spp. 83.1% (108) 16.9% (22) watering. Young trees need 15 crabapple Malus spp. 87.3% (138) 12.7% (20) gallons of water each week during hawthorn Crataegus spp. 87.8% (72) 12.2% (10) Portland’s dry summer months for hornbeam Carpinus spp. 96% (48) 4% (2) the first two years after planting. linden Tilia spp. 95.6% (197) 4.4% (9) Establishment of young trees is maple, Japanese Acer palmatum 95.1% (58) 4.9% (3) critical as it is not until trees attain maple, Norway Acer platanoides 87.8% (129) 12.2% (18) larger sizes that they provide the maple, other Acer spp. 94.2% (146) 5.8% (9) greatest benefits. maple, paperbark Acer griseum 94.6% (53) 5.4% (3) The largest trees in Foster- maple, red Acer rubrum 96.5% (82) 3.5% (3) Powell are also in the poorest pear Pyrus spp. 96.7% (117) 3.3% (4) condition. For trees greater than plum Prunus spp. 82.2% (129) 17.8% (28) 24” DBH, 11.1% are rated poor. snowbell Styrax spp. 93.1% (94) 6.9% (7) While larger, more mature trees naturally decline with age, preventative maintenance including proper pruning (e.g., not topping) can extend their lifespan and reduce their risk of failure.

The Bottom Line Large trees in poor condition pose the largest potential risk of failure (i.e., falling apart). Proper early maintenance on young trees, such as structural pruning, is much less expensive than attempting to correct issues in larger trees that have been unmaintained or improperly pruned. Important maintenance activities for young trees include structural pruning to remove co-dominant leaders and pruning trees for branch clearance over sidewalks and roadways to reduce the likelihood of branches being hit by vehicles. Though only a small portion of the street trees in Foster-Powell are in poor condition, these trees represent a great opportunity to improve Foster-Powell’s urban forest. All poor rated trees should be monitored and individually evaluated for potential risk and replacement opportunities. Planting Site Composition and Stocking Level Planting site composition varies greatly amongst neighborhoods and this directly impacts a neighborhood’s capacity for growing large trees that provide the most canopy coverage and benefits. While some

12 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 neighborhoods are lucky enough to have inherited wide planting sites and mature trees, many areas of Portland struggle to establish tree canopy in small planting sites, which are challenging spaces for trees to grow due to limited soil and growing space. Understanding a neighborhood’s composition and distribution of planting sites allows for a more strategic tree planting effort and informs us of potential challenges to tree planting and tree development within the right-of-way.

PLANTING SITES Street trees grow in a diverse array of planting sites ranging from traditional grassy strips between curbs and sidewalks, to concrete cutouts, to unimproved areas without curbs or sidewalks. Tree growth is limited by site width; wider sites provide more soil to support growth and more space aboveground to lessen conflicts with sidewalks and streets. Overhead high voltage wires limit the height of trees, as trees will be pruned away from wires for safety. Planting site sizes are categorized as small, medium, or large based on the width of the planting site and presence of overhead wires. These categories reflect the mature tree size that can be supported by the planting site. In other words, small planting sites can support small trees such as dogwoods and snowbells and large planting sites can support large trees such as oaks and elms. Improved planting sites (i.e., with curbs and sidewalks) generally have a clearly defined width while unimproved sites (i.e., without curbs and sidewalks) do not.

Results In Foster-Powell, 94.1% of street trees are found in improved rights-of-way sites and 5.9% in unimproved rights-of-way (Table 7). Planting strips are the most common tree planting site accounting for 86.2% of the sites. Table 7: Planting site types Figure 7: Planting site sizes

# of % of Site Type Trees Total Large 18% improved sites planting strip 2,004 86.2% cutout 109 4.7% Medium 31% median 65 2.8% Small curbtight 8 0.3% 51% swale 1 0.0% Improved Totals 2,187 94.1% unimproved sites curb only 116 5% no curb or sidewalk 12 0.5% other 10 0.4% Unimproved Totals 138 5.9% Overall 2,325 100%

More than half the sites where street trees are found are small, 31.0% are medium, and 18.2% are large sites (Figure 7, Appendix G). Most of these large sites are located on SE Powell Boulevard; therefore, in the interior of the neighborhood the proportion of large sites where trees are growing is even less.

STOCKING LEVEL Street tree stocking level reflects the percentage of planting spaces that are currently occupied by trees. In Portland, trees are more likely to be planted in large planting sites and improved planting sites. Because this project did not inventory all available planting sites, but only sites where trees are currently growing, data for

Portland Parks & Recreation 13 planting site sizes were supplemented with available planting space data collected by Urban Forestry and the Bureau of Environmental Services staff between 2009 and 2014 (See Appendix A for methods).

Results Ideally, stocking level should be near 100%. Foster-Powell’s stocking level is 39% (Table 8) and 2,888 empty spaces have been identified for tree planting (Appendices H and I). Higher stocking levels are generally observed in larger planting sites and large, improved planting sites are at least 60% stocked. Table 8: Street tree stocking level

Stocking Available Size Type Size Size Planting Site Description Level Planting Spaces improved small 2.5 - 3.9' with or without wires 37% 2,128 sites medium 4.0 - 5.9' without wires 46% 420 large ≥6.0' without wires 60% 104 uncategorized mixed 29% 140 Improved Site Totals 40% 2,792 unimproved medium 4.0 - 5.9’ with or without wires, ≥6’ with wires 26% 79 sites large ≥6.0' without wires 22% 7 uncategorized mixed 57% 10 Unimproved Site Totals 31% 96 Overall 39% 2,888

RIGHT TREE IN THE RIGHT PLACE Selecting an appropriately sized tree for the site is important for maximizing benefits and minimizing avoidable costs. A tree well suited to its location has fewer obstacles to reaching maturity which maximizes the benefits it provides the community and the environment over its lifetime. An inappropriately sized tree, however, may cost more to maintain, be less healthy, and have a shorter lifespan thereby providing fewer benefits. A small form tree planted in a large planting site is a missed opportunity because larger trees contribute many times more benefits than do smaller ones. Planting these sites and replacing undersized trees is especially important in neighborhoods that contain few large planting sites to begin with. Although permits and appropriate species selection are required to plant street trees, historically trees may have been planted without regard to appropriate tree selection.

Results Table 9: Undersized trees in large planting sites In large, improved sites 42.2% of # of undersized % sites with Site Type trees are undersized for the site trees undersized trees (Table 9). In large, unimproved sites improved sites 138 42.1% 66.0% of trees are undersized for the unimproved sites 62 66.0% site. Total 200 47.4% The Bottom Line Planting all available sites with appropriately sized trees will ensure that trees live to maturity at the least cost and greatest benefit to homeowners and the community. Because of the importance of large trees to the urban forest, planting large empty spaces should be a Tree Team’s top priority, followed by replacing dead trees and poor condition undersized trees in large planting sites. In Foster-Powell, this includes an estimated

14 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 117 large sites, most of which are located near Foster Road. Figure 8: Potential acres of tree canopy from planting

Planting these spaces today 25.0 would yield more than 10 acres of potential canopy in 30 years (Appendix A, Figure 8). 20.0 Though much harder to achieve, how would planting all 15.0

available spaces impact Foster- Acres Powell’s canopy? Planting all available sites would result in 10.0 nearly 50 additional acres of potential canopy cover in 30 5.0 years. Additionally, if all of the currently undersized trees in large planting spaces had been 0.0 If all small spaces If all medium If all large spaces If all undersized planted with large form trees, (2245) planted spaces (526) (117) planted trees in large sites this would have added another planted (200) replaced 11 acres of potential canopy. Combined, taking these actions would increase Foster-Powell’s canopy cover an addition 9%! Unfortunately, even this would leave Foster-Powell below Portland’s target of 40% canopy cover for single-family residential neighborhoods. While street trees are an essential component of the urban forest, plantings on private property will also need to be a part of any plan to significantly increase canopy in the neighborhood. Replacement Value Replacement value is an estimate of the full cost of replacing a tree Figure 9: Replacement values by diameter size class at its current size and condition, should it be removed for some $1,800,000 reason. Replacement value is calculated using the tree’s current $1,600,000 size, along with information on $1,400,000 regional species ratings, trunk diameter, and replacement $1,200,000 costs. Replacement values were $1,000,000 calculated using iTree Streets. $800,000 Replacement values are generally highest for the largest, more $600,000 abundant tree types. $400,000 Results $200,000 The replacement cost of Foster- Powell’s street tree population $0 0-3 3.1-6 6.1-12 12.1-18 18.1-24 24 is valued at nearly $4.8 million (Figure 9). Because the value of Diameter Size Class (inches)

Portland Parks & Recreation 15 a tree increases with age, even though trees that are greater than 24” make up only 8.4% of the street tree population, astonishingly, they account for 33% of the replacement value. The tree types with the greatest replacement values are Norway maple ($1,022,000), linden ($662,000), and Douglas-fir ($446,000). These three tree types account for 44.5% of the total replacement value.

The Bottom Line Similar to importance value, high replacement values are both a function of the abundance and size of an existing tree type and do not necessarily represent tree types that should be planted in the future. For example both Norway maple and linden are large form trees that are over represented in the population and should be de-emphasized. However, Douglas-fir accounts for just 1% of the tree population and yet translates into nearly 10% of the dollar value because of its large average DBH of 27” illustrating just how important large trees are. Healthy, diverse, and resilient urban forests have high replacement values as a whole with no one tree type representing a disproportionate amount. In Foster-Powell, de-emphasizing tree types that are already over represented in the population will ensure less vulnerability to pests and pathogens in the future. The high replacement value for the neighborhood’s largest trees shows the need to care for and protect the largest, most valuable trees in the neighborhood. Environmental and Aesthetic Benefits The amount of environmental and aesthetic benefits a tree may provide over its lifetime is a function of its mature size and longevity. Trees with a larger mature size and longer life span such as Douglas-fir or oak will provide significantly greater benefits than small ornamental trees such as dogwoods or snowbells. The calculation indicates the benefits that trees currently provide: as trees grow and the population changes, benefits derived from the various tree types will change within a neighborhood. Foster-Powell’s street tree population was assessed to quantify the dollar value of annual environmental services and aesthetic benefits provided by trees: aesthetic/property value increase, air quality improvement, carbon dioxide reduction, energy savings, and storm water processing. Calculations were made using iTree Streets. The iTree model relies on tree size and species from the inventory, as well as Portland’s current pricing for electricity and natural gas, regional benefit prices for air quality, regional storm water interception costs, and the neighborhood’s median home resale value (Zillow 2014).

Results Foster-Powell’s street trees provide Table 10: Valuation of annual environmental and aesthetic approximately $133,000 annually in benefits environmental services and aesthetic Total ($) Benefits Total ($) benefits (Table 10). An average per tree tree in Foster-Powell provides $58 Aesthetic/property value increase $93,819 $40.86 worth of benefits annually. Air quality improvement $2,295 $1.00 Carbon dioxide reduction $1,153 $0.50 Large form trees produce more Energy savings $6,557 $2.86 benefits on average than smaller Stormwater processing $29,620 $12.90 trees. Of the 15 most common tree Total benefits $133,445 $58.12 types, Norway maple and linden provide the highest annual benefits per tree, at approximately $135 - $139 per tree (Table 11). Snowbell and crabapple provide the least amount of benefits, ranging from $5 to $10 annually.

16 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Table 11: Average annual environmental and aesthetic benefits provided by Foster-Powell’s most abundant street tree types

Aesthetic/ Air CO2 Energy Stormwater Total ($) Tree Type Property Quality Reduction Savings Processing per tree Value apple $20.93 $0.15 $0.09 $0.61 $2.35 $24.11 ash $37.31 $0.53 $0.30 $1.30 $5.96 $45.40 birch $41.16 $0.96 $0.29 $2.71 $11.59 $56.70 cascara $2.22 $0.04 $0.02 $0.13 $0.23 $2.64 cherry $30.10 $1.06 $0.43 $2.75 $11.14 $45.49 crabapple $7.91 $0.19 $0.20 $0.55 $1.40 $10.25 dogwood $37.42 $0.50 $0.27 $2.05 $8.12 $48.36 Douglas-fir $103.74 $4.32 $1.48 $12.71 $105.30 $227.54 glorybower $5.29 $0.12 $0.10 $0.35 $0.80 $6.66 hawthorn $15.63 $0.41 $0.45 $1.16 $3.02 $20.67 hornbeam $22.18 $0.44 $0.14 $1.34 $5.96 $30.04 linden $99.88 $2.01 $0.86 $5.97 $26.62 $135.33 maple, Japanese $51.54 $0.38 $0.23 $1.17 $4.95 $58.26 maple, Norway $81.66 $3.25 $1.48 $8.99 $43.24 $138.61 maple, other $57.05 $0.78 $0.41 $2.29 $9.97 $70.50 maple, paperbark $43.13 $0.16 $0.11 $0.50 $1.99 $45.89 maple, red $62.66 $1.46 $0.53 $4.36 $15.76 $84.77 oak $66.48 $0.70 $0.42 $2.16 $7.36 $77.11 pear $26.41 $1.35 $0.48 $3.19 $13.64 $45.07 Persian ironwood $11.87 $0.03 $0.02 $0.11 $0.45 $12.48 plum $26.14 $0.76 $0.91 $2.09 $5.76 $35.66 serviceberry $3.32 $0.06 $0.04 $0.19 $0.39 $4.01 smoketree $3.25 $0.06 $0.04 $0.19 $0.38 $3.93 snowbell $4.09 $0.08 $0.06 $0.24 $0.52 $4.99

The Bottom Line Large, empty planting spaces in Foster-Powell represent not only an opportunity to expand canopy, but also represent thousands of dollars in potential environmental and aesthetic benefits to Foster-Powell residents. If Foster-Powell planted all of the available large planting spaces with appropriately sized large form trees, in 30 years they will have provided an estimated $225,000 in net benefits (Appendix A). Conversely, if all available large planting spaces were planted with small form trees, they would have only provided $24,000 in net benefits over the same time period. Carefully selecting and planting appropriately sized trees directly impacts the amount of benefits provided by the urban forest. Trees that live longer will always produce more benefits to the community—small form trees have a much shorter lifespan than large form trees and may begin to decline after 30 years, just when large form trees are reaching maturity with decades of benefits to the community to come.

Portland Parks & Recreation 17 18 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Recommendations

Based on street tree inventory data presented in this report, Urban Forestry staff make the following recommendations for the Foster-Powell neighborhood.

PLANTING FOR DIVERSITY AND SIZE • Reduce dependence on trees in the Rosaceae and Sapindaceae families, and trees specifically in theAcer (maple) and Prunus (plum, cherry) genera by planting a diverse array of species, genera, and families. A more diverse urban forest will be more resilient to pests, pathogens, and changing climate conditions.

• Prioritize planting opportunities to plant large, high performing trees that will provide high levels of benefits over their lifetime. These trees would be best planted in the estimated 117 large planting sites (>6’ without overhead wires) that have been identified for planting (Appendix J).

• Plant trees in all available planting spaces but plant the smallest places last. Trees in small planting spaces provide fewer benefits and are more likely to cause sidewalk and clearance problems in a shorter time frame than if they were planted in larger spaces. However, all plantings help contribute to a neighborhood “tree ethic” and encourage others to plant and maintain street trees. Foster- Powell’s street tree stocking level is 39% and 2,888 spaces have been identified for planting street trees (Appendix I).

• Take advantage of existing planting programs, such as low cost trees available through Friends of Trees. These plantings are currently subsidized by the City.

YOUNG TREE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE • Properly water and establish young trees. With 41% of trees being 3” DBH or less, special attention should be paid to this vulnerable population (Appendix D). Small trees represent the future generation of street trees, and early care and training will pay off in future benefits.

• Structurally prune young trees to promote proper form as street trees. This includes removing low limbs for pedestrian and traffic clearance and removing co-dominant leaders. Structural pruning is critical in the first ten years after planting and can prevent future problems and expense. The 59% of trees that are 6” DBH or less should be evaluated for structural pruning needs.

• Educate property owners on how to properly care for young street trees (branch and root pruning, watering, and mulching) in order to reduce and delay future problems and conflicts Young street trees greatly benefit from with infrastructure. structural pruning in the first ten years after planting.

Portland Parks & Recreation 19 MATURE TREE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY • Maintain and care for large, mature trees. Only 8% of trees in Foster- Powell are larger than 18” diameter and most are located in the Firland Parkway. Work with the property manager, Portland Bureau of Transportation, to establish a maintenance plan for these trees. Trees provide the most benefits as they reach maturity and tree care is also the most expensive for these large trees. Increasing the level of maintenance of large, mature trees will help prolong their lifespan, reduce A mature madrone (Arbutus menziesii) tree planted approximately fifty hazards, and keep these high years ago. value members of the urban forest contributing to the neighborhood.

• Encourage planning for larger trees as redevelopment takes place in the neighborhood. Wider planting sites and cutouts (>6’) will result in larger, healthier, longer-lived trees that provide many times more benefits to the community than smaller trees.

• Seek funding or assistance for low income property owners to care for their mature trees.

• Promote the importance and benefits of large form species and mature trees within the community. While there are few large planting sites in the interior of the Foster-Powell neighborhood, there may be creative opportunities to plant large form trees on private property particularly in curbtight locations.

REPLACEMENTS - RIGHT TREE RIGHT PLACE • Encourage removal and replacement of dead trees and assessment of trees in poor condition. Though only 9% of Foster-Powell’s trees are dead (29 trees) or in poor condition (178 trees) (Appendix F), these spaces could be put to better use. Further assessment of trees for hazards by a certified arborist can help with prioritization for replacement.

• Encourage replacement of underperforming species, including undersized trees in large rights-of-way, with higher functioning, appropriately sized trees. In large planting sites, 200 trees have been identified as being too small for their respective site. These trees, particularly the 22 that are in poor condition, should be evaluated on an individual basis for replacement.

20 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Next Steps: Tree Plans and Tree Teams

The experience of participating in a street tree inventory and the findings in this report will help empower the Foster-Powell neighborhood to make informed decisions regarding the management and stewardship of its local urban forest. Street trees are a critical component of a community and the 2,325 street trees and 2,888 available planting spaces detailed in this report are good starting point for the neighborhood Tree Team to begin improving and expanding the urban forest.

NEIGHBORHOOD TREE TEAMS Volunteers who have participated in the Tree Inventory Project are encouraged to form or join a neighborhood Tree Team. A neighborhood Tree Team is a group of volunteers who are interested in addressing the needs of a neighborhood’s urban forest through the activities such as the inventory, education and advocacy, and year-round stewardship events.

TREE PLANS Urban Forestry knows that local Tree Teams are the best stewards of their urban forest. Having completed the inventory, they can now use these findings to create a Tree Plan—a customized stewardship plan created and executed by neighborhood Tree Teams for their urban forest. Tree Plans will include a vision statement, goals, objectives, and recommendations for property owners. Using inventory data, Tree Teams can identify the specific needs of their neighborhood’s urban forest and create goals that target these needs. Once a Tree Plan is established, tree teams can take action toward improving their neighborhood’s urban forest, with special access to Urban Forestry’s staff and resources.

WORKSHOPS In the year following the inventory, Urban Forestry will support two stewardship events for each neighborhood that completes a street tree inventory, with staff dedicated to assist tree teams in coordinating the events. Neighborhoods may host a variety of events, including:

• Tree planting in community spaces

• Tree pruning, with a focus on structural pruning for young trees

• Young tree care

• Educational tree tours and lessons on topics such as species selection for diversity, invasive species recognition and removal, heritage trees, and addressing pests and pathogens

• Programs customized for the neighborhood based upon inventory findings

Portland Parks & Recreation 21 22 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 References

Center for Urban Forest Research (CUFR). 2006. The Large Tree Argument. Accessed 10/2/2014. http://www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products/cufr_511_large_tree_argument.pdf

City of Portland Office of Neighborhood Involvement. Accessed 10/10/2014.2010 Portland Neighborhood Demographic Data. http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?c=56897& McPherson, E.G., S.E. Marco, J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Q. Xiao, A.M. VanDerZanden, and N. Bell. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planning.International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter, Silverton, OR. 78 p.

Metro. 2008. State of the Watersheds Monitoring Report. http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/state_of_ watersheds_2008_revised_061709.pdf

Nowak, D.J. 1994. Air Pollution Removal by Chicago’s Urban Forest. In Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Staton, Albany, NY.

Portland Parks & Recreation. 2007. Portland’s Urban Forest Canopy: Assessment and Public Tree Evaluation. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=171829 Raupp, M. J., A. B. Cumming, and E.C. Raupp. 2006. Street Tree Diversity in Eastern North America and Its Potential for Tree Loss to Exotic Borers. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 32(6):297-304. Santamour, Frank S., Jr. 1990. Trees for Urban Planting: Diversity, Uniformity, and Common Sense. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA) 7:57-65. US Census Bureau. Accessed 10/3/2012. Portland, Oregon, State and County Quick Facts. http://quickfacts. census.gov/qfd/states/41/4159000.html

US Forest Service. iTree Streets (version 5.0). http://www.itreetools.org Zillow Home Value Index. Accessed 10/10/2014. http://www.zillow.com/local-info/OR-Portland-home- value/r_13373/

Portland Parks & Recreation 23 24 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Appendices

Appendix A: Methods Street trees are defined in this project as woody plants in the public right-of-way with a single or few trunks and a mature size of 15’. or more. In the summer of 2014, all street trees adjacent to every tax lot within the neighborhood boundaries were inventoried by trained volunteers and Urban Forestry staff.

DATA COLLECTED Data collected included tree type identified to species or genus, tree condition, location, size (diameter at breast height), planting site width, planting site type, and presence of overhead high voltage lines. Tree type: Trees were identified to the genus or species. Six maples were identified to the species level: bigleaf (Acer macrophyllum), Japanese (A. palmatum), Norway (A. platanoides), paperbark (A. griseum), red (A. rubrum) and silver (A. saccharinum) maples. All other maple species were identified as “maple, other.” All dead trees were listed as “unknown” tree type, as identification of these plants was uncertain. Tree condition: Trees were rated as good, fair, poor, or dead. These general ratings reflect whether or not a tree is likely to continue contributing to the urban forest (good and fair trees) or whether the tree is at or near the end of its life (poor and dead trees). The following guidelines were used: Good: The tree has strong structure and is healthy and vigorous with no apparent problems. Trunks are solid with no bark damage and the crown is full. Roots show no signs of heaving or visible crossing, and there are no major wounds, decay, conks, or cavities. Fair: The tree is in average condition. Structural problems may be present, including results of pruning for high voltage electrical lines. Tree may have dead branches and some canopy loss. Wounds are minimal and there is no major decay. Poor: The tree is in a general state of decline as indicated by major wounds, root heaving, dead limbs resulting in major canopy loss, and/or visible signs of decay indicated by major rot or fungal growth. Dead: The tree is dead with no live leaves. Dead trees were excluded from data analysis, with the exception of tree condition statistics and total number of trees inventoried. Tree size: Diameter at breast height (4.5’ above ground) was measured with a diameter tape. Measurements of trees with branches, forks, or swelling at 4.5’ were taken lower on the tree so a representative size was obtained. Trees with 3 or fewer multiple stems were measured individually and Urban Forestry staff made final diameter calculations using the formula √(x2+y2+z2). Trees with greater than 3 multiple stems were measured below branching. Planting site type: Planting site types were placed into one of the following categories. Improved sites: Curbtight: The curb and sidewalk are continuous, and tree is planted adjacent to tax lot. Cutout: The site is a concrete cutout, also called a tree pit or tree well. Median: The site is in the middle of the street separated by a curb. Planting strip: The tree is a planting strip between a curb and a sidewalk. Swale: The tree is in the middle of a bioswale designed for storm water capture.

Portland Parks & Recreation 25 Unimproved sites: Curb only: The site has a curb but no sidewalk. No curb or sidewalk: The site has no curb or sidewalk. Other: Sites not falling under above scenarios. Planting site width: Planting site width was measured for all improved site types except curbtight areas. Planting strips were measured from the inside of the curb to the beginning of the sidewalk and cutouts, medians, and swales were measured from inside edge to inside edge perpendicular to the street. No widths were taken for unimproved planting site types or curbtight areas. High voltage wires: The presence of high voltage wires was recorded. Stocking level: Planting space size and availability is subject to a number of guidelines, including width of the planting site, presence/absence of high voltage power lines, and distance from conflicts (property lines, stop signs, and underground utilities). Because this project did not inventory all available planting sites, but only sites where trees are currently growing, data for planting site sizes were supplemented with available planting space data collected by Urban Forestry and the Bureau of Environmental Services between 2009 and 2014. These data were compared with existing tree data collected at the same time and used to calculate stocking level. Some industrial, commercial, and multi-family residential areas may have been excluded in the analysis, making this a conservative estimate of available sites.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS Volunteer neighborhood coordinators recruited volunteers to conduct street tree inventories during work days. Volunteers interested in being inventory team leaders attended a half-day training to learn to identify tree species and site conditions, and how to collect and record data. During work days, team leaders were paired with novice volunteers to collect data in a three to four block area. Groups were given a clipboard containing a map, data entry sheets, tree type abbreviations, and a list of trees planted by Friends of Trees in the neighborhood. Volunteers wore safety vests and carried a 2-sided diameter/measuring tape for measuring tree size and site width, a tree identification book, and bags for collecting samples. In addition to Urban Forestry staff, one or more volunteer arborists-on-call were available on inventory work days to assist volunteers with questions. Accuracy was stressed as highly important, and volunteers utilized the arborist-on-call to verify species identification as questions arose. Data were collected on paper maps and forms, and later digitized in ArcGIS by Urban Forestry staff and trained volunteers. Accuracy of volunteer-collected data was checked by Urban Forestry staff and corrections were made as necessary. Remaining areas not completed during inventory work days were inventoried by volunteer team leaders or staff. A 10% sample of the final data found species identifications to be more than 95% accurate.

CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND CANOPY PROJECTION Projected benefits were calculated using 30-year estimates of average annual net benefits provided in the Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Care Guide (McPherson et al. 2002). Projected canopy cover estimates assume the mature spread of small, medium, and large trees to 20’x 20’, 40’ x 40’, and 60’ x 60’, respectively. In some cases the data for available planting spaces from the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) included planting sites that were not categorized by size. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating projected benefits, these spaces were assumed to have a similar proportion of small, medium, and large sites as were categorized by BES in the neighborhood.

26 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014 Appendix B: Street trees of Foster-Powell by tree type

# of % of Mean Common Name Scientific Name Trees Total DBH Amur maackia Maackia amurensis 3 0.1% 1.5 apple Malus domestica 26 1.1% 2.5 arborvitae Thuja spp. 11 0.5% 1.7 ash Fraxinus spp. 109 4.7% 5.3 beech Fagus spp. 14 0.6% 4.4 birch Betula spp. 59 2.6% 7.4 black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 6 0.3% 17.1 boxelder Acer negundo 1 0.0% 23.2 camellia Camellia spp. 1 0.0% 1.0 cascara Rhamnus purshiana 20 0.9% 1.4 catalpa Catalpa spp. 4 0.2% 10.0 cedar Cedrus spp. 2 0.1% 22.8 cherry Prunus spp. 130 5.7% 8.1 chestnut Castanea spp. 3 0.1% 8.5 crabapple Malus spp. 158 6.9% 3.1 crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 8 0.3% 2.4 cypress Cupressus spp. 2 0.1% 3.0 dogwood Cornus spp. 46 2.0% 5.3 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 25 1.1% 27.3 dove tree Davidia involucrata 1 0.0% 0.0 elderberry Sambucus spp. 2 0.1% 1.9 elm Ulmus spp. 6 0.3% 12.9 eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. 1 0.0% 8.0 false cypress Chamaecyparis spp. 10 0.4% 11.6 fig Ficus spp. 6 0.3% 2.5 fringe tree Chionanthus spp. 1 0.0% 2.0 ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 11 0.5% 1.4 glorybower Clerodendron spp. 21 0.9% 2.3 golden chain tree Laburnum spp. 10 0.4% 6.3 golden rain tree Koelreuteria paniculata 5 0.2% 6.6 hawthorn Crataegus spp. 82 3.6% 5.7 hazelnut Corylus spp. 7 0.3% 8.9 hemlock Tsuga spp. 1 0.0% 22.7 holly Ilex spp. 3 0.1% 9.1 honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos 8 0.3% 9.0 hophornbeam Ostrya spp. 5 0.2% 1.2 hornbeam Carpinus spp. 50 2.2% 7.3 horsechestnut Aesculus spp. 19 0.8% 24.6 incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 6 0.3% 2.1 jujube Ziziphus jujuba 1 0.0% 4.7 juniper Juniperus spp. 2 0.1% 2.5 katsura Cercidiphyllum japonicum 7 0.3% 4.3

Portland Parks & Recreation 27 # of % of Mean Common Name Scientific Name Trees Total DBH lilac tree Syringa reticulata 10 0.4% 3.8 linden Tilia spp. 206 9.0% 12.2 madrone Arbutus menziesii 2 0.1% 17.0 magnolia Magnolia spp. 12 0.5% 1.0 magnolia, Southern Magnolia grandiflora 15 0.7% 2.4 maple, bigleaf Acer macrophyllum 3 0.1% 1.2 maple, Japanese Acer palmatum 61 2.7% 3.2 maple, Norway Acer platanoides 147 6.4% 16.1 maple, other Acer spp. 155 6.8% 5.4 maple, paperbark Acer griseum 56 2.4% 2.3 maple, red Acer rubrum 85 3.7% 8.0 maple, silver Acer saccharinum 3 0.1% 35.5 mimosa tree Albizia julibrissin 1 0.0% 14.0 mountain ash Sorbus spp. 11 0.5% 7.9 mulberry Morus spp. 1 0.0% 0.0 ninebark Physocarpus spp. 1 0.0% 0.8 oak Quercus spp. 20 0.9% 3.9 palm Trachycarpus spp.. 5 0.2% 3.9 peach Prunus persica 6 0.3% 6.2 pear Pyrus spp. 135 5.9% 6.8 Persian ironwood Parrotia persica 33 1.4% 1.6 pine Pinus spp. 8 0.3% 8.8 planetree Platanus spp. 1 0.0% 5.6 plum Prunus spp. 157 6.8% 8.1 poplar Populus spp. 3 0.1% 3.3 Prunus, other Prunus spp. 2 0.1% 4.1 quince Cydonia oblonga 1 0.0% 2.9 redbud Cercis spp. 7 0.3% 2.3 serviceberry Amelanchier spp. 30 1.3% 1.6 seven son flower Heptacodium miconioides 4 0.2% 2.0 smoketree Cotinus spp. 32 1.4% 1.9 snowbell Styrax spp. 101 4.4% 2.0 spruce Picea spp. 3 0.1% 11.7 stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia 21 0.9% 2.2 strawberry tree Arbutus spp. 1 0.0% 2.6 sweetgum Liquidambar spp. 9 0.4% 11.6 tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima 10 0.4% 15.1 tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 2 0.1% 10.6 tupelo Nyssa spp. 10 0.4% 2.0 walnut Juglans spp. 14 0.6% 11.9 Western redcedar Thuja plicata 7 0.3% 14.6 willow Salix spp. 9 0.4% 7.7 yellow wood Cladrastis lutea 1 0.0% 2.2 zelkova Zelkova serrata 2 0.1% 1.9 Total 2,296 100.0% 7.2

28 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014

Appendix C: Street trees of Foster-Powell by size $

E D V

W L

O B

E T T

E T

S C

A T

E D S G

N T

L N I E S

O O H B Y R E H

M E

L E

E Y

E V A

D N 2 8

E S E V A t

D S N 2 8 S E S A S E

e R S

I e

E F

E S S

D T R S R 0

E E 0

L T 0

E S ,

E O 1 T F S

S E

E V A

H T 5 7

E S

E V A

D N 2 7

E S

E V A

H T 7 6

E 1 S

E V A

H T 6 6

E 0 S 2

y r t o n

e E V A

D N 2 6

E S v

n D R I R E T S O e F E S e r T 0 . 0 4 . t 0 2 . 2

e 6 1 0 - .

- - e 4 1 . 2 0 1

. . 2 t r 0 6 1 S l r y t o l n v e i n e t r e k s / r w e a v / p o o e . g t n

o z h

P r g E V A

H T 0 5

E S o a i d

- n : r e ) S s r t l a t r e o H e t e . p / t h e e s t p f c b y t e

a m n h s 5 i e a s .

i e r 4 n D B ( i e o r T F

Portland Parks & Recreation 29

Appendix D: Young street trees (trees ≤ 3” DBH) $

D T

R C

W T R

T D D

T N D

P E S

R E

O B

E T

E Y

A E

T L

R L

A Y L

I E

V A

D N 2 8

E S T E V A

S D N 2 8

E S t

N A S

E E S N H

e R

S S

H U N

F N

E I e

S E

E T

U N F E

U S I

L S S

S E

S H

S D R

S E

E V A

H T 0 8

S M Y

0 A

0 R

S E V A

H T 9 7

E S

E V A

H T 6 7

E S D 77TH AVE SE M

V L

S B

E E V A

H T 5 7

E S T A G L O H

S E V A

D R 3 7

E S

E V A

D N 2 7

E D S

B E V A

T S 1 7

E S

E D

W R O R

E S

S E V A

H T 9 6

E S O F

E V A

H T 8 6

E S 4

R E V A

H T 7 6

E S

1 R

E E V A

H T 6 6

E T S

0 S O F 2 E S

D V L

E V A

H T 4 6

E E S r T

E V A

D R 3 6

E L S t o O H

n E

e E V A

D N 2 6

A R

I E

S e

E V A H T 8 5 E S E r

O T

S t 5 0 . . e 1 3 - - e

0 6 . . t r 0 1 S l r y t o l n

v e

i n S E

5 2 e N D

A V E t r e

k s /

w e a

E V A

T S 1 5

E S v / p o o . g t n

s o h

P e r g E V A

H T 0 5

E S o a i d

e - n : r e ) r s r t l a t r e o H e t e . p T / t h e e s t p f c t e

g a m n h 5 i e a s .

i r 4 n D B ( i o o u n F Y

30 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014

Appendix E: Large street trees (trees > 24” DBH) $

D T

R C

D D S

T N E S

O B

E Y

A E

S L

E V A

D N 2 8

E S E V A

D N 2 8

E S t

N A S E

e R S

S U N

T e

U E

E S

B S

L T

L S

B E

E V

S H V T E V A

H T 0 8

E N S

E T

C L I S

S S

T 0

I E

D R L

0 E T

E V A H T 9 7 E

E E V A

H T 9 E 7

E S E S A

G S E V A

H T 9 7

S R

E Y

T E V A

H T 8 7

E S O

S A

H R

M L

E E V A

H T 7 7

S S

A S E V A

H T 7 7

S T

S E V A

H C T 7 7

E T S

U E V A

H T 6 7

E S

E M

E E O V A

S H T 6 7

E L S

S E

7 5 E V T A

H H T 5 7

S A V

E D

S H E V A

H T 5 7

E S V C L S

E S E V A

H T 4 7

E D S T

V A

E V A

D R 3 7

E L S E V A

D R 3 7

E S O

L H

E V A

D N 2 7

E T S E V A

D N 2 7

E P S

E V A

T T S 1 7

S T

E V A

T S 1 7

E S

E V A

T S 1 7

E E S D

T R

T E V A

H T 0 7

E S E E

S T

N S

O O

R F

T E V A

H T 9 6

E S S T S

T O E

S S

S E E D

T R

G E V A

H T 8 6

E S D

N R

E M E E

S T 4 C

E O E V A

H T 7 6

E S E

S F

S E E V A

H T

7 6

S S E V A

H T 6 6

0 S

E V A

H T 6 6

E S

S E V A

H T 5 6

E S

L E V A

H T 5 6

E S S

I B

O L

E E V A

H T 4 6

E S S

E V A

D R 3 6

P S

t o

E V A

D R 3 6

E E S

E V A

D N 2 6

E e S E V A

D N 2 6

E S

E T V A

T S 1 6

E S

S E V

T S n 1 6

E T S

T E V

H T 0 6

E S T E V A

H T 9 5

S S

E V A E H T 9 5

E A S

L e

E G E V A H T 8 5 E S r S

S E V A H T 8 5 E S

0 0 E V A

H T 7 5

E S . .

T 6 8 t

S 3 4

I E V A H T 6 5 E S e

C 0 - - .

N e

A 1 1

. .

R E V A H T 5 5 E S 4

4 6

T t r

2 3 S

E H E V A

H T 4 5

S S S

N U

H l

T E V A

D R 3 5

S r y E

t o

l S n

S v e

i n

T S E

5 2 e N D

A V E E t r e

A k s / r

w e a

A E V A

T S 1 5

E S v / p

o o

E . g t n

o h

t s

P r g E V A

H T 0 5

E S o a i e d

- n : r e ) e s r t l a t r e o r H e t e

. p / t h e T e s t p f

c t e

a m n h 5 i e a s .

i g e r 4 n r i ( B D o a F L

Portland Parks & Recreation 31

Appendix F: Poor and dead street trees $

D T

R C

D D

T N D S E

O Y

A Y L

T E V A

D N 2 8

E S t E V A

D N 2 8

N S A S

S N

e R

I e

E U

N F

T E

S S

O E

T S

C D

H N

A E V A

H T 0 8

S D

E V A

H T 0 8

S C O E S

T E G 0

E M 0

L Y

M 0

E A ,

Y T

E R 1

S S E

E S

E V A R H T 9 7

R S

S E E E E

E D E S

S T

M E

E V A

H T 7 7

E S

C E

A E V A

H T 7 7

E S

E N

U E

E V A

H T 6 7

E E E S

S E G E

S E

7 5 E V T A

H H T 5 7

S A V E E V A

H T 5 7

E S O V

L L

E V A

H T 4 7

S T E V A

H T 4 7

E S E E A

E V A

D R 3 7

E D S O V E H

L E

E V A

D N 2 7

L S E V A

D N 2 7

E S

W E

O E

E V A

T S 1 7

E S

E V A

T S 1 7

P S

E E D

S E

T R E V A

H T 0 7

E S S

E E

I S

O O

E T

T E L V A

H T 9 6

E S F

S E

E A S G

S E

E V A

H T 8 6

E S D E O

E V A

H T 7 6

E S E

D 1

L D E V A

H T 6 6

B R S 0

E V A

H T 6 6

E S E R

T E

2 T A S

H T 5 6

S F

O E V A

H T 5

S E

H S

E V A

H T 4 6

E S r

S E V A

H T 4 6

E S E

t o

E V A

D R 3 6

E S E D E n

E V A

D N 2 6 e E B S

E A

T R

W n

E O

Y C

F E

S S

S L

E C

N E T e

R E V A H T 8 5 E S E r

S T s

T S

. R

E 0 e

S E 4 . t r

. 2

N T E V A H T 6 5 E S

E 6 1 0 -

E - -

4 E 1

. S E V A H T 5 5 E S 2 5 1 e

. . 2

T t r 0 6 1 D

N T E

H E s

E l E V A

D R 3 5

E S r y

t o l e

A n

S v e

i n

L S E

5 2 e N D

A V E

E t r e T

k s /

w e

E V A

T S 1 5

E d S v / p o o a . g t n

o e h

P r g E V A

H T 0 5

E S o a i d

- n : r e ) s r t l a t r e o d D H e t

e . p / t h n e e s t p f c t e

a m a n h 5 i e a s .

i r 4 n o r B D ( i o o F P

32 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014

Appendix G: Planting site types $

E D V

W L

O B

E T T

T C S

E D G N

T L N I S O

O H Y H R

E Y

E V A

D N 2 8

E S E V A t

S D N 2 8

E S A S S

e R

I e

E F

E S S

D T R S

R 0

E E 0

L T 0

E S ,

E O 1

T F S E

S E

E V A

H T 5 7

E S

E V A

D N 2 7

E S

E V A

H T 7 6

E 1 S

E V A

H T 6 6

E 0 S 2

E V A

D R 3 6

E t o S n

e E V A

D N 2 6

E S v

n D R I R

E T S

e O F

E e t

e S i s r e

i t d s T e

v d t e r o v e p o r e m i p n m t r I S l r y t o l n v e i n e p e t r e k s / y r w e a T v / p o

o . g n e o

P r i E V A

H T 0 5

E S o d - n r t l a r o . p g S / t p n t e i h s n t a o l F P

Portland Parks & Recreation 33

Appendix H: Planting site sizes $

E D V

W L

O B

E T T

T C S

E D G N

T L N I S O

O H Y H R

E Y

E V A

D N 2 8

E S E V A t

S D N 2 8

E S A S S

e R

I e

E F

E S S

D T R S

R 0

E E 0

L T 0

E S ,

E O 1

T F S E

S E

E V A

H T 5 7

E S

E V A

D N 2 7

E S

E V A

H T 7 6

E 1 S

E V A

H T 6 6

E 0 S 2

E V A

D R 3 6

E t o S n

e E V A

D N 2 6

E S v

n D R I R

E T S

e O F E

e S r e T i t e s e

t i t i t s s m

e l u l e i e a d r g e a t r S m M L S l r y t o l n v e i n e e t r e z k s / i r w e a v / p o S o . g n e o

P r i E V A

H T 0 5

E S o d - n r t l a r o . p g S / t p n t e i h s n t a o l F P

34 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014

Appendix I: Available street tree planting spaces $

D T

R C

T R

D D

T N D E S

R E

O B

E Y

A E

M E

A Y L E V A

D N 2 8 I

E S E V A

D N 2 8

E S t

N A S E N H

e R S

U N

I e

H E

U F E

S S

E S E

S S

B T

V A

H T 0 8

S E V A

H T 0 8

N S T R

I S

H L

0 D R

N , E E V A

H T 9 7

S H 1

D C

E V A

H T 9 7

S S

M D

Y E V A

H T 8 7

E S E

T V

D A S

S L

M L E V A

H T 7 7

E S E E

A S T

S E V A

H T 7 7

S C T

S T

L I

E V A U

H T 6 7

E S

E V A

H T 6 7

S R

E M

E E V A

H T O 6 7 H S E L S

S E

7 5 E V T A

H H T 5 7

S A V E H E V A

H T 5 7

S S

S E V A

H T 4 7

E D S

E V A

D R 3

E L S E V A

D D R 3 7

E L S V

E L B

O E V A

D N 2 7

E S

E V A

D N 2 7

T E S E V A

D N 2 7

E P S A

E G

E E V V A A

T T S S 1 1 7 7

E E S

S O E V A

T S 1 7

E T S H

E S

E V A

H T 0 7

E N S T

O S

E V A

H T 9 6

E S T

D E

A T

E N

G A E

I E

L D

R E V A

H T 8 6

E S C

O A R

O E

R B R

M S 4

A E

E E T

S E V A S H T 7 6

S E

1 O

E V A

H T 7 6

S F

E V A

H T 6 6

E E S

0 S E V A

H T 6 6

E S

T 2

E L V A

H T 5 6

E S D

R S y

L R

E L

H E

R E V A

H T 4 T 6 I

E S S

O W O

O F

t o E

E V A

D R 3 6

E S S

E V A

D N 2 6

E S E V A

D N 2 6

e S

E V A

T S 1

S T

E E V

S T S 1 n 6

S E I S

E O I

E V A

H T 0 6

S E

T E V A

H T 9 5

E S S

D E V A

H T 9 5

E A S s e

G E V A H T 8 5 E e S

S T

H a

T S

E V A

H T 7 5

S U R p

B E t

S E V A H T 6 5 E

S I N

S e

C E

T g s

S C

e n 4

E A E

i S E V A H T 5 5 E S T

R -

E t r

0 1 2 3 5 n t

E E V A

H T 4 5

E a S

N S

p l l E V A

D R 3 5

E S R

S r y

t o l

E e n

v e

i n S E

5 2 N D

A V r E e t r e t : : t s k s / t t

e d w e e

o E V A

T S 1 5

E e S e e c l v / p r s o a x e o t . g s a n p s r o a

g t

v e P r E V A

H T 0 5

E S y l o g n d s b - n b n a i e a r t l a c r t l o

i . p t n a / b l a o v l t p t e a n A p

l h

s i s e t a e o l r o t v x a F A T

Portland Parks & Recreation 35

Appendix J: Priority street tree planting spaces $

D T

R C

T R

D D

T N D E S

R E

O B

E Y

A E

M E

A Y L E V A

D N 2 8 I

E S E V A

D N 2 8

E S t

N A S E N H

e R S

U N

I e

H E

U F E

S S

E S E

S S

B T

V A

H T 0 8

S E V A

H T 0 8

N S T R

I S

H L

0 D R

N , E E V A

H T 9 7

S H 1

D C

E V A

H T 9 7

S S

M D

Y E V A

H T 8 7

E S E

T V

D A S

S L

M L E V A

H T 7 7

E S E E

A S T

S E V A

H T 7 7

S C T

S T

L I

E V A U

H T 6 7

E S

E V A

H T 6 7

S R

E M

E E V A

H T O 6 7 H S E L S

S E

7 5 E V T A

H H T 5 7

S A V E H E V A

H T 5 7

S S

S E V A

H T 4 7

E D S

E V A

D R 3

E L S E V A

D D R 3 7

E L S V

E L B

O E V A

D N 2 7

E S

E V A

D N 2 7

T E S E V A

D N 2 7

E P S A

E G

E E V V A A

T T S S 1 1 7 7

E E S

S O E V A

T S 1 7

E T S H

E S

E V A

H T 0 7

E N S T

O S

E V A

H T 9 6

E S T

D E

A T

E N

G A E

I E

L D

R E V A

H T 8 6

E S C

O A R

O E

R B R

M S 4

A E

E E T

S E V A S H T 7 6

S E

1 O

E V A

H T 7 6

S F

E V A

H T 6 6

E E S

0 S E V A

H T 6 6

E S

T 2

E L V A

H T 5 6

E S D

R S y

L R

E L

H E

R E V A

H T 4 T 6 I

E S S

O W O

O F

t o E

E V A

D R 3 6

E S S

E V A

D N 2 6

E S E V A

D N 2 6

e S

E V A

T S 1

S T

E E V

S T S 1 n 6

S E I S

E O I

E V A

H T 0 6

S E

T E V A

H T 9 5

E S S

D E V A

H T 9 5

E A S e

G E V A H T 8 5 E S r

E s

S T

E V A

H T 7 5

E c S

U R

B E a t

S p E V A H T 6 5 E

S I N

S e

C E

S C

e 4

E A E

g s S E V A H T 5 5 E S T

R -

T n

E t r

i 0 1 2 3 5

E E V A

H T 4 5

E S F

N S n t

l E V A

D R 3 5

E S R

S r y

t o l

E n

S p l

v e

i n S E

5 2 N D

A V e E e t r e

: s s : e t ) r k s / r

r e e s d w e e

u o t c E V A

T S 1 5

E S r

i e t e o v / p t a r s e s t o

i o

h . g t s p d n t e d i o s i a e w

e e

v e P r w E V A

H T 0 5

E S g w o d v

r r

n d t t - n n t a r o a i s e r t e e

r t l a c r o

t e p y n h . p t f t a

r / a i y s o l m e e r 6 t p i t t e r n p ( v i o

h g i s o s r t P o r o l i o x r a F P T

36 Street Tree Inventory Report – Foster-Powell Neighborhood 2014