Regional Urban Forestry Assessment and Evaluation for the Portland-Vancouver Metro Area

1. Regional Urban Forestry Assessment and Evaluation for the Portland-Vancouver Metro Area Denisse Fisher Portland State University Jim Labbe Portland Audubon Society

2. Main Questions: • How do local urban forestry policies and programs compare with each other? • 2. Where are there policy and programmatic gaps at the local level? • 3. What are strengths and weaknesses of local policies and programs in protecting and expanding the urban forest for multiple public values (including urban wildlife)? • 4. What opportunities exist to coordinate planning and implementation at the regional scale?

3. Methods: • Examined 30 jurisdictions across the three-county Portland Metro region, as well as Vancouver and Clark County. • Phase I included an online survey by city and county staff on general urban forestry policies. We also conducted geographic and demographic research on municipalities. • Phase II included more extensive research and interviews: • Interviewed 21 out of 30 jurisdictions. • Review of urban tree policies and codes.

4. Products: • Summary tables categorize and compare  local government policies and programs. • Narrative summaries provided more detailed explanations of local government policies based on interviews and code review.

5. as • Some Results: Urban forestry management (Appendix L) • Jurisdictions with an adopted urban forestry management plan: Durham, Portland, Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and Vancouver. Jurisdictions with plans in progress: Gresham and Tigard. • Jurisdictions with an adopted inventory of urban forestry canopy: Vancouver, Tigard, Tualatin, and Lake Oswego. • Jurisdictions with adopted urban forest canopy cover targets: Vancouver and Portland. • 10 jurisdictions have a certified arborist on staff. • 8 jurisdictions have a dedicated tree fund. • 11 local governments have heritage tree programs.

6. Results: Jurisdictions in the Portland-Vancouver region with tree regulations outside of regulated environmentally sensitive lands. 1 Twenty-one jurisdictions surveyed. 2 Thirty jurisdictions surveyed. 3 Regulations apply with or without development.

7. Urban Forestry Policies for the Public Right-of-Way (Appendix K)

9. Street Tree Policies: Some Key Findings • There is a greater consistency in local governments’ street tree policies relative to tree regulations applying outside the public right-of-way. • Only West Linn, Beaverton, and Tualatin have routine street tree maintenance programs. • One of the biggest gaps in street tree policy appears to exist in county urban service areas where permits are not required for tree removal, policies are weak, patchy or non-existent and less staffing and funding is available.

10. Urban tree regulations relating to tree removal outside of environmentally sensitive lands (Appendices I & J)

11. : Jurisdictions were classified into four categories. Preservation emphasis – have clear and objective standards or discretionary standards with higher staffing levels and political support. Mitigation emphasis (greater than 1 to 1 trees)- have higher staffing levels and political support. Some regulation – no clear standards or major exemptions that allow unpermitted tree removal No tree ordinance – no regulation on private land (Cornelius, Gladstone, Johnson City, and Wood Village).

12. Key Finding: Tree Removal Regulations • “Exemptions, the limited spatial extent of regulations, and/or the absence of protection outside the development review process reduce the applicability of tree preservation and mitigation standards in many jurisdictions.”

15. Key Finding: Tree Removal Regulations • “Where tree removal standards do apply, the authority of local governments to require preservation and mitigation also vary considerably.”

17. Narrative Summaries Highlights • Lake Oswego’s regulations are particularly thorough at addressing tree removal outside the development review process and in situations involving annexation. • Tigard and Oregon City have strong provisions for mitigating tree removal. • Vancouver’s tree regulations include a minimum tree density requirement that can be achieved by either planting or preservation. • Portland tree preservation and mitigation regulations vary depending on the location, size, species, land use zone, and type of development proposed.

18. Some Regional Needs • Support local governments with little or no tree removal regulations in developing policies for tree preservation, planting and mitigation. • Regional monitoring of canopy cover and setting targets for expanding the urban forest.

19. Some Regional Needs • 3. Best management practices for tree protection during construction and tree mitigation. • 4. Identify and eliminate barriers to protecting, managing and expanding the urban forest in public right-of-ways and in denser urban centers.

20. Some Regional Needs • 5. New funding sources for protecting, managing and expanding the urban forest. • 6. Strategies for improving enforcement of tree preservation and protection • regulations.

21. Contact information: Jim Labbe - jlabbe@urbanfauna.org Denisse Fisher – fisherda@pdx.edu Acknowledgements: Metro Special thanks to: Dr. Alan Yeakley, PSU ESM Department Clinton Wertz Shayna Denny, West Consultants, Inc. Local staff of jurisdictions and citizens involved in this project: Kristen Ramsted, Margot Barnett, Scott Fogarty, Tracy Morgan, Lee Dayfield, JonnaPapaefthimiou, Chris Neamtzu, John Frewing, Jennifer Karps, Ted Labbe, Daniel Rutzick, Todd Prager, Pat Hoffman, Barbara Fryer