Urban 

Forestry Elm Report 
Background, Findings, & Recommendations 
October 2020 
Urban Forestry Elm Report
October 2020

Project Staff – Portland Parks and Recreation

Nick Rossmiller, Elm Monitor, PP&R Urban Forestry
Larry Maginnis, Operations Supervisor, PP&R Urban Forestry
Urban Forestry Operations Crew, PP&R Urban Forestry
Urban Forestry Permitting Staff, PP&R Urban Forestry

Technical Assistance
Jeff Ramsey, Science and Policy Specialist, PP&R Urban Forestry
Natasha Lipai, Senior Administrative Specialist, PP&R Urban Forestry

Cover Photo: American Elms in Ladd’s Addition.

Portland Parks & Recreation

1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1302 Commissioner Carmen Rubio
Portland, Oregon 97204 Director Adena Long
(503) 823-8733
www.PortlandParks.org


Table of Contents 
 
 
Background  1 
Portland’s Elm Strategy  2 
2020 Dutch Elm Disease Findings  4 
Elm Inoculations  8 
Outreach  8 
Program Challenges & Recommendations  11 
Appendices  14 

PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
  ii 
Background
Dutch elm disease (DED) is a lethal, highly communicable disease affecting many members
of the genus Ulmus, caused by the fungal pathogens Ophiostoma ulmi and Ophiostoma novo‐
ulmi. These fungi invade the vascular tissue of elms and prohibit water movement in the
tree. An infected elm tree can die within weeks of showing the first symptoms of DED.

Dutch elm disease was first discovered in Europe in 1918, but the causal fungus was not
identified until 1922 in the Netherlands. It was given the name Dutch elm disease in honor
of the Dutch scientists who isolated the fungus, Bea Schwarz and Christine Buisman. The
origin of DED is hypothesized to be in Asia and Asian elm species such as U. parvifolia and
U. pumila are known to be resistant to DED.

In 1930, DED appeared in Ohio, reaching the US via shipping crates made of infected elm
wood. The disease hit the east coast hard, causing widespread elm fatalities. By 1972, the
European bark beetle, the primary DED vector, was found in all but four states. The first
case of DED in Oregon was discovered in 1973 in Ontario, likely transmitted from Boise,
Idaho, along the I-84 corridor. A single case was discovered in Portland’s Overlook Park in
1977. The elm was quickly removed, leaving no further outbreaks of DED in western
Oregon until 1986, when a dual outbreak occurred in Eugene and Portland. This second
case of DED in Portland was discovered at East Burnside St & Cesar E Chavez Blvd. Since
then, Urban Forestry’s elm monitoring program has worked to keep the spread of DED
under control throughout the city.

There are three ways the DED fungus spreads: bark beetles, root grafting, and human
activity. Both the native elm bark beetle, Hylurgopinus rufipes, and the smaller European
elm bark beetle, Scolytus multistriatus, are DED vectors. Elm bark beetles breed and
overwinter under the bark of dead or declining elms. In infected trees, spores of the DED
fungus stick to the backs of bark beetles and are transported to new elms when beetles
emerge in the spring and fly off to feed on healthy elms. The fungus spreads most rapidly
through root grafts, which form between trees growing close together. Human activity,
such as transporting elm wood infested with bark beetles, also spreads the disease.

The fungus kills trees by invading and occluding the infected tree’s xylem (vascular tissue),
preventing water conduction and ultimately resulting in death. Visual symptoms of DED
include localized leaf wilt and browning (termed flagging) and sapwood discoloration
(termed streaking).

Infection can be prevented with commercial fungicides. There are several fungicides
currently on the market, the most commonly used being Arbotect. The fungicides vary in
their application systems and price ranges, but their mechanisms are similar. Fungicides
help prevent DED infection by disabling fungal spores when infected beetles feed on an
elm. Fungicides are not 100 percent effective at preventing DED. However, a dedicated
community with clear goals can take steps to slow the spread of DED in affected urban
environments.
1        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Portland’s Elm Strategy
On June 10, 1987, Portland City Council passed Ordinance No. 159750, declaring Dutch elm
disease-infected trees a nuisance and declaring a state of emergency for Portland’s elm
canopy. The ordinance specifies that it is unlawful for elm trees infected with DED to
remain on any lot or parcel of land in the city. In 2011, City Council codified this ordinance
under Title 11 Trees, which was then implemented in January 2015. In line with this
ordinance, Urban Forestry has an aggressive, five-pronged approach to prevent DED and
contain elms that are already infected. With approximately 2,300 susceptible elms
throughout the city, DED would have a catastrophic impact on Portland’s urban forest if
allowed to progress unchecked.

Monitoring

To help ensure healthy elm populations, each summer Urban Forestry hires an elm monitor
to inspect and assess elm trees on public and private property, across the city. The elm
monitor looks for the visual symptoms of Dutch elm disease, such as flagging. The monitor
samples—or directs the Urban Forestry crew to sample—elm trees that show possible DED
symptoms. When a sample shows symptoms of DED, such as streaking, it is sent to the
Oregon State University Plant Pathology Clinic for cultivation and identification. If the lab
culture is identified as the Dutch elm disease fungus, steps are taken to remove the tree.
Elms that do not present signs of DED, but decline over the season, are reviewed by Urban
Forestry to determine if the tree should be removed.

Removal

Rapid removal is important to decrease the probability of spread to adjacent trees via root
grafts. In addition, swift removal of infected elms will eliminate a local source of elm bark
beetles by removing the elm prior to beetle emergence. At one time, Urban Forestry
removed DED-infected elms in the public right-of-way at no cost to adjacent property
owners. As of July 1st, 2017, Urban Forestry’s policy became consistent with Portland’s Tree
Code regarding the responsibility of adjacent property owner maintenance of street trees.
As with all other street tree issues, the adjacent property owner is responsible for the
removal of DED-infected trees in the associated right-of-way. Urban Forestry continues to
provide free sampling for all elms exhibiting DED symptoms. For DED-infected elms on
private property, the property owner is required to remove the tree within 30 days of
notification, at their own expense. After removal, stumps must be ground to prevent
infection via root grafts, and the property owner must also replant.

Sanitation

All elm wood must be disposed of in a controlled manner by chipping, de-barking, or

burying so as not to provide habitat for, and reduce the sources of, elm bark beetles. All
tools in contact with infected elm trees are disinfected before and after use to prevent
contamination with fungal spores. Portland also observes a moratorium on pruning elms
between April 15th and October 15th each year. Bark beetles are active during the spring
2        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
and summer months and are attracted to open wound sites left by pruning or injury.
Deadwood pruning is conducted during the winter months to reduce sites that could
harbor bark beetles.

Inoculation

Urban Forestry inoculates
approximately 140 elms per
year with the fungicide
Arbotect (Thiabendazole
hypophosphite). Significant
elms in Portland’s parks and
public spaces are targeted and
put into a three-year treatment
rotation. The neighborhood
associations, such as
Eastmoreland, raise money and
organize neighborhood elm
inoculations to treat elms with
either Arbotect or Alamo
(Propiconazole). Though Urban
Forestry must permit and
approve inoculations in the
public right-of-way, the cost,
coordination, and execution of
neighborhood inoculations
rests entirely on the property
owners and their private
contractor of choice.

Education and Outreach

Urban Forestry Crews remove an American elm at Peninsula Park
The elm monitor serves as a
liaison between Urban Forestry and the community. In this capacity, the elm monitor offers
homeowners and neighbors educational resources to increase public awareness of Dutch
elm disease. Working with community groups is also an important way to support
neighborhood engagement and stewardship of elms. Continuing to build relationships with
neighbors in areas that infrequently lose elms to DED also eases the acceptance of the
removal process when it does occur.

3        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
2020 Dutch Elm Disease Findings
To capture the scope of the elm protection program’s monitoring efforts, all elm removals
that were initiated by monitoring efforts are captured in this report, even though not all
removed elms tested positive for DED. This is consistent with historic elm reports.
However, terminology referring to removals has been updated to better reflect the scope of
the program.

A total of 38 elms were removed due to elm monitoring efforts in 2020. Of these, 24 elms
were removed due to testing positive for DED. The remaining elms were removed due to
showing classic DED symptoms while being adjacent to DED-positive elms, or due to
conditions that deemed the tree dead or dying. With an average of 39 DED removals per
year since 1977, Portland experienced a slightly below average number of elm removals in
2020 (Figure 1).

Geographic extent

Historically, Portland was divided into five geographic sectors: North, Northeast, Southeast,
Northwest, and Southwest Portland. Beginning in 2020, City Council designated a sixth
sector: South Portland. This year, five of Portland’s sextants were impacted by elm
removals. Although DED loss has been documented in the South Portland area in the past
(when considered Southwest Portland), no DED removals occurred in this newly
designated sextant in 2020. Of note, one newly impacted neighborhood, Boise in North
Portland, experienced a single elm removal due to DED this year.

Southeast Portland lost 10 elms to Dutch elm disease (Appendix A, B). This sextant
typically has the greatest number of elm removals and 2020 resulted in more than the
previous year’s total of nine.
 The Eastmoreland neighborhood, a historical DED hotspot, had only one removal
directly attributed to DED (Appendix E). A total of six elms were removed in the
neighborhood as a result of DED-related decline.
 The Hosford-Abernathy Neighborhood District which includes Ladd’s Addition,
home to many mature elms, had four removals (Appendix D).
 Mount Tabor neighborhood, a recent hotspot, experienced four removals of elms.
 In Sellwood-Moreland, a single case of DED resulted in removal.

Southwest Portland lost two elms attributable to DED, a much lower figure to the nine
removed in 2019 and 2018.
 Downtown lost both elms in the Southwest sextant, with two elms removed from
the right-of-way along SW 1st Ave.

With seven removals this year, Northeast Portland continues a downward trend of fewer
removals year after year, as 13 removals occurred in 2019 and 15 in 2018.
 Laurelhurst noted two removals of elms, equal to each of the past two years’ totals,
respectively.
 Grant Park saw five elms removed, two more than in 2019.
4        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Northwest Portland had two removals related to the elm monitoring program, down from
three in 2019.
 The Northwest District contained the two elm removals in the sextant, one in
Wallace Park and the other in the North Park Blocks.

North Portland logged three elm removals to DED, down significantly from the nine
removed in 2019.
 Piedmont, Kenton and Boise neighborhoods each detailed a single elm removed,
with Peninsula Park losing an American elm.

Historical averages

The number of elms removed in 2020 is near average compared to the last decade of elm
removals (Figure 1). Portland’s elm mortality rate remains low and relatively stable. While
most of this year’s elm removals occurred in southeast neighborhoods, northeast
neighborhoods continue to experience high elm losses. Neighborhoods in the southwest,
northwest and north continue to contribute to DED-related elm loses, albeit fewer in
number, consistent with past trends (Figure 2).
 Since DED appeared in the city in 1977, a total of 1,419 elm trees have been
removed in Portland due to elm monitoring efforts (Appendix C).
 Assuming that the elm population was about 3,700 in 1986, around 38 percent of
the elm population has been removed, an average of approximately 1 percent of the
elm population annually.
 A majority of the elms removed in Portland are replanted with hybrid elms that are
resistant to DED.

* Majority of elms removed were young trees in a natural area

Figure 1: Number of elms removed annually due to monitoring efforts (1977‐2020)
5        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   

Figure 2: Number of elms removed each year due to DED monitoring per city sector
over the last ten years (2011‐2020)

Testing

Urban Forestry sent 32 samples to the Oregon State University Plant Pathology Clinic to be
tested for DED. Samples were only sent to the lab when streaking was found under the bark
of examined branches.
 Twenty-five samples came back positive for the DED fungus, for a positive rate of 78
percent.
 Though eight samples came back negative, three DED-negative elms were ultimately
removed due to being dead or dying.
 Additionally, ten elms were removed without the possibility of DED testing due to a
lack of live woody tissue to sample for testing.

Removals

In 2020 Urban Forestry removed elms in public parks and certain rights-of-way that tested
positive for DED or had DED-like symptoms and were in severe decline. Right-of-way elms
that tested DED-positive, or fit the City’s criteria for dead, dying, or dangerous, were
required to be removed by the adjacent property owner.
 Urban Forestry crews removed six: four elms removed in public parks included
Wallace Park, Peninsula Park and North Park Blocks, as well as two elms on
Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) property in Downtown.
 Most of the elms removed during 2020 were in the 30.1-40-inch DBH range, which
is consistent with previous years’ trends (Figure 3 and 4).
 Ten elms were removed by property owners due to being located on private
property.
 Adjacent property owners removed eighteen DED-positive elms in the right-of-way,
and removed nine elms in the right-of-way after they were determined to be dead,
dying, or dangerous. In total, 43 elms were removed, 38 DED related and five hybrid
elms dead or dying removed due to code compliance.

6        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   


Figure 3: Number of elms removed due to monitoring efforts by DBH size class, in
inches (2020)

Figure 4: Percent of elms removed due to monitoring efforts by DBH size class, in
inches (1990‐2020)

7        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Elm Inoculations

Urban Forestry inoculated 119 elms in ten locations with the Arbotect macroinjection
technique in the summer of 2020 (Table 1). This is in keeping with the three-year rotation
of inoculation. Additionally, other private community members inoculated their elms, a
total of six, by contracting with various local tree care providers.

Table 1: Location and number of elms treated with Arbotect (Thiabendazole)

fungicide in 2020 by Urban Forestry

Location Number of Elms

South Park Block 1 15
South Park Block 2 15
South Park Block 10 4
South Park Block 11 10
South Park Block 12 10
Omaha Blocks 32
Gabriel Park 6
Eastmoreland Golf Course 14
Normandale Park 6

Pettygrove Park 7
Total 119

Outreach
The elm monitor talked with many homeowners
about their elms, as well as several neighbors about
the DED activity in their neighborhood. It was
standard practice to knock on the door of any
property being sampled when the elm monitor did
the initial inspection. This helped residents prepare
for activity around their elm(s) and the potential for
removal. In several instances, the removal posting
initiated conversations with residents about DED in
their neighborhood, and Urban Forestry's policy to
post a sign on the condemned elms seems to
contribute well to raising public awareness of the
disease.
Example of signage posted prior to
elm removal



8        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Elm Inventory
In 2016, Urban Forestry completed a multi-year update of the
elm inventory. The prior inventory had not been updated since
2001. An inventory of elms increases the efficiency of elm
monitoring as well as enhances accuracy in data and reports. It
also ensures that DED monitoring is thorough and complete. Data
sources for the updated inventory include Portland’s Street Tree
Inventory and data collected by the elm monitor on Park
property trees (2014) and private property trees (2015-2016).
The resulting database is updated as elms get sampled, removed,
or planted.
Elm inventoried by volunteers
The elm inventory, as of 2020, consisted of 4,910 total elms, during Portland’s street tree
approximately half of which are resistant cultivars and species inventory in 2016
(Table 2).

Table 2: Elm inventory species composition (2020)

DED Susceptible Species DED Resistant Species
American 2400 Hybrid 2053
Camperdown 74 Siberian 266
Other susceptible 76 Other non-susceptible 41

Total 2550 52% 2360 48%

The updated elm inventory reveals interesting distribution patterns in the size/age class of
elms and resistance to DED. The population of DED-resistant elms is comprised mostly of
smaller-sized trees, between 0-3 inches DBH (Figure 5). This pattern is likely driven by the
continuous addition, via planting, of young DED-resistant elm cultivars. This contrasts with
the size class distribution of DED-susceptible elms, in which majority of elms are older,
large size trees (Figure 6).













9        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   


Figure 5: Size class distribution of DED‐resistant elms

Figure 6: Size class distribution of DED‐susceptible elms

10        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
As noted previously, the loss of elms in 2020 was relatively low, at approximately 0.83
percent elms lost per year (Figure 7). Though the most recent elm loss is slightly lower
than one percent, there is not a clear downward trend in the percentage of elms removed
per year. There does appear to be a spatial component to elm losses and removals
(Appendices 3, 4, 5). In neighborhoods with high concentrations of elms (Appendices 4, 5),
elm removals appear to progress along the same blocks from one year to the next. The
majority of all elm species, approximately 69 percent, are located in the public right-of-way
(Figure 8).

Figure 7: Elm population and loss 2016‐2020

Figure 8: Proportion of elm population by property type (N=4905)

11        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Program Challenges & Recommendations

Through the efforts of Urban Forestry’s DED management program the annual loss of elms
remains steady at around one percent. Nonetheless, the continued output of resources to
maintain these trees requires continued evaluation. The following challenges and
recommendations should be considered as the program moves forward.

Policy & Equity of Services

In 2017, as a result of a budget realignment, Urban Forestry discontinued removing DED-

positive elms from the public right-of-way, shifting this responsibility to the adjacent
property owner, in compliance with City Code Title 11, Trees. Funding previously used for
these removals is now used for crucial maintenance of Heritage Trees and park trees across
the city, allowing for a more equitable distribution of park tree maintenance activities. An
additional important outcome of this funding shift has been greater staff capacity and
resources for swift removal of DED-positive elms in public parks, thereby decreasing
opportunity for DED spread.

 Continuing to fund and support maintenance of park and Heritage elms across the
city is essential for DED management and highly recommended.
 Incorporating DED management into a more comprehensive pest and pathogen
program, to more broadly address pests and pathogens that are current or
imminent threats to trees distributed in parks across the city, is also highly
recommended.

Prevention

Inoculation of DED-susceptible elms in parks and those designated as Heritage elms occurs
on a three-year cycle using the fungicide Arbotect.

 The long-term effectiveness of this fungicide in protecting an elm from DED, along
with phytotoxic effects or stresses incurred upon the tree, should be scientifically
evaluated.
 Using Urban Forestry data, the survival rate of inoculated elms in Portland should
be evaluated.

Another preventative tool is the elm pruning moratorium. The goal of this measure is to
prevent the spread of the DED fungus through attraction of elm bark beetles to pruning
sites when during the height of beetle activity.
 The current elm pruning moratorium is static, from April 15th to October 15th each
year; however, this schedule does not account for annual shifts on beetle
emergence or activity as a result of climate change. As such, it is recommended to
track degree days annually, and adjust the pruning moratorium accordingly.
 Outreach and education on the importance of proactive deadwood pruning in the
winter should be provided for community members responsible for elms.
12        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
A multi-year elm inventory was completed in 2016, providing important information on
location, type, age class and condition of elms on private and public property.
 Future elm monitors should consider tracking how DED symptoms occur on
infected elms, as this may reveal how DED spreads among elm trees in different
parts of the city.
 Monitoring the success of newly planted DED-resistant elms will help inform future
planting efforts to ensure that the most successful cultivars are chosen.

13        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Appendices

A large elm at 1943 SE Ladd Ave showing flagging, a typical sign of Dutch elm disease.

14        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Appendix A: Location and ownership of DED positive elms removed in 2020

Location of 2020 DED Elms Neighborhood Property Type # of

Elms
North Portland
Peninsula Park Piedmont Park 1
3625 N Mississippi Ave Boise Private 1
8814 N Curtis Ave Kenton Private 1
Total N 3
Northeast
3625 NE Davis Laurelhurst ROW 1
1332 NE 37th Ave Laurelhurst ROW 1
2615 NE 41st Ave Grant Park ROW 2
1908 NE 26th Ave Grant Park ROW 2
2607 NE 41st Ave Grant Park ROW 1
Total NE 7
Northwest
Wallace Park Northwest District Park 1
North Park Blocks Northwest District Park 1
Total NW 2
Southeast
1706 SE Elliott Ave Hosford-Abernethy ROW 1
2305 SE Elliott Ave Hosford-Abernethy ROW 1
2313 SE Elliott Ave Hosford-Abernethy ROW 1
1943 SE Ladd Ave/1503 SE Harrison St Hosford-Abernethy ROW 1
3206 SE Rex St Eastmoreland ROW 1
1944 SE 51st Ave Mt. Tabor ROW 2
2046 SE 51st Ave/5115 SE Lincoln St Mt. Tabor Private 2
6535 SE 21st Ave Sellwood-Moreland ROW 1
Total SE 10
Southwest
2145 SW Naito Pkwy Downtown ROW 1
2525 SW 1st Ave Downtown ROW 1
Total SW 2
Grand Total 24

15        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Appendix B: Map of DED positive elms removed in 2020

16        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Appendix C: Current inventory of DED susceptible and resistant elms, including elms
removed through 2020

3.5
Miles ´
17        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
 Appendix D: Elm inventory of Ladd’s Addition historic district (2020)

0.15
Miles
´

18        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION   
   
Appendix E: Elm inventory of Eastmoreland neighborhood (2020)

0.35
Miles
´

19        PORTLAND PARKS & RECREATION