<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Excellent points Andy,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">That is exactly where our research is
coming from. Our initial Council direction came from a concerned
member of the public that had found the American Forests guidelines on
the web. The citizen made a presentation to City Council and they
latched on to the idea. Now our main task is to back the whole train
up to a point we can start from. The carrying capacity is a point
that especially concerns me. In Brantford, our historical canopy
cover has never been that high; there were large woodlands, but also large
expanses of prairie and oak savanna. These ecosystems have important
ecological services and value too. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">We have recently completed the first
stage of canopy research for Brantford where we overlayed a 100m square
grid over the entire city and estimated canopy cover for each cell. This
has given us an excellent coarse detail map of where the canopy is high
and low. It is easy to overlay with land use, property boundaries,
zoning, etc to see how tree canopy relates to each of these current land
uses. This gives us a much better start than a random sample system
that gives over all averages. Once the ground truthing is complete,
we will be able to report how many hectares has 0%, 1%, 5%, 10% cover etc.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A key component of our initial presentation
to City council will be where the onus for canopy improvement lies. We
have current measurements using our tree inventory that City of Brantford
street trees contribute 5% to the total, but now we will be able to present
the large component that lies on private property. Our 60,000 street
trees provide 900 acres of canopy cover. It's interesting to note
that we have enough street tree canopy cover to shade all the street pavement
in the City. That's not a bad ratio. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">We will use the political momentum to
improve our management of the urban forest, but the size, shape, and location
of how that is to be done is yet unclear. So far we've been told
where to go, but without detailed information on where we are and where
we've been, it's not much use. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">________________________<br>
Brian Geerts <br>
Urban Forestry Technician<br>
City of Brantford <br>
Parks & Recreation Department<br>
1 Sherwood Drive<br>
Brantford, ON N3T 1N3<br>
519.756.1500 x5511<br>
Fax 519.756.4893 <br>
bgeerts@brantford.ca</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>canufnet-request@list.web.net</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: canufnet-bounces@list.web.net</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/17/2009 09:20 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
canufnet@list.web.net</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">canufnet@list.web.net</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">CANUFNET Digest, Vol 52,
Issue 7</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Send CANUFNET mailing list submissions to<br>
canufnet@list.web.net<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
</font></tt><a href=http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/canufnet><tt><font size=2>http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/canufnet<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
canufnet-request@list.web.net<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
canufnet-owner@list.web.net<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of CANUFNET digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Canopy Cover (Andy Kenney)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:14:14 -0400<br>
From: "Andy Kenney" <a.kenney@utoronto.ca><br>
Subject: [CANUFNET] Canopy Cover<br>
To: "'Canadian Urban Forest Network'" <canufnet@list.web.net><br>
Message-ID: <004901c9a766$da826050$8f8720f0$@kenney@utoronto.ca><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I think this question of "where did the 40% canopy cover" value
come from,<br>
as raised by Dale, is an very important one. My guess is that it
has been<br>
passed along from an estimate that American Forests came up with. However,<br>
when pressed, even AF admits that "one size doesn't fit all".
I am<br>
concerned that this new-found interest in increasing canopy cover to some<br>
magic number is, in fact, setting urban forest management back! <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Some food for thought:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1) Such numbers are seldom based on an understanding
of what the<br>
community's carrying capacity is, so we assume there is room to achieve
40%.<br>
Perhaps this might be theoretically possible in many communities but WHERE<br>
is the 40% (what land-use type, what ownership, is it strategically located,<br>
etc.)?<br>
<br>
2) Since most of our urban forest is on private property,
reaching<br>
meaningful canopy cover targets means that we will have to rely heavily
on<br>
the private sector not only to establish trees but to TAKE CARE OF THEM
for<br>
many decades. Do the communities proposing dramatic increases in
canopy<br>
cover have well-developed community engagement programmes to deliver on<br>
this? I have yet to see one even getting close.<br>
<br>
3) Expansion of canopy cover is highly sensitive to
mortality rates.<br>
What is the mortality rate in your municipality? If we are to increase<br>
canopy cover (often by breathtaking amounts) we surely must have some idea<br>
of how quickly we are LOSING cover? I often hear communities state
that<br>
they have planted X number of trees this year, how often is that number<br>
accompanied by the number of trees removed. Oh, and remember, planting
a 60<br>
mm B&B doesn't account for removing a 900 mm veteran. We don't have
any<br>
meaningful estimates of mortality rates that I am familiar with. Numbers<br>
can be picked out of thin air or educated guesses can be made, but do we<br>
have any scientifically-based mortality rates? That is just mortality
given<br>
the usual rigors of city life for trees. When we factor in climate
change,<br>
invasive insects, infill development, etc. ..<br>
<br>
4) Planting may cost $600 per tree but that isn't the
cost of the tree.<br>
Perhaps we should be suggesting that no tree be planted on city property<br>
unless there is a long-term commitment from council to provide the resources<br>
needed AT LEAST to ensure that the tree lives long enough to contribute
to<br>
the environmental, social and economic well-being of the community.<br>
Clearly, that takes some time.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But surely proposing expanding canopy cover can't be a bad thing for our<br>
urban forests! I'm not so sure. I believe we are in a serious dilemma.
It<br>
seems that politicians and others are finally recognizing that urban forests<br>
are important and need support. But the "40%" solution
or the "expand<br>
canopy cover" approach is a painful oversimplification of what is
needed!<br>
The trees that already exist, especially the large ones, are the ones that<br>
are contributing to the social, economic and environmental quality of our<br>
communities. (On that note, does the community even have a tree inventory<br>
to indicate the current status of the urban forest - not the municipal<br>
forest but the entire urban forest?). There seems to be an ever-increasing<br>
head-long rush to increase canopy cover with, what appears to be little<br>
regard for the issues I raised above. Remember, canopy cover alone tells
us<br>
very little about the state of our urban forests (nothing about species<br>
diversity, size class distribution, tree condition, etc.). This<br>
simplistically appealing approach, I fear, will shift any focus from<br>
meaningful urban forest management/stewardship to a programme of tree<br>
planting. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If your council wants to dramatically increase canopy cover I suggest you<br>
first ask them why. Then, if you are convinced they really know, insist
that<br>
this programme to theoretically increase canopy cover is funded only after<br>
your budgets to sustain the existing canopy are secure. Then ask
them to<br>
guarantee that resources will be available to sustain the trees to be<br>
planted in this expansion programme not for a few years after the guarantee<br>
but right up to and including the removal of the big stump that will be
left<br>
after a BIG tree finally must come down.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Of course we must plant trees and yes canopy cover is one convenient but<br>
simplistic measure of the extent of our urban forests, but it is incumbent<br>
upon us as urban forestry professionals and stewards to make sure that<br>
policy makers don't dumb-down the issues to such a degree that the
real<br>
tasks are left floundering and, after all the money is spent and the<br>
silver-plated shovels have been put away, the urban forest is less well-off.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sorry for frothing at the mouth and the run -on sentences, but I was on
a<br>
roll!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: canufnet-bounces@list.web.net [mailto:canufnet-bounces@list.web.net]<br>
On Behalf Of Leadbeater, Dale<br>
Sent: March 17, 2009 6:33 PM<br>
To: canufnet@list.web.net<br>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] CANUFNET Digest, Vol 52, Issue 6<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hello:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I am working on a plan for the City of Vaughan that is targeting 40% canopy<br>
cover, including urban street trees as well as forest within the core<br>
natural heritage network. We have prepared a draft document that
provides<br>
the justification for an outcomes based approach to planning and are in
the<br>
initial stages of developing policy. I expect that models like the
City of<br>
Toronto Ravine By-Law will be most helpful in pushing the envelope to<br>
greater forest cover. We are linking forest cover to ecosystem services
in<br>
order to increase value to the developer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Do you have a justification for the 40%? How did the recommendation
come<br>
about? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dale Leadbeater, B.Sc., B.Ed.<br>
<br>
Senior Biologist<br>
<br>
AECOM<br>
<br>
300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300<br>
<br>
Markham, ON L3R 5Z6<br>
<br>
(905) 477 8400 ext. 229<br>
<br>
dale.leadbeater@aecom.com<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Does anyone have a comprehensive plan developed for their city to increase
<br>
<br>
the canopy cover? The Brantford City Council has directed us to develop
a <br>
<br>
plan to get to 40% canopy cover for the entire city. We have begun
to <br>
<br>
assess canopy cover and we conclude that our blvd trees contribute 5% to
<br>
<br>
the canopy cover of Brantford. Is anyone else working on a similar
<br>
<br>
project? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________<br>
<br>
Brian Geerts <br>
<br>
Urban Forestry Technician<br>
<br>
City of Brantford <br>
<br>
Parks & Recreation Department<br>
<br>
1 Sherwood Drive<br>
<br>
Brantford, ON N3T 1N3<br>
<br>
519.756.1500 x5511<br>
<br>
Fax 519.756.4893 <br>
<br>
bgeerts@brantford.ca<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <</font></tt><a href=http://list.web.net/archives/canufnet/attachments/20090317/c744838d/attachment.htm><tt><font size=2>http://list.web.net/archives/canufnet/attachments/20090317/c744838d/attachment.htm><br>
<br>
End of CANUFNET Digest, Vol 52, Issue 7<br>
***************************************<br>
</font></tt></a></a>
<br>