<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>Hello all:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As regards the magic 40% number, I explored that somewhat further in the background for Toronto's UFORE report. I came up with the following points, including the American Forests reference (see below). I'm sure there are more. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any of the references to specific municipalities. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Incidentally, one of the most challenging aspects of Toronto's UFORE/canopy work is answering the commonly-asked question - are our treeplanting programs effective in helping the City reach its canopy goals?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As Andy also points out, there are no reliable numbers for mortality and as such, it is almost impossible to predict ("Grow-Out" models notwithstanding) what the long-term outlook for canopy is in the face of balancing new gains from tree establishment with continuing loss of mature canopy. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would recommend to any City that a specific exploration of this issue is key to understanding the long-term outlook. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why 40%?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"Toronto's tree cover targets are based in part on American Forest (<A href="http://www.americanforests.org/">www.americanforests.org</A>) recommendations of an average 40% canopy cover (the equivalent of approximately 20 large trees per acre) to ensure the sustainability of the urban forest. </SPAN><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN">American Forests arrived at that figure after analyzing the tree canopy in dozens of cities over the last five years and working closely with the research community. Urban areas most likely to achieve that 40 percent figure would have an ideal mix of central business district, urban residential, and suburban property (<EM>cited from AF source</EM>). </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Furthermore, a systems approach to protecting natural heritage has been incorporated into official plans of municipalities in Toronto and Region as a <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Natural Heritage System</I> (City of Toronto), a <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Greenlands System</I> (Regions of Peel, York) or an <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Open Space System</I> (Region of Durham), with similar systems being incorporated into local municipal official plans<A title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="#_ftn1" name=_ftnref1><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote"><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">[1]</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A>.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The concept of identifying a <U>minimum target</U> amount of natural heritage lands to be restored and included in the system is also emerging as follows: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan work coordinated by Environment Canada has suggested that to achieve and maintain healthy watersheds, at least 30% of a watershed should be in forest cover and 10% of the watershed should be wetlands <o:p></o:p></SPAN></LI>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan recommends that municipalities assess the desirability of achieving 30% of a subwatershed in self-sustaining vegetative cover</SPAN></LI></UL>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">etc.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="mso-element: footnote-list">
<DIV id=ftn1 style="mso-element: footnote">
<P class=MsoFootnoteText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-ansi-language: EN-CA"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoFootnoteText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-ansi-language: EN-CA"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">Rike Burkhardt, Planner<BR>Urban Forestry<BR>18 Dyas Road<BR>Toronto, ON M3B 1V5</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoFootnoteText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-ansi-language: EN-CA"><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman">Tel: 416-392-7305<BR>Fax:416-392-1915<BR></FONT></o:p></SPAN><BR><BR>>>> <BGeerts@brantford.ca> 3/18/2009 8:44 AM >>><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Excellent points Andy,</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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 face=sans-serif size=2>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 face=sans-serif size=2>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 face=sans-serif size=2>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 face=sans-serif size=2>________________________<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></P></DIV></DIV>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>canufnet-request@list.web.net</B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Sent by: canufnet-bounces@list.web.net</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>03/17/2009 09:20 PM</FONT>
<TABLE border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD bgColor=white>
<DIV align=center><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond to<BR>canufnet@list.web.net</FONT></DIV></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></P>
<TD width="59%">
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV>
<TD vAlign=top><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>canufnet@list.web.net</FONT>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV>
<TD vAlign=top>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
<TD vAlign=top><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>CANUFNET Digest, Vol 52, Issue 7</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></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></BODY></HTML>