[CANUFNET] Canopy Cover

Wed Mar 18 09:39:44 EDT 2009

Andy I do support your position that one size does not fit all. Although 
the information below may be over simplistic ...but you are looking at a 
20 - 40 year window for significant benefits regardless of the goal of 
forest cover.

Factors are based, coming from a farming community that developed over the 
last 25 years from a population  of 40,000 to 185,000, with most vegetated 
areas limited to some valley lands and smaller tracts of woodlots. This is 
not unlike many other Greater Toronto area municipalities faced with 
development pressures. 
 The move to 40% cover or a locally set target, 15%, 25% should be 
determined in my  opinion after:

1) An inventory even at a high level using aerial or remote sensing data 
to establish the baseline forest  cover.

2) Next  one would have to look at the current zoning of the undeveloped 
parcels of lands to determine what opportunities may present themselves 
for existing or future forest area. Conditions could be placed on the 
undeveloped lands pro-activley if there is a strong commitment by all 
participants.

3) Evaluate the local Councils position on what the aim is for percentage 
of residential, commercial, manufacturing, and industrial  lands, ie. 70% 
residential, 15% commercial. 15% manufacturing as a tax base.  This  helps 
determine the forest cover opportunities based on Council + Corporate 
Policy/Strategic Plan direction.  This also helps to cross reference the 
existing zoning to be used with the Corporate direction to see if there is 
a forecast change in existing zoning to meet Planning Policy,  at some 
point in the future.  This would also help review for existing/potential 
forest cover as part of development. There is an opportunity here to 
introduce as part of the Planning Policy, a  percentage of a development 
for forest cover or cash in lieu for smaller sites to be used to acquire 
forested sites. This, if successful would set the Development tone around 
forest cover and potentially raise the profile for protection of existing 
woodlots/hedgerows as part of the development  process. 
Further cross referencing the Upper Tier level of Government, ie. 
Regional, County, on their official plan and secondary plans can help 
identify opportunities for green space/forested areas retention. 
Conservation Authorities play a significant role in the watershed areas on 
forest cover and should be part of the consultation process. Provincial 
role is determined by the local policies set out in legislation and should 
be incorporated in the strategy .The above  can help develop links on 
common goal projects which can be presented  in a coordinated manner when 
development applications come in.

4) Evaluate existing  public lands/open space for tree cover in tangent 
with projected community use of the area to determine the local focus of 
the community and demographics for the specific site. ie., recreational 
facilities and types of use for the area , ie., picnic trails system, 
leisure sports, all have an impact on the viability of adding forest 
cover. 

5) Of existing sites under ownership by a public agency review of site 
specific vegetation and soil structure to determine what would be 
appropriate plantings and areas. Also determine percentage of existing 
cover as a baseline that could be added too. Long term plans can be 
created for phased enhancement/maintenance as resources allow.

6) Developing a municipal private tree bylaw can help raise the awareness 
of the benefit of trees on private lands, set the tone for the local 
Council commitment to the protection of  forest cover, and potentially 
help improve the planting, maintenance of the existing private trees.

6) Have a strategy for the public relations, both internal and external of 
the Municipality for presentations for the entire process and development 
of community involvement. 

Monitor the changes such that they can be reported on to interested 
parties to update on percentage of change in forest cover.
Further have some flexibly in the program to act quickly when land 
acquisition opportunities arise that meet the criteria for forest cover 
enhancement. This would be determined at the inventory stage to help 
monitor or actively approach the property owner(s) of the public interest 
in enhancing forest cover.

This could be fine tuned...but may help some in the process.
A bit of a dream maybe but parts are attainable with commitment   ....long 
term of course.
Other thoughts?

Peter Wynnyczuk

"Andy Kenney" <a.kenney at utoronto.ca> 
Sent by: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net

03/17/2009 09:14 PM
Please respond to
Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>

To
"'Canadian Urban Forest Network'" <canufnet at list.web.net>
cc

Subject
[CANUFNET] Canopy Cover

I think this question of “where did the 40% canopy cover” value come from, 
as raised by Dale, is an very important one.  My guess is that it has been 
passed along from an estimate that American Forests came up with. However, 
when pressed, even AF admits that “one size doesn’t fit all”.  I am 
concerned that this new-found interest in increasing canopy cover to some 
magic number is, in fact, setting urban forest management back! 

Some food for thought:

1)      Such numbers are seldom based on an understanding of what the 
community’s carrying capacity is, so we assume there is room to achieve 
40%.  Perhaps this might be theoretically possible in many communities but 
WHERE is the 40% (what land-use type, what ownership, is it strategically 
located, etc.)?
2)      Since most of our urban forest is on private property, reaching 
meaningful canopy cover targets means that we will have to rely heavily on 
the private sector not only to establish trees but to TAKE CARE OF THEM 
for many decades.  Do the communities proposing dramatic increases in 
canopy cover have well-developed community engagement programmes to 
deliver on this?  I have yet to see one even getting close.
3)      Expansion of canopy cover is highly sensitive to mortality rates. 
What is the mortality rate in your municipality?  If we are to increase 
canopy cover (often by breathtaking amounts) we surely must have some idea 
of how quickly we are LOSING cover?  I often hear communities state that 
they have planted X number of trees this year, how often is that number 
accompanied by the number of trees removed.  Oh, and remember, planting a 
60 mm B&B doesn’t account for removing a 900 mm veteran. We don’t have any 
meaningful estimates of mortality rates that I am familiar with.  Numbers 
can be picked out of thin air or educated guesses can be made, but do we 
have any scientifically-based mortality rates?  That is just mortality 
given the usual rigors of city life for trees.  When we factor in climate 
change, invasive insects, infill development, etc. ……
4)      Planting may cost $600 per tree but that isn’t the cost of the 
tree.  Perhaps we should be suggesting that no tree be planted on city 
property unless there is a long-term commitment from council to provide 
the resources needed AT LEAST to ensure that the tree lives long enough to 
contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the 
community.  Clearly, that takes some time.

But surely proposing expanding canopy cover can’t be a bad thing for our 
urban forests!  I’m not so sure. I believe we are in a serious dilemma. It 
seems that politicians and others are finally recognizing that urban 
forests are important and need support.  But the “40%” solution or the 
“expand canopy cover” approach is a painful oversimplification of what is 
needed!  The trees that already exist, especially the large ones, are the 
ones that are contributing to the social, economic and environmental 
quality of our communities.  (On that note, does the community even have a 
tree inventory to indicate the current status of the urban forest – not 
the municipal forest but the entire urban forest?). There seems to be an 
ever-increasing head-long rush to increase canopy cover with, what appears 
to be little regard for the issues I raised above. Remember, canopy cover 
alone tells us very little about the state of our urban forests (nothing 
about species diversity, size class distribution, tree condition, etc.). 
This simplistically appealing approach, I fear, will shift any focus from 
meaningful urban forest management/stewardship to a programme of tree 
planting. 

If your council wants to dramatically increase canopy cover I suggest you 
first ask them why. Then, if you are convinced they really know, insist 
that this programme to theoretically increase canopy cover is funded only 
after your budgets to sustain the existing canopy are secure.  Then ask 
them to guarantee that resources will be available to sustain the trees to 
be planted in this expansion programme not for a few years after the 
guarantee but right up to and including the removal of the big stump that 
will be left after a BIG tree finally must come down.

Of course we must plant trees and yes canopy cover is one convenient but 
simplistic measure of the extent of our urban forests, but it is incumbent 
upon us as urban forestry professionals and stewards to make sure that 
policy makers don’t  dumb-down the issues to such a degree that the real 
tasks are left floundering and, after all the money is spent and the 
silver-plated shovels have been put away, the urban forest is less 
well-off.

Sorry for frothing at the mouth and the run –on sentences, but I was on a 
roll!

Andy

From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] 
On Behalf Of Leadbeater, Dale
Sent: March 17, 2009 6:33 PM
To: canufnet at list.web.net
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] CANUFNET Digest, Vol 52, Issue 6

Hello:

I am working on a plan for the City of Vaughan that is targeting 40% 
canopy cover, including urban street trees as well as forest within the 
core natural heritage network.  We have prepared a draft document that 
provides the justification for an outcomes based approach to planning and 
are in the initial stages of developing policy.  I expect that models like 
the City of Toronto Ravine By-Law will be most helpful in pushing the 
envelope to greater forest cover.  We are linking forest cover to 
ecosystem services in order to increase value to the developer.

Do you have a justification for the 40%?  How did the recommendation come 
about? 

Dale Leadbeater, B.Sc., B.Ed.
Senior Biologist
AECOM
300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300
Markham, ON L3R 5Z6
(905) 477 8400 ext. 229
dale.leadbeater at aecom.com

Does anyone have a comprehensive plan developed for their city to increase 

the canopy cover? The Brantford City Council has directed us to develop a 
plan to get to 40% canopy cover for the entire city.  We have begun to 
assess canopy cover and we conclude that our blvd trees contribute 5% to 
the canopy cover of Brantford.  Is anyone else working on a similar 
project? 

________________________
Brian Geerts 
Urban Forestry Technician
City of Brantford 
Parks & Recreation Department
1 Sherwood Drive
Brantford, ON     N3T 1N3
519.756.1500 x5511
Fax 519.756.4893 
bgeerts at brantford.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20090318/7015d75c/attachment.htm>