[CANUFNET] FW: tree canopy target

Thu Jun 30 14:08:26 EDT 2016

So....not to put a negative spin on all of this positive discussion around
canopy cover targets but...

As the owner of a tree care firm in Toronto, I would like to throw out the
following comments with respect to our targets here for future canopy:

   1. In recent years, the consulting arborists in our firm are
   increasingly  having to represent tree preservation related expectations by
   the city and for clients, that compete head-on with issues around
   intensification, re-development and in-fill.  One good example is the
   city's recent requirement that developers replace long-time surface parking
   on their empty sites with underground public parking as part of their
   development proposal.
   2. Related to the latter but also a problem with providing significant
   underground parking for high-rise development in areas zoned for
   intensification, is the trend to underground built form (parking lots)
   stretching property line to property line on all four sides.  Ultimately
   when the water-proofing membrane deteriorates and the slab of this
   underground needs repair, all trees on the site have to be removed and all
   soil excavated to facilitate re and re.  You can guess what happens when
   they are done and re-landscaping... a new crop of 50-60 mm. trees or
   hopefully  larger.  Positive side...excellent opportunity to replace some
   old worn-out, poorly performing or structurally defective trees or
   currently less than desirable species (Norway Maple, but don't get me going
   on that topic) with desirable species of the day, healthy and structurally
   sound and reflective of the new pallet of built form and site-related
   constraints. Down-side...large growing shade trees contributing
   significantly on those sites get replaced by a short-rotation crop because
   up until now membrane technology promised us 25-35 years of water-proofing
   life.
   3. Then there are the "natural" pressures on the existing canopy of EAB,
   ice storms and the threat of Oak Wilt and Sudden Oak Death.
   4. Lastly is our mushrooming love affair with redevelopment of old
   residential sites with small bungalows or war-time houses on, to monster
   homes that push the zoning limits and threaten large, previously healthy
   and in many cases structurally sound trees that escaped chronic injury due
   to their location away from the street.

40%....needs to be considered with a grain of salt in a city land-locked by
surrounding existing urban sprawl.

Happy Canada Day Weekend.

iAN

[image: Inline image 1]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Vojka Miladinovic <vmiladi at toronto.ca>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Connie Pinto
> *Sent:* June-21-16 3:32 PM
> *To:* 'canufnet at list.web.net'
> *Cc:* Vojka Miladinovic; 'alan.kemp at nanimo.ca'
> *Subject:* tree canopy target
>
>
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> My colleague forwarded the inquiry below.
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
> We are currently working on the development of a tree planting strategy
> for the City of Toronto with a target of increasing the tree canopy cover
> to 40% by 2050-2060.
>
> Our current tree canopy cover is between 26.6% and 28% with approximately
> 10.2 million trees across the city, 60% of these are on private property.
>
>
>
> Toronto's tree canopy target is one of six strategic goals proposed  in
> the City's Strategic Forest Management Plan
> <http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Parks%20Forestry%20&%20Recreation/Urban%20Forestry/Files/pdf/B/backgroundfile-55258.pdf>.
> Research suggested that '40% tree canopy cover is optimum in cities where
> the ecological climax community is deciduous forest. This will ensure the
> sustainability of the urban forest and preserve the ecological functions
> while maximizing community benefits from trees'.  See also: Assessing
> Urban Forest Effects and Values: Toronto’s Urban Forest
> <http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Parks%20Forestry%20&%20Recreation/Urban%20Forestry/Files/pdf/R/Reports/effects-and-values.pdf>  and
> Every Tree Counts
> <http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=5e6fdada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=9aad60d066169410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD>
> .
>
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>
>
> Good luck,
>
> Connie
>
> *---------------*
>
> *Connie Pinto*
>
> *Program Standards & Development Officer*
>
> Urban Forestry
>
> *416-392-0357 <416-392-0357>*
>
> Toronto.ca/trees
> <http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=470bdada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*
>
>
> * CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>] On Behalf Of Alan Kemp Sent: June-21-16
> 12:11 PM To: 'Canadian Urban Forest Network' Subject: [CANUFNET] tree
> canopy target*
>
>
>
> *The City of Nanaimo has an Urban Forest Management Strategy. In that
> Strategy we have a target of increasing our forest canopy to over 30% in
> the next decade. Of course this is difficult in the urban setting. Our
> Management and Protection of Trees Bylaw supports this document by
> requiring tree replacement plans for development, which in general terms
> works. However, I was asked why 30% or even 35%? What is the scientific
> reasoning behind that. Although I can explain all the benefits of an urban
> forest, I could not really give a good science based answer. I have looked
> through a lot of literature, but don’t seem to be able to give a reasonable
> answer.*
>
>
>
> *Any suggestions?*
>
>
>
> *Alan Kemp*
>
> *Urban Forestry Coordinator*
>
> *Certified Arborist, Certified Tree Risk Assessor*
>
> *Community Development*
>
> *City of Nanaimo*
>
> *250 755 4460 <250%20755%204460> (local 4357)*
>
> *alan.kemp at nanaimo.ca <alan.kemp at nanaimo.ca>*
>
> *www.nanaimo.ca/goto/urbantrees <http://www.nanaimo.ca/goto/urbantrees>*
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160630/2f5e8e97/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1d-ian_email_signature.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16237 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160630/2f5e8e97/attachment.png>