[CANUFNET] canopy cover targets

Fri Jul 1 08:42:56 EDT 2016

Great discussions!

I wonder if there is a different way of conveying the message we need to get across? Perhaps something ‎that is easily calculated using what most municipalities have or are acquiring; a comprehensive tree inventory.

Having  very detailed data on dbh, height range, and conditions (among other details)  of nearly every street and park tree, and using tools like itree for example, we can quantity the more precise benefits on the ground.
Let's face it, canopy on the street or in a manicured park, is no way comparable to the canopy of a woodlot, and we still need wetlands, buildings, roads, and farm fields. Farm fields for example likely provide some benefits that shouldn't be skewed by canopy or shade targets.

To Ian's point of loosing trees that are not appropriately compensated for, instead of a arbitrary 1:1 or other general formula, I have been using a simple aggregate caliper type method, for our City owned trees; depreciated by condition (which may represent the actual benefit the tree s providing) we might actually get a more appropriate replacement of the loss. (High risk trees are a different animal...)
I understand bylaws are difficult when things are not black and white, but I think we should think about appropriation.
This is nothing new, and really got the idea from Burlington and R. Lipsitt.  Using the CTLA score out of 4 representing near perfect and 0 dead, 2 out of 4 is essentially "fair". So, ‎for example, a 100cm tree in fair condition (50% depreciation (for example)) that must be removed. This tree requires 50cm of new tree to come back in, ten 5 cm new trees.
One unfortunate issue is our view on "invasives" or undesired trees; these are often "allowed" to be removed while they still provide benefits and not properly compensated for. We need to view these trees still for similar compensation as we have the ability to replace more appropriate species if desired.
I know this is still debatable, but I think it really better represents a loss (without getting too deep into appraisal, and still keeps it simple for calculations).
‎(BTW, Ian, I planted a Harlequin maple a few years ago at home, it is so beautiful!  I was thinking of you though, I call it my romantic Norway maple,  lol:)
Keep the discussions going, it is important and either way, everyone's comments sparks ideas and more thought!

Way to go Canada!

Peter‎ Shields
Forestry Supervisor, City of Markham

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
From: Janet McKay
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:44 PM
To: canufnet at list.web.net
Reply To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] canopy cover targets

All absolutely true challenges and shortcomings of our current way of doing things, but if we don't have high (aspirational) targets, we have no leverage to argue that we need to change the way we are doing things.  If City Councils lower targets to meet what is realistic today there's even less incentive for them to find ways of doing things in a better/smarter way.

Have a great weekend everyone and thanks for the thought-provoking discussions!

Janet McKay, Executive Director

LEAF (Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests)
Artscape Wychwood Barns
253-601 Christie St
Toronto, ON  M6G 4C7
416-413-9244 x17
1-888-453-6504 x17

[Donate]<http://www.yourleaf.org/node/4>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:00 PM, <canufnet-request at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet-request at list.web.net>> wrote:
Send CANUFNET mailing list submissions to
        canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/canufnet
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        canufnet-request at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet-request at list.web.net>

You can reach the person managing the list at
        canufnet-owner at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet-owner at list.web.net>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CANUFNET digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: FW: tree canopy target (Ian Bruce)
   2. Re: Canadian or U.S. jute tree tie suppliers (Ian Bruce)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:08:26 -0400
From: Ian Bruce <ianbruce at brucetree.com<mailto:ianbruce at brucetree.com>>
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] FW: tree canopy target
Message-ID:
        <CACXcgmJBaU=ao5EUHDW2+Xmxfh2135PQYXVk-Pm-YJj6GYkh6g at mail.gmail.com<mailto:ao5EUHDW2%2BXmxfh2135PQYXVk-Pm-YJj6GYkh6g at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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<mailto:vmiladi at toronto.ca>>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Connie Pinto
> *Sent:* June-21-16 3:32 PM
> *To:* 'canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>'
> *Cc:* Vojka Miladinovic; 'alan.kemp at nanimo.ca<mailto: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<mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>
> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net<mailto: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<mailto:alan.kemp at nanaimo.ca> <alan.kemp at nanaimo.ca<mailto:alan.kemp at nanaimo.ca>>*
>
> *www.nanaimo.ca/goto/urbantrees<http://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-0001.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-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:50:01 -0400
From: Ian Bruce <ianbruce at brucetree.com<mailto:ianbruce at brucetree.com>>
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Canadian or U.S. jute tree tie suppliers
Message-ID:
        <CACXcgmJZXoXhiZwVL+JQGupa1PBo-wQBi3U9X6e=U1=TRQ+oFQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:TRQ%2BoFQ at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I saved this message as a draft and forgot about it, but I have a lot of
experience over 44 years staking and tying trees and assessing every manner
of tree tie material.  So I decided later better than never.

I would start by saying that back in the 90s Landscape Ontario and OALA
co-operated to put together the LOHTA/OALA committee of industry experts to
look at high mortality of newly planted trees due to transplant shock.
Well-known industry experts like Tony DiGiovanni, and at the time, Horst
Dickert and John Putzer and others on the 8 person committee approached the
question by listing all of the reasons for transplant shock and then one by
one listed the best alternative that supported transplant success and free
growing on.

The outcome of the above year-plus project was the development of the
"Reference Guide For Developing Planting Details".  The guide includes a
well-laid out description of the issues and recommended methods for
planting for success.  The document was revised in 2005 and nothing much
has changed.  The methods outlined are in most cases the result of years of
experience on the committee and research all over North America (one of the
most important and local experts being Dr. Glen Lumis from U of G.  I
strongly suggest that anyone looking to put together a detail (BR, B&B, CG,
WB or tree-spade dug) would be well-advised to contact LO for a copy of
this guide.  (side note: we also put together a similar document entitled
"A Reference Guide For Selecting and Handling Plant Material".

The above-noted planting detail guide sought to *eliminate the use of* any
material used in the above-ground planting operation that did not
biodegrade in a reasonable period of time if whoever planted it forgot
about follow-up inspection and maintenance.  Out of that we recommended
taking strips of regular loose weave burlap (such as the material used to
ball, burlap and drum-lace trees) and rolling it and tying the tree in a
figure 8 with a couple of twists between stake and tree to keep the stake
itself from banging, rubbing or girdling the trunk.

Today with an emphasis on time-saving and a uniform method and finished
product where many crews and hands are involved, I recommend 2" wide
closely woven burlap.  It biodegrades reasonably quickly, comes in an easy
to manage and stow (in a truck) roll, and is quick and easy to apply. If
you want something to spec for large quantity contract or in-house
plantings, this is the material.  As noted by others, Timm Enterprises
carries this material.

Our operations division also uses Arbor-tie synthetic webbing in other tree
support applications where we need the least obtrusive material in highly
ornamental landscapes where clients get put off by "unattractive, crude"
materials like burlap.  The cautionary message here is that being synthetic
(and very strong) this material will last a long time and not degrade
quickly enough or adequately enough to avoid girdling of the trunk or
getting caught and included in the union of a lower branch and the trunk.

Rather long-winded I guess, but proper planting (second only to proper
species and plant selection and careful handling) is at the root of future
health, vitality and longevity of the trees in our urban forest canopies.

Happy Canda Day weekend.

Cheers,
iAN

[image: Inline image 1]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Alice Casselman <
alice.casselman37 at gmail.com<mailto:alice.casselman37 at gmail.com>> wrote:

> We use burlap for ties around stakes for young trees
> Timmenterprises.com
> Great family business west of Toronto talk to Heidi the daughter running
> the business
> Alice for ACER
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Master Plan, Urban Forest <ufmp at halifax.ca<mailto:ufmp at halifax.ca>>
> wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> Is anyone aware of a Canadian or US supplier of jute tree ties?  The
> product is available in Europe, Australia and NZ.  Some suppliers will ship
> internationally but I?m hoping to find something a bit closer to home.
> Here?s an example of the product.
>
>
> http://www.advancelandscape.co.nz/shop/Plant+Stakes++Ties/Jute+Tree+Tie+Webbing.html
>
> Thank you,
>
> John Charles
>
> UFMP Project Manager
>
> Halifax Regional Municipality
>
> PO Box 1749
>
> Halifax, NS  B3J 3A5
>
> T.  902.490.5771
>
> C. 902 476.7372
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160630/1c478e67/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/20160630/1c478e67/attachment.png>

End of CANUFNET Digest, Vol 136, Issue 25
*****************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160701/0db9d74f/attachment-0001.html>