[CANUFNET] canopy cover targets

[Ian Bruce]

I certainly agree whole-heartedly Janet, the job of urban forestry planners
is to plan for the future of a healthier more expansive urban forestry
canopy.  However municipal urban forestry planners ultimately report to a
broad spectrum of stakeholders from the public at large to funding agencies
and ultimately city council.

Realization of the goals and objectives espoused by Urban Forest Management
Plans (specifically urban canopy targets) will only  flow from buy-in by
these stakeholders.

I would suggest that all the urban forest planning we do will fall short
without an equal supporting effort to concurrently educate those we need
on-board.  This requires strong and dedicated lobbying, particularly given
the ever-increasing competition by other "essential service" suppliers for
attention and funding.  The statistics and facts woven into the fabric that
supports this education and lobbying need to be substantive and compelling.

In the late 80's I hosted a one-day workshop at Humber for a group of the
most prominent urban foresters in the Toronto area.  There were probably 25
(at the most) in attendance.   Consider how far we have come since the 80s
and 90s  with respect to urban forestry planning, university education
programmes, urban forest networking, research and media coverage and very
importantly...climate change.

In light of this trajectory of advancement and all of the interaction here
on Canufnet, I am encouraged that the urban forestry community (notably in
Canada), has the expertise and collective will to develop or contribute to
a definitive statistics-based model for use in developing
jurisdiction-specific canopy cover targets which will reflect the multitude
of prevailing influences.

Happy Canada Day weekend,
iAN

[image: Inline image 1]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Janet McKay <janet at yourleaf.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> [image: Donate] <http://www.yourleaf.org/node/4>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:00 PM, <canufnet-request at list.web.net> wrote:
>
>> Send CANUFNET mailing list submissions to
>>         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
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         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>
>> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] FW: tree canopy target
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CACXcgmJBaU=
>> ao5EUHDW2+Xmxfh2135PQYXVk-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>
>> 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-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>
>> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <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>
>> 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> 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>
>> > 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/20160702/7c73cdfb/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/20160702/7c73cdfb/attachment-0001.png>