[CANUFNET] canopy cover targets
jimtree123 at gmail.com
jimtree123 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 13:42:44 EDT 2016
I just did a workshop on soil in Kitchener On and they have a very progressive topsoil restoration policy that is worth considering for other Canadian (and US) cities. If I was to think about what limits future canopy after saving the mature trees you already have, saving and restoring topsoil and undisturbed subsoil is the next limiting factor. We are currently overlooking the subsoil as an important part of the soil profile and roots do grow in subsoils as well as the subsoil contributing to drainage.
Most Canadian suburban land development projects are on sites with large top soil deposits. Assuming that the A horizon is about a foot deep and useful B horizon soil is another foot, there is a huge stock pile of valuable soil coming off of development sites. Much of the soil we might consider as topsoil in the market place is actually B horizon soil and sometimes even C horizon soil. A typical residential subdivision is currently covering more than 50% of the land with paving and buildings allowing for more than 4 feet of topsoil to be placed on the remaining green parts of the landscape. Obviously expecting replacement of 4 feet of soil is impractical so there will always be more good soil than needed regardless of how much is required to be placed. In the ultimate ordinance the developers should be required to leave as generous a layer of topsoil on the site for tree canopy and then require responsible reuse of the remainder. It could be simply sold to a soil distributor or taken to a soil bank for use in urban sites that lack generous top soil deposits.
A second issue implied in Alice’s post is: Can developers design projects with less soil disturbance? While this is ideal, developing at reasonable densities (attached town homes, or smaller single family with smaller yards, and setbacks) makes grading in all but the most flat sites difficult without topsoil stripping and then mass grading. We have to find the balance between density and soil preservation. It is likely that mass grading and then reasonable soil restoration is going to be the way forward. Alice suggest that leaving clay at the site is a big problem. I would offer that it is compaction and soil grading not soil texture that is the bigger issue to resolve. The engineering and environmental community must figure out how to mass grade with less compaction and subsoil grading requirements. For example is 85% proctor density suitable for fill in front and rear yard subsoils with then small amounts of mounding to anticipate some amount of settlement? The other challenge will be to grade less leaving subsoils undisturbed over a greater extent of the site. Less grading will require, in most sites, allowing steeper streets and require a more detailed approach to grading between building and between streets and buildings. More walls and difficult to manage slopes so that the subdivision conforms to the existing contours. This was the way development was designed before we got the equipment to flatten landscapes. If you look at the older parts of Toronto or Montreal particularly in areas near the ravines and in the hilly areas of old subdivisions you will see this care in land forming to respect contours and existing grades. Yes this will cost more to develop and will be the real challenge to bring along the development community and train engineers and landscape architects to design in this manner. This may be more important that pushing for deeper topsoil requirements although I would want both.
I had a similar discussion at the Saskatoon soils workshop last year and would be interested in if they made any progress in reducing the loss of topsoils. Maybe Michelle Chartier can add an update voice to this thread.
Just some thoughts from an American.
Jim Urban, FASLA / Urban Trees + Soils
915 Creek Drive / Annapolis, Maryland 21403
Cell 410 693 9053 Office 410 263 4838
jimtree123 at gmail.com
http://www.jamesurban.net
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Alice Casselman <alice.casselman37 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A major policy that needs to be revisited in my view is the one regulating how developers are allowed to clear the land before building
>
> By allowing removal of topsoil we are all trying to preparing to plant on subsoil
> Think schoolyards and homes
> Where tree struggle due bad soil eg Peel clay!!
>
> Alice
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Councillor Laura Dupont <Dupontl at portcoquitlam.ca <mailto:Dupontl at portcoquitlam.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Ian for the good points you make. I am grateful to hear the diversity of perspectives on the issue of "ideal canopy" for our communities. It is vital to engage all stakeholders and ideally build good policy to weather the storms of changing governments. :)
>>
>> I think this issue plays an extremely important role at making our regions resilient to the effects of climate change and I appreciate the dialogue. Keep up the good work everyone and please if you don't already, consider building relationships with your Councils so we too can be informed and understand that this should be a high priority.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Councillor Laura Dupont
>> City of Port Coquitlam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On: 04 July 2016 04:03, "Ian Bruce" <ianbruce at brucetree.com <mailto:ianbruce at brucetree.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Janet McKay <janet at yourleaf.org <mailto: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 <>
>> <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <tel:416-392-0357> <416-392-0357 <tel:416-392-0357>>*
>> >
>> > Toronto.ca/trees <http://toronto.ca/trees>
>> > <http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=470bdada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD <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 <tel:250%20755%204460> <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://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 <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 <tel:902.490.5771>
>> >
>> > C. 902 476.7372 <tel:902%20476.7372>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160630/1c478e67/attachment.html <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 <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/20160705/66f3e67d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CANUFNET
mailing list