[CANUFNET] Trees and boulevards

Tue Oct 5 02:31:06 EDT 2021

Philip - as I had indicated, I thought this should at least be possible with Public Infrastructure projects.

Is it being required for projects on public lands?

> On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:37 AM, pwassenaer1022--- via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:
> 
> Ha ha ha….entirely possible but who will impose that and enforce it on the development community?
>  
> In my experience the development community has an inordinate amount of sway over municipalities and things related to development. Until that changes, these things will remain “possible” but will not be implemented…
>  
> Philip
>  
> From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>> On Behalf Of Naomi Zurcher via CANUFNET
> Sent: October 4, 2021 10:08 AM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>>
> Cc: Naomi Zurcher <treerap at sprintmail.com <mailto:treerap at sprintmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Trees and boulevards
>  
> Why can’t municipalities require that any and all construction must remove existing topsoil in lifts and thoughtfully store that topsoil for re-installation on the same site. This should be entirely possible at least on public infrastructure projects.
> 
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Oliver Reichl via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>> wrote:
>>  
>> “Nowadays developers remove all of the precious topsoil from the land before building a new subdivision, then bring back enough topsoil to support the new sod.“
>> 
>> 
>> That’s been standard practice in the GTA for decades. Can a municipality regulate soil volumes?
>>  
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 11:12 AM Trevor Thistle via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>> wrote:
>>> Hi Ian, 
>>>  
>>> Here in Edmonton I have been working almost exclusively with tree conservation during Neighborhood Renewal (NR) for 13 years. NR is the process of reconstructing all sidewalks, curbs and streets in a neighborhood, as well as adding missing infrastructure. 
>>>  
>>> In our oldest neighborhoods I feel that trees growing in boulevards with separate sidewalks (curb on one side, sidewalk on the other side of the tree) have not really been impacted by the perceived restricted growing area, with the exception of roots literally engulfing curbs or overlapping sidewalks. I believe that the reason for this is that the construction standards that were in place decades ago (between neighborhood establishment and the time the sidewalk was last replaced) allowed for the construction of sidewalks on top of organic soil. So, in most cases, the trees had little challenge accessing soil beyond the boulevard. 
>>>  
>>> However, new construction standards include a gravel base and mechanical compaction under sidewalks. Also, greenfield construction is not what it used to be. Nowadays developers remove all of the precious topsoil from the land before building a new subdivision, then bring back enough topsoil to support the new sod. In these cases, regardless of the sidewalk design (mono or seperate) the trees do not have enough soil volume to support them. We do amend soil volumes with trenches in separate boulevards, but these are trenches in clay with still inadequate soil volumes. So my point is, depending on construction practices and standards, the configuration of the sidewalks in relation to the trees may have less impact on soil growing space than we think. 
>>>  
>>> but I would agree that trees in a more free to grow state, with little or no barriers to quality soil will outperform a tree in restricted growing space, and there will be fewer infrastructure / tree conflicts. This means that we will minimize tree related damages to infrastructure and construction related damages to trees in order to maintain that infrastructure. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Trevor Thistle Bsc. Forestry
>>> Urban Forester | PR-4760AM | Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
>>> OPEN SPACE OPERATIONS
>>> CITY OPERATIONS |  PARKS AND ROADS SERVICES
>>>  
>>> 780-944-5577  OFFICE
>>> 780-913-5893  MOBILE
>>>  
>>> City of Edmonton  <https://www.google.com/maps/search/City+of+Edmonton%C2%A0+12830+58+Street+NW?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> 12830 58 Street NW <https://www.google.com/maps/search/City+of+Edmonton%C2%A0+12830+58+Street+NW?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 9:21 AM Ian Wilson via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>> wrote:
>>>> All, we are having a bit of an internal debate about standards for local/residential roads and boulevards.  My observation is that trees that are planted in a boulevard behind a monolithic sidewalk (sidewalk up against the curb and planting area next to the property) generally do better. They have access to more soil volume in the front yard, they get more water and the boulevard is tidier since the homeowner treats it like part of their yard. Also fewer issues with roots lifting sidewalks. Some of our staff prefer the separated treed boulevard, for various reasons. Note, I’m not talking about busier roads where the trees in boulevards help to form a barrier from traffic.
>>>>  
>>>> We don’t have a lot of good examples here that directly show a comparison. Does anybody have some photos that might show the performance of trees on one side of the road in a separated boulevard, vs. trees on the other side behind the sidewalk?
>>>>  
>>>> Below is an example that doesn’t exactly show this, but it does show the value of soil volume, with the trees on the left side being able to access the lawn area behind the sidewalk, vs. the trees in “coffins” on the right. These are lindens planted at the same time.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Ian Wilson
>>>> Infrastructure Operations Manager | City of Kelowna
>>>> 250-469-8842 | iwilson at kelowna.ca <mailto:iwilson at kelowna.ca>
>>>> Submit a request for service on the go | kelowna.ca <http://kelowna.ca/>
>>>> I acknowledge that my workplace is located on the traditional, ancestral, unceded territory of the syilx/Okanagan people.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The contents of this message and any attachment(s) are confidential, proprietary to the City of Edmonton, and are intended only for the addressed recipient. If you have received this in error, please disregard the contents, inform the sender of the misdirection, and remove it from your system. The copying, dissemination, or distribution of this message, if misdirected, is strictly prohibited.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
>> -----------
>> Sent from my mobile phone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20211005/674ef0e2/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 88879 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20211005/674ef0e2/attachment-0001.jpg>