[CANUFNET] Optimal Tree Health Condition Rating

[Julian Dunster]

Bonjour Bruno

I think you are looking for a suggested health rating. Using the word 
target may be confusing as that is usually reserved for the target of 
concern in the event of failure. I am not sure there is such a thing as 
a suggested health rating that can be equitably applied in all cases. 
Many of us use a very broad scheme: Good (no obvious problems of 
concern), Fair (some problems but none of them too serious right now, 
but a downward trend is likely), and Poor (obvious problems that the 
tree will not overcome and mortality is likely sooner not later). I try 
to avoid splitting it down into really fine components because they 
never ever work in every situation, most of it is very subjective, and 
it can change quite rapidly.   I really don't know what the percentage 
figures would tell you (I am assuming that you did not mean percentage 
of canopy cover). With climate change (prolonged summer drought and heat 
domes year after year) overall tree health in urban and rural areas is 
trending downwards very rapidly on the west coast, especially on 
Vancouver Island.

Yours sincerely,
On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.


Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified Arborist,
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378,
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

www.dunster.ca
www.treelaw.info
North American distributor for Rinntechwww.rinntech.info


On Thu/1/6/2022 9:57 AM, Bruno PAQUET via CANUFNET wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Best wishes for the year ahead with hopefully less COVID considerations.
>
> Being responsible for the urban forest of a borough on the Montreal 
> Island, I am looking for references on the optimal target rating for 
> the health condition of public trees.
>
> A recent study I commissioned (2021) showed, based on a sampling of 
> 10% of our public tree population, that the condition rating of our 
> trees along streets and in parks was 67%.
>
> I have consulted many documents and have not found anything specific 
> about a target for such an optimal rating, which would be recognized 
> by the community as desirable. A target score of 100% would obviously 
> be completely unrealistic but what should we aim for, 80, 85 or 90%.
>
> Your comments would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> *Bruno Paquet*
>
> bruno.paquet at montreal.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *_AVERTISSEMENT_* : Ce courriel et les pièces qui y sont jointes sont 
> destinés exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionné(s) ci-dessus et 
> peuvent contenir de l’information privilégiée ou confidentielle. Si 
> vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, ou s’il ne vous est pas 
> destiné, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l’expéditeur et 
> effacer ce courriel ainsi que les pièces jointes, le cas échéant. La 
> copie ou la redistribution non autorisée de ce courriel peut être 
> illégale. Le contenu de ce courriel ne peut être interprété qu’en 
> conformité avec les lois et règlements qui régissent les pouvoirs des 
> diverses instances décisionnelles compétentes de la Ville de Montréal. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20220106/4c50ac11/attachment.htm>