Appendix I: Existing Conditions Report

Transcription

1 Appendix I: Existing Conditions Report

2 Trinity Bellwoods Park

3 Summary Analysis of the Neighbourwoods Tree Inventory Trinity Bellwoods Park Presented to Friends of Trinity Bellwoods Park November 2009 Report presented by: The Trinity Tree Team Brian Volz Annie McKenzie Caroline Booth Mike Halferty Masters of Forest Conservation University of Toronto Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto i

4 Acknowledgements Special thanks to Andy Kenny for his guidance and to the volunteers who helped Brian Volz complete the 2009 tree inventory in Trinity Bellwoods Park: Elizabeth Comber, Vanessa Eickhoff, Anna Hill, Anna Mernieks, and Victoria Taylor. Thank-you also to Martin Danyluk and Vanessa Eickhoff for their editing assistance. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto ii

5 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Methodology Inventory Area Summary Analysis of the Tree Inventory Tree Diversity Tree Diversity by Genus Tree Diversity by Species Tree Size Distribution of Trees by Height Class Distribution of Trees by Diameter Class Tree Condition Overall Condition of Trees Tree Condition by Diameter Size Class Tree Condition by Species Potential Risk Trees Candidate Heritage Trees References Appendix 1: All the trees with buffer set to the crown radius and color coded to condition rating Appendix II: Complete list of tree species in Trinity Bellwoods Park Appendix III: Trees with less than 1% representation Appendix IV. Potential heritage trees Appendix V: Neighbourwoods quick reference guide Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto iii

6 List of Figures Figure 1: Aerial view of Trinity Bellwoods Park... 2 Figure 2: Distribution of native vs. non-native trees... 4 Figure 3: Number of deciduous vs. evergreen trees... 5 Figure 4: Distribution of trees by genus... 6 Figure 5: Distribution of species that represent more than 5% of the total number of trees... 7 Figure 6: Distribution of maples by species Figure 7: Distribution of oaks by species... 8 Figure 8: Distribution of ashes by species Figure 9: Distribution of coniferous trees by species Figure 10: Distribution of trees by height class Figure 11. Distribution of trees by diameter class Figure 12: Size class distribution by species Figure 13: Condition of all trees Figure 14: Condition of all tree species by size class Figure 15: Condition for most common species Figure 16: Condition of Norway maples by size class Figure 17: Condition of silver maples by size class Figure 18: Condition of sugar maples by size class Figure 19: Condition of red and green ashes by size class Figure 20: Condition of lindens/basswoods by size Figure 21: Map of potential risk trees List of Tables Table 1: DBH classes by size Table 2: Neighbourwoods condition ratings Table 3: Neighbourwoods inventory categories of interest when assessing tree risk Table 4: Table of high, medium and low priority risk trees in TBP Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto iv

7 1 Introduction In the spring of 2009 the Friends of Trinity Bellwoods, a volunteer community group, approached University of Toronto Forestry Coordinator Andy Kenney to inquire about the creation of a tree inventory for their neighbourhood park. The enthusiastic group recognized the park and its trees as a valuable resource to the community and has initiated the first step in creating a Strategic Urban Forest Management Plan. Our company, Trinity Tree Team, composed of 4 students from the University of Toronto s Master of Forest Conservation program, commends the Friends for choosing to hire Brian Volz to complete a tree inventory of the park. The work completed thus far includes GIS mapping of individual tree locations and an inventory and health assessment of all the trees and naturalized areas within the park. All trees have been measured in terms of diameter at breast height (DBH), crown width and height, and overall tree height. The inventory has been the first step towards cataloguing tree data and planning for the future of this important urban park. 2 Methodology Over the summer of 2009, a tree inventory was completed for the over 800 trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park. The data was collected according to Neighbourwoods protocol, an inventory methodology designed for use by neighbourhood community members with little to no arboricultural experience. Diameter at breast height (DBH), crown width and height, and overall tree height were measured for each tree. Individual trees were scored for the presence and severity of a variety of condition attributes such as lean, rot cavity, and defoliation (see Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 1

8 Appendix IV for the Neighbourwoods Quick Reference Guide) and a cumulative score was used to rate the trees overall condition as excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor (see Table 2: Neighbourwoods condition ratings, in section 3.3). Finally, each tree was mapped into a geographical information system (GIS), and all data were entered into a database for future reference. The inventory data collected for Trinity Bellwoods Park are the basis for the analysis contained within this report. 3 Inventory Area Figure 1: Aerial view of Trinity Bellwoods Park (compiled image) (Source: URL: Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 2

9 Trinity Bellwoods Park (Figure 1) is bounded by Dundas Street on the North, Queen Street on the South, Crawford Street and Shaw Street on the West and Gore Vale Avenue on the East. The total area of the park is 15.1 hectares. 4 Summary Analysis of the Tree Inventory This report summarises the distributions, for example by genera and species, size class, native vs. non-native, deciduous vs. coniferous, and tree condition, of the existing trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park. Simplifying the extensive data contained in the inventory is vital to understanding the current composition and structure of this part of the urban forest. Only after understanding these characteristics can informed management decisions be made. Simply analyzing species diversity is not sufficient because it does not give a complete picture of the forest structure. For instance, a particular species may be represented by a large number of trees, but they could all be recently planted and therefore small in size compared to their potential size at maturity. Other species may be numerous but represented primarily by old trees reaching the end of their life cycle. In addition, Trinity Bellwoods Park contains rare tree species that are represented by only one or two trees, such as the solitary sycamore maple in the northwest corner or the two bitternut hickories in the southeast. It is only after completing a tree inventory that hidden gems like these are brought to light. Using the inventory data, appropriate measures can be incorporated into the management plan that will help to increase diversity and improve the health of the park s forest. Good planning and management is essential to improving the quality of the trees in this park, maximizing the environmental, economic and social benefits provided to the community. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 3

10 4.1 Tree Diversity Trinity Bellwoods Park contains both native and non-native tree species, with native trees comprising the majority (about two-thirds of all trees Figure 2. Refer to Appendix 1 for a list of all tree species occurring in the park). In general, native species are often preferable to nonnatives because they are locally adapted to soil conditions and climate (UFI Inc. and Kenney 2008). As well, non-native tree and shrub species that are not naturally found in Ontario s forests can become problematic if they invade woodlands, ravines and other natural areas. Though not all non-native species are invasive, several of the species in the park, including Norway maple, Siberian Elm, and Manitoba maple, are considered invasive species in Ontario (Urban Forestry Services 2009). When these trees and shrubs invade natural areas, they displace other tree species and ground layer vegetation and can permanently alter the composition of the forest (Urban Forestry Services 2009). non native, 290, 36% native, 511, 64% Figure 2: Distribution of native vs. non-native trees (total number of trees = 801) Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 4

11 There are more deciduous trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park than evergreens (Figure 3). Deciduous species lose their leaves and become dormant during the winter, whereas evergreens do not. Evergreen 81, 10% Deciduous 729, 90% Figure 3: Number of deciduous vs. evergreen trees (total number of trees = 801) Tree Diversity by Genus Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park by genus. Genera that represent less than 3% of the total are grouped into category other". The three most common genera in the park were maple (genus Acer) Ash (genus Fraxinus) and Oak (genus Quercus). Maintaining biological diversity in the urban forest helps to safeguard against the effects of pest and disease epidemics. If the forest is made up of only a few different types of trees, a disease or pest that targets one of those types has the potential to destroy large portions of the canopy cover. For example, the spread of Dutch Elm disease in many North American cities killed most elm trees in a relatively short time and severely depleted many communities urban Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 5

12 forests. According to Santamour (2002), ideally less than 20% of urban trees should be from a single genus and less than 10% should be of a single species. According to Santamour s model, within Trinity Bellwoods Park only maples (genus Acer) exceed the 20% guideline. However, 12% of the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park are ashes. This could be problematic because ash trees are vulnerable to the emerald ash borer, an insect that has been spreading through Ontario and has been spotted in Toronto (CFIA 2009) % Maple 31, 4% % Ash Oak 33, 4% Linden 34, 4% Elm 40, 5% 47 6% 78 10% 94 12% Honey Locust Spruce Pine other Figure 4: Distribution of trees by genus (total number of trees = 801) Tree Diversity by Species The Neighbourwoods inventory revealed that there are 61 tree species in Trinity Bellwoods Park (Appendix 1). Trees representing less than 1% of the total inventory are presented in Appendix II. The distribution of tree species that represent more than 5% of the total number of Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 6

13 trees within Trinity Bellwoods Park is shown in Figure 5. The only species that is above the 10% recommended by Santamour (2002), as discussed above, is Norway maple. Norway Maple 138, 17.25% Sugar Maple 72, 9% Linden 41, 5% Silver Maple 62, 7.75% Green/Red Ash 54, 7.5% Figure 5: Distribution of species that represent more than 5% of the total number of trees within the park The following graphs illustrate the tree species distribution in the three most common genera found in Trinity Bellwoods Park: Maple (Figure 6), Oak (Figure 7) and Ash (Figure 8). The species distribution of coniferous trees, which make up 10% of the total trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park, is shown in Figure 9. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 7

14 Other, 7 Red Maple, 26 Norway Maple, 138 Silver Maple, 62 Sugar Maple, 72 Figure 6: Distribution of maples by species (305 trees total). Other includes sycamore maple (1), Amur maple (2), and Manitoba maple (4) English Oak, 2 Bur Oak, 5 White Oak, 5 Pin Oak, 6 Red Oak, 39 Swamp White Oak, 21 Figure 7: Distribution of oaks by species (78 trees total) Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 8

15 European Ash, 4 Black Ash, 6 Red/Green Ash, 60 White Ash, 24 Figure 8: Distribution of ashes by species (94 trees total) Douglas Fir, 5 Dawn Redwood, 5 Blue Spruce, 23 White Spruce, 10 White Pine, 16 Austrian Pine, 15 Figure 9: Distribution of coniferous trees by species (74 trees total, cedar not included) Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 9

16 4.2 Tree Size The benefits provided by trees are directly related to their size: larger trees provide more shade, are more efficient at filtering air pollutants, sequester more carbon, and provide more habitat for wildlife (Kenney 2000), and knowing the size of a tree is important in making management decisions. For the inventory of Trinity Bellwoods Park, the height and diameter at breast height (DBH) were measured for each tree,which for many species, can be used to estimate tree age, and accordingly, how much larger the tree may be when it reaches full maturity (UFI Inc. and Kenney 2008) Distribution of Trees by Height Class Smaller trees are often planted on streets in the city of Toronto because they interact less with restrictions such as power lines, signs and buildings. Trinity Bellwoods Park, however, offers a green space where trees can grow to maturity, providing additional benefits such as reducing wind speed and attenuating storm water flows. Although large trees are the most important in terms of environmental benefits, it is also crucial to maintain a diversity of tree sizes and ages so that old trees will be replaced by young trees when they die. Figure 10 shows the height class distribution of all the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park. Tree height was divided into three classes based on the inventory data: less than 5 meters, 5 to 10 meters, 10 to 15 meters, and greater than 15 meters. Almost a third of the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park are large trees with a height greater than 15m. The trees in the smallest category may be under-represented because the naturally-established saplings that were growing in naturalized areas were not measured. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 10

17 # of trees % % % % 0 <5m 5 10m 10 15m > 15m Height class Figure 10: Distribution of trees by height class (801 trees total) Distribution of Trees by Diameter Class The Neighbourwoods inventory also used diameter at breast height (DBH) to measure tree size. The diameter of each tree trunk was measured at roughly 1.5 meters from the ground and the DBH measurements were then grouped into six diameter classes. Figure 11 illustrates the number of trees in each diameter class in Trinity Bellwoods Park. Table 1: DBH classes by size Class DBH 1 <16cm >76 Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 11

18 # of trees , 30% 163, 20% 179, 22% 106, 13% 65, 8% 49, 6% Diameter Class Figure 11. Distribution of trees by diameter class (801 trees total) The diameter distribution for each species that comprise more than 2.5% of all the trees in the park is shown in Figure 12. This graph reveals that there have been no recent plantings of Norway maple in Trinity Bellwoods Park, due primarily to proactive planting practices which aim to reduce or eliminate planting invasive non-native species within the urban environment. Another interesting thing to note is that swamp white oaks show relatively high representation, but all are within the smallest size class. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 12

19 4.3 Tree Condition Healthy trees that reach their maximum growth potential and develop full crowns supported by strong branch structure provide many environmental benefits. Although trees in natural and urban forests do eventually decline and die, the process of decline for trees in urban settings is more pronounced because they are exposed to stresses such as soil compaction, lack of nutrients, air pollution, drought, and confined space (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney 2009). Monitoring and maintaining the health of young trees is therefore important because it increases their ability to replace declining older trees. Monitoring and maintaining the health of older trees is also of importance because it can significantly increase the life span of these trees, reducing the risk to public safety and increasing the environmental benefits that are provided by large trees. Understanding the condition of trees and their growing environment is important in identifying serious problems, making informed management decisions, and for guiding longterm maintenance of the urban forest (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney 2009). Tree condition is determined by evaluating the structural integrity of the tree and its state of health (CLTA 1992). Studying tree condition across genera and species is an important tool that aids in the decision making process for future plantings. In this inventory, tree condition was derived by rating the condition and characteristics of the crown, foliage, trunk and roots using the Neighbouroods protocol. The resulting overall condition categories are described in Table 2. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 13

20 # of trees Swamp White Oak Blue Spruce White Ash Red/Green Ash Honey Locust Red Oak Linden spp. Red Maple Silver Maple Sugar Maple size class size class size class size class size class size class Norway Maple Figure 12: Size class distribution by species Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 14

21 Table 2: Neighbourwoods condition ratings Rating EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR Description Tree is free of any visible defects No serious problem Minor problems in one or more category Major problems exist Serious problems exist Every tree in Trinity Bellwoods Park was given a condition rating that is recorded in the inventory database Overall Condition of Trees The overall condition of all the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park is shown in Figure 13. In general, the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park are in good health with 72% in excellent or good condition, with no serious problems. However, 16% of the trees in the park are in poor or very poor condition, meaning that they have major health problems Tree Condition by Diameter Size Class # of trees , 49% 184, 23% 90, 11% 49, 6% 82, 10% excellent good fair poor verypoor Condition rating Figure 13: Condition of all trees Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 15

22 Evaluating the condition of trees in each diameter class is useful in understanding the sizes of trees that are declining or are in poor health. Maintaining good tree condition in all of the six diameter classes is important. A variety of tree sizes coupled with good tree health will ensure regeneration in the urban forest: healthy small trees are needed to replace the old trees that are naturally declining and dying. The condition of the trees in each diameter size class in Trinity Bellwoods Park is shown in Figure 14 (refer to Table 1 for diameter size class explanation). # of trees size class 1 size class 2 size class 3 size class 4 size class 5 size class 6 excellent good fair poor very poor Figure 14: Condition of all tree species by size class Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 16

23 4.3.3 Tree Condition by Species Maintaining tree health across a diversity of species is also important. The condition of different tree species will vary based on their ecological and biological characteristics and their ability to tolerate the conditions in the park. Evaluating the condition of each species is necessary to decide which species should be planted in the future and to determine which species require more care and maintenance (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney 2009). Figure 15 illustrates the condition of the most common tree species in Trinity Bellwoods Park (species that represented more than 2.5% of all trees). The five most abundant species of tree in Trinity Bellwoods Park are: Norway maple, Silver maple, Sugar maple, Green ash and Linden. Tree condition is shown for these species in Figure 16 - Figure 20. It is interesting to note that none of the linden or basswood trees in the park are in very poor condition. (Legend applies to all Figures) Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 17

24 # of trees Swamp White Oak Blue Spruce White Ash Red/Green Ash Honey Locust Red Oak Linden spp. Red Maple Silver Maple Sugar Maple very poor poor fair good excellent Norway Maple Figure 15: Condition for most common species (species representing >2.5% of all trees) Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 18

25 # of trees very poor poor fair good excellent size class Figure 16: Condition of Norway maples by size class Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 19

26 25 20 # of trees size class Figure 17: Condition of silver maples by size class # of trees size class Figure 18: Condition of sugar maples by size class. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 20

27 # of trees size class 5 Figure 19: Condition of red and green ashes by size class # of trees size class Figure 20: Condition of lindens/basswoods by size. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 21

28 5 Potential Risk Trees By keeping the tree inventory up to date, Friends of Trinity Bellwoods volunteers can play an important role in identifying potential risk trees. Not every tree with a defect is hazardous (van Wassenaer, and Kenney 2001), and the ultimate risk diagnosis and treatment of trees should always be done by a certified arborist with training and experience in tree risk assessment. The available inventory data for Trinity Bellwoods Park can however help the community to assess which trees are most likely to present a risk and are therefore in greatest need of professional attention. In this report, we have categorized potential risk trees into three levels: high, medium, and low priority for detailed inspection. These categories can be used to assess the level of attention required by the City of Toronto. For example, a tree categorized as high priority may need immediate assessment, while a low priority tree could be assessed during future inspections or inventories. The priority levels are based on the data collected in the Neighborwoods inventory, and are adapted from Kjeldsen-Kragh Keller (2007). The inventory categories of particular interest when assessing potential risk are: dead or broken branch; poor branch attachment; lean, rot or cavity in the trunk; and crack. A score of 3 was required in these categories in order for the tree to be considered as a potential risk (see Table 3 for a description of a score of 3 in each category). A minimum DBH of 30cm was also required, acknowledging that large trees in decline present a higher potential risk than small trees. The high priority trees are those that have a crack or lean, as these can be indicative of complete tree failure and possible collapse. Medium priority trees are those with a broken or dead branch, a potentially dangerous condition, but one that can be easily dealt with through Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 22

29 pruning. Low priority trees are those displaying trunk rot or poor branch attachment, not necessarily in need of immediate action but to be flagged for future monitoring. Table 3: Neighbourwoods inventory categories of interest when assessing tree risk, with criteria for a score of 3 and associated risk priority level Defect Description of a score of 3 Poor Branch Attachment Rot or Cavity - Trunk Dead or Broken Branch Lean Crack There is a V-shaped union between a major branch and the main stem with evidence of included bark and/or the union is showing signs of failure An area of rot or an open cavity which is greater than 1/2 the diameter of the stem is present. The tree has one or more large dead or broken branches or stubs originating from the main stem or a scaffold branch. The tree has a serious lean (>15 from vertical) with some evidence of root mounding or soil cracking on the side of the tree away from the lean. One major crack (extending more than 1/2 the diameter of the stem) is present or one or more major cracks is in contact with another defect. Priority level Low Low Medium High High A risk assessment protocol must also take into consideration the location of the tree. Failure does not present a high risk unless the tree is in close proximity to a target, such as a building or high traffic area. As such, only trees within 15 metres of a path, road or sidewalk were considered for attention under the potential risk priority levels. Fifteen metres represents an average maximum tree height and was considered a reasonable buffer to protect public traffic. It should be noted that, as a high-traffic public space, the entirety of the park falls overall within the upper range of potential location risk, and the system used here is simply to stratify the park within a narrow upper range. A list of high, medium and low risk trees is provided in Table 4, along with a colour-coded map (Figure 21). It should be stressed that the risk criteria used for this categorization are not based on professional standards, and thus should be used as a guideline only. Table 4 and Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 23

30 Figure 21 also include some of trees that did not meet the risk criteria described above, but were nonetheless flagged as potentially dangerous during the inventory. Figure 21: Map of potential risk trees in TBP. Trees in: red = high priority; orange = medium priority and; yellow = low priority. Trees marked in green did not meet risk criteria, but were flagged during inventory as potentially dangerous. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 24

31 Table 4: Table of high, medium and low priority risk trees in TBP. Risk criteria categories are highlighted. Trees flagged as potentially dangerous during inventory are included as Special Concern. High Medium Low TreeNo Species TrunkDiame CrownWidth HeightClas DeadorBrok PoorBranch Lean RotorCavit Crack CableorBra Comments Condition 397 Sugar maple hazardous very poor 431 Black ash in state of decline very poor 337 Horse chestnut very poor 592 Black very unsafe. crack in very poor locust stem, unbalanced and leaning 573 Manatoba maple very poor 620 Green ash large portion of tree broken off, leaning very poor 251 Mountain very poor ash 309 Norway pruning needed very poor maple 333 American poor elm 429 Silver very poor maple 219 Mountain declining very poor ash 655 Norway poor health very poor maple 722 Green ash large crack b/t two very poor branches 11 Red ash very poor 248 American elm 339 Silver maple 42 Norway maple suckering and appears to be almost dead very poor good habitat no very poor danger to people very poor 628 Scotts elm very poor 698 Crab very poor apple 359 Silver maple very poor Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 25

32 Special concern 56 Silver maple excellent habitat tree. in state of decline very poor stem scar and rot very poor 147 Norway maple 360 Silver very poor maple 457 Horse removal suggested very poor chestnut 748 Norway very poor maple 222 Norway fair maple 249 hackberry very poor 470 Sugar maple 66 Silver maple 93 American elm 662 American elm dangerous dead broken branch dangerous dead branches (HANGING)! dangerous dead branches (HANGING) discoloration in leaves was cabled is now broken. co dom stems good very poor very poor poor Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 26

33 6 Candidate Heritage Trees The recognition of Heritage Tree status is done by Trees Ontario. To be classified as a heritage tree, a tree usually must be of a certain minimum DBH, based on what is considered to be the upper limit for the species, and will be exceptional in some aesthetic, natural, cultural, or historical way. For example, it may be a rare species regionally, provincially, or nationally, include cultural modifications by Aboriginals, or have been planted to commemorate a historic event. Recognition of Heritage Trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park may help to secure future conservation funding and efforts, bring visitors to the Park, and provide opportunities for education. To nominate a tree for Heritage status, one must first register to become a nominator on Trees Ontario s website 1, and then electronically submit a nomination form 2 detailing the tree s characteristics and importance. Trees Ontario will then evaluate the application, if the tree is considered to be a likely candidate, a Heritage Tree expert will visit the tree. A subsequent review of the expert s opinion combined with the original application will be carried out to decide on the tree s final status. During the inventory process, a number of trees in the Park were identified as being potential Heritage Trees (Appendix III). It is recommended that these trees be re-examined and that, where desired, applications be submitted to Trees Ontario to begin the Heritage Tree designation process Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 27

34 7 References Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Emerald ash borer - Agrilus planipennis. Available online: < html>. Last accessed 20 November CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal. Official Publication of the International Society of Arboriculture. 8 th Edition. 101 pp. Kenney, W.A. Leaf Area Density as an Urban Forestry Planning and Management Tool. in The Forestry Chronicle, 2000, Vol 76:2. Kjeldsen-Kragh Keller, Julie Strategic Urban Forest Management Plan for Harbord Village: Final Paper for the Master of Forest Conservation Degree. Available online: Forest Management Plan for Harbord Village, Part 201.pdf. Last accessed 10 November Puric-Mladenovic D. and Kenney W.A Neighbourwood summary analysis of the tree inventory, Bonnerworth neighbourhood, Peterborough, Ontario. Available online: Last accessed 16 November Santamour, F.S. Jr, Trees for Urban Planting: Diversity, Uniformity, and Common Sense, US National Arboretum, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C, UFI (Urban Forest Innovations) Inc. and Kenney, A Urban Forest Strategic Management Plan: Town of Oakville: Available online: last visited on 11/13/2009 Urban Forestry Services City of Toronto Fact Sheet 3: Controlling Invasive Pests. Available online: Accessed November 16th, Van Wassenaer, P. and W.A. Kenney Strategic Urban Forest Planning. Available at: 20Forest%20Planning.htm. Last accessed November 3rd, Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 28

35 Appendix 1: All the trees with buffer set to the crown radius and color coded to condition rating Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 29

36 Appendix II: Complete list of tree species in Trinity Bellwoods Park. Common name: Type: Scientific name: Crabapple Crab Apple Malus hybrids 8 N/A N/A No N/A Maximum height (m): MaximumDiameter (cm): Maximum age: Regionally rare Native range: Black Ash Ash Fraxinus nigra N/A No Southeastern Ontario European Ash Ash Fraxinus excelsior 20 N/A years No Europe, SW Asia Red/Green Ash Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica N/A No Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Red/Green Ash Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica N/A No Great Lakes-St. Lawrence White Ash Ash Fraxinus americana No North-East US Basswood Linden Tilia americana No Eastern North America European Beech Beech Fagus sylvatica N/A No Europe Serviceberry Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis N/A No North America Ohio Buckeye Buckeye/Horsechestnut Aesculus glabra N/A No Southern Tip of Ontario, USA Catalpa species Catalpa Catalpa sp. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Red Cedar Juniper Juniperus virginiana 9 20 N/A No South-Eastern Ontario Eastern White Cedar Cedar (Thuja) Thuja occidentalis No South-Eastern Canada Yellow Cedar False Cypress Chamaecyparis nootkatensis N/A No Pacific Coast Choke Cherry Cherry/Plum Prunus virginiana 9 15 N/A No North America Cherry species Cherry/Plum Prunus sp. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Kentucky Coffetree Coffetree Gymnocladus dioicus Yes North America Amur Corktree Phellodendron Phellodendron amurense 12 N/A N/A No China, Japan Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 30

37 Common name: Type: Scientific name: Native range: American Elm Elm Ulmus americana No Eastern North America English Elm Elm Ulmus procera N/A N/A N/A No Great Britain, Western Europe Scotch Elm Elm Ulmus glabra 30 N/A N/A No Europe, Western Asia Siberian Elm Elm Ulmus pumila 21 N/A N/A No Northeastern Asia Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii No Weatern North America several Ginkgo Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba s No China Hackberry Hackberry Celtis occidentalis No Southern Ontario, Quebec, USA Bitternut Hickory Hickory Carya cordiformis No southern Ontario & Quebec Shagbark Hickory Hickory Carya ovata No Southern Ontario, Quebec, USA Common Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Horsechestnut Buckeye/Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum No Europe Black Locust Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia No Eastern US North America: Carolinian and Honey Locust Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos Yes surrounding areas Amur Maple Maple Acer ginnala 7 N/A N/A No Eastern Asia Naturalized beyond its natural Manitoba Maple Maple Acer negundo No range. Norway Maple Maple Acer platanoides 25 N/A N/A No Europe Red Maple Maple Acer rubrum No South-Eastern US Silver Maple Maple Acer saccharinum No North America Maritime provinces, Southern Sugar Maple Maple Acer saccharum No Ontario and Quebec. Sycamore Maple Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 30 N/A N/A No Europe to Western Asia Maximum height (m): MaximumDiameter (cm): Maximum age: Regionally rare Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 31

38 Common name: Type: Scientific name: Native range: Mountain Finnish Whitebeam Ash/Whitebeam Sorbus x hybrida N/A N/A N/A No N/A Bur Oak Oak Quercus macrocarpa Yes North-Eastern US several English Oak Oak Quercus robur 35 N/A 100s No Europe Pin Oak Oak Quercus palustris Yes North-Eastern US Great Lake, St. Lawrence, Red Oak Oak Quercus rubra No Carolinian, North-Eastern US Swamp White Oak Oak Quercus bicolor No North America several White Oak Oak Quercus alba s Yes North-Eastern US Austrian Pine Pine Pinus nigra N/A No Southern Europe South-Eastern Canada, North- White Pine Pine Pinus strobus No Eastern US London Plane Plane-Sycamore Platanus x acerifolia 35 N/A N/A No N/A Eastern North America from Mexico Redbud Redbud Cercis canadensis N/A No north, Pelee Island Metasequoia Dawn Redwood Redwood glyptostroboides N/A No Szechwan, China Japanese pagoda tree Sophora Sophora japonica 20 N/A N/A No Japan, Korea and China Beech spp. Beech Fagus spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Chestnut spp. Chestnut Castanea sp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Linden spp. Linden Tilia sp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Mountin Mountin-Ash spp. Ash/Whitebeam Sorbus spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Mulberry spp. Mulberry Morus spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Maximum height (m): MaximumDiameter (cm): Maximum age: Regionally rare Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 32

39 Common name: Type: Scientific name: Maximum height (m): MaximumDiameter (cm): Maximum age: Regionally rare Native range: Willow spp. Willow Salix spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Blue Spruce Spruce Picea pungens No US Rocky Mountains White Spruce Spruce Picea glauca No North America: Across Canada Tulip Tree Tulip-Tree Liriodendron tulipifera No North America Japanese Zelkova Zelkova Zelkova serrata 25 N/A N/A No N/A Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 33

40 Appendix III: Trees with less than 1% representation Common Name Scientific Name # of Trees. % of Total Native? Black Ash Fraxinus nigra % YES European Ash Fraxinus excelsior % NO Basswood Tilia americana % YES Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis % YES Ohio Buckeye Aesculus glabra % YES Catalpa species Catalpa spp % NO Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana % YES Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis % YES Yellow Cedar Chamaecyparis nootkatensis % NO Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana % YES Amur Corktree Phellodendron amurense % NO English Elm Ulmus procera % NO Scotch Elm Ulmus glabra % NO Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata % NO Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii % NO Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba % NO Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis % YES Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata % YES Common Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum % NO Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia % NO Amur Maple Acer ginnala % NO Manitoba Maple Acer negundo % NO Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus % NO Finnish Whitebeam Sorbus x hybrida % NO Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa % YES English Oak Quercus robur % NO Pin Oak Quercus palustris % YES White Oak Quercus alba % YES London Plane Platanus x acerifolia % NO Redbud Cercis canadensis % YES Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides % NO Japanese pagoda tree Sophora japonica % NO Beech spp. Fagus spp % YES Mountin-Ash spp. Sorbus spp % YES Mulberry spp. Morus spp % YES Willow spp. Salix spp % YES Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera % YES Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 34

41 Appendix IV. Potential heritage trees. Tree Number Common name Trunk Diameter (DBH) (cm) Diameter Considered for Heritage Significance (cm) Heritage Diameter Approached in % Tree Rating 431 Black Ash % very poor 683 Black Ash % good 577 Red/Green Ash % poor 128 White Ash % excellent 450 American Elm % very poor 579 American Elm % fair 648 American Elm % fair 148 American Elm % good 248 American Elm % very poor 39 American Elm % good 161 American Elm % excellent 588 Bitternut Hickory % good 216 Bitternut Hickory % good 681 Shagbark Hickory % very poor 169 Black Locust % excellent 601 Silver Maple % good 340 Silver Maple % fair 41 Sugar Maple % poor 516 Sugar Maple % good 470 Sugar Maple % good 804 Sycamore Maple % good 70 Pin Oak % good 504 Pin Oak % excellent 624 Red Oak % very poor 444 Linden spp excellent Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 35

42 Appendix V: Neighbourwoods quick reference guide. Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 36

43 Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 37

44 Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 38