Options for Monitoring Urban Naturalization Success By Janice Ka Ching Lam

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation

John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design University of Toronto

Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………...………..2 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..3 Background………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Engagement as Measure of Success………………………………………………..……..8 Problem Definition……………………………………………………………………………….10 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………………………...10 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 Historical Monitoring at the City of Toronto…………………………………………………….11 City of Toronto’s Planting Success Survey……………………………………………...13 Trees Across Toronto Protocol…………………………………………………………..16 Tree Advocacy Planting Program Monitoring…………………………….……………..18 Urban Monitoring Options……………………………………………………………………….19 TRCA – The Young Tree Monitoring and Maintenance Program………………………19 EMAN – Shrub and Small-Tree Stratum Biodiversity Monitoring Protocol…………....20 Vegetation Sampling Protocol…………………………………………………………...21 Tree Canada……………………………………………………………………………...21 Forests Ontario…………………………………………………………………...………22 Piloting Protocols………………………………………………………………………………...22 Modified VSP……………………………………………………………………………24 Modified YTMP…………………………………………………………………….…...27 Staff Feedback…………………………………………………………………………...31 Planting Event Survival Audit …………………………………………………………..33 International Monitoring Protocol Comparisons………………………………………...... 35 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..36 Conclusion.………………………………………………………………………………………37 References………………………………………………………………………………………..39 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….42

J.K.C. Lam 1

Executive Summary Municipalities have strived to naturalize urban landscapes for decades through various tree planting initiatives. Furthermore, the degree of restoration success, its contribution towards increasing canopy cover and the creation of wildlife habitat is often unknown due to the lack of monitoring data. The City of Toronto has been facilitating volunteer tree planting events for over two decades and to rationalize their tree planting efforts, planting survival was examined. Historical data from previous monitoring programs such as Toronto’s Planting Success Survey, Trees Across Toronto and Tree Advocacy Planting Program were analyzed. Relevant local urban monitoring programs such as Toronto Region Conservation Authority’s Young Tree Monitoring and Maintenance Program (YTMP), Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network’s protocol, and vegetation sampling protocol (VSP) was assessed. Trials of modified versions of VSP, and YTMP were also tested to develop a suitable monitoring program for the City of Toronto’s Natural Environment and Community Program group. Forest monitoring protocols from Italy, China, and Sweden were assessed, and long-term permanent sample plots are determined to produce the most reliable and scientifically rigorous data. It is recommended that municipalities use the Planting Event Survival Audit at the minimum and aim towards adopting a long-term permanent plot sampling program when funding and staffing allows.

J.K.C. Lam 2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank everyone who has supported and contributed to my capstone project. Thank you to my internal supervisor, Dr. Danijela Puric-Mladenovic for her feedback, wealth of knowledge, and support throughout the report. I’d like to express my gratitude to Dr. Sean Thomas who guided me through the statistical background about survival monitoring and provided advice during the piloting phase. Thank you to my external supervisor, Lisa McLean who has been instrumental in initiating this monitoring project, in addition to field-testing data, and spearheading support for this project at the City of Toronto. Thank you to the City of Toronto’s Natural Environment and Community Programs team for their feedback and patience throughout the protocol testing phase; their input has been invaluable. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Sally Krigstin and Amory Ngan from the City of Toronto Urban Forestry for making my summer internship possible. Thank you to Joe Renton for his help with GIS and sharing the monitoring protocol research conducted by Forests in Settled and Urban Landscapes Applied Research Group. Special thanks to Laura Hockley and Vincent Wong for editing this report and providing feedback! Lastly, thank you to all my fellow MFC students for providing support throughout the program.

J.K.C. Lam 3

Background In recent years, communities within urban areas have striven to increase the amount of green spaces through ecological restoration and naturalization of areas. Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological integrity (Evergreen, 2001). Naturalization is a type of ecological restoration that involves returning altered sites to a more natural condition using native trees and shrubs (Evergreen, 2001). The process of naturalization reduces the need for pesticide use while creating habitats, preserving biodiversity, improving air and water quality, reducing in the urban heat island effect, and moderating temperatures (Evergreen, 2001). The City of Toronto converted high maintenance sites such as turf grass using naturalization and community planting events. Public participation enables building community support and awareness while also fostering environmental stewardship (Evergreen, 2001). The City of Toronto has multiple community-based volunteer programs through which participants are involved in mulching, weed removal and tree planting. The movement coined “community naturalization” utilizes volunteer-based community groups to restore degraded urban lands and transform these sites into natural spaces (Chisholm, 2004). Such movements have instilled community stewardship and a sense of environmental awareness within Toronto’s communities.

There are a multitude of benefits, beyond the aesthetic enhancement that city trees and natural areas provide. These trees and natural areas can aid with mitigating storm water runoff, moderating temperature fluctuation, improving the air quality and sequester carbon (Pothier & Millward, 2013). City trees are the best solution to manage urban stormwater runoff, urban heat island and air pollutants in the urban setting (McPherson, Simpson, Peper, Maco & Xiao, 2010). Each tree that is planted in the city can positively benefit their surrounding area. In addition, urban forests can increase the economical value of properties (Paileit, 2003). For example, a cluster of trees planted together can provide further benefits to the community and alleviate the human pressures and stresses on the urban environment. Tree solutions are more cost effective than the engineered alternatives and can create significant environmental benefits if maintained properly.

Utilization of monetary value can allow forest management to justify the investment in urban forests and stewardship activities. The impact of urban trees can be better understood

J.K.C. Lam 4 through quantifying their services through a monetary lens: properties benefit between $7 USD to $165 USD per tree each year through tree shading, water regulation, carbon reduction, air quality improvement, and noise reduction (Song, Tan, Edwards & Richards, 2018). For every dollar invested in tree management, the benefits returned an average of $1.37 USD to $3.09 USD annually (McPherson et al., 2010). However, city trees face a multitude of stresses due to the urban environment including soil compaction, elevated soil temperature, restricted rooting zones, salt sprays, and vandalism (Pothier & Millward, 2013). These factors create difficult growing conditions for urban trees and drastically decrease their growth rate and survival.

Due to the harsh growing conditions, the mortality rate of newly planted saplings is often high. Many of the planted trees in urban environments do not survive long enough for residents to gain the benefits of the urban forest (Roman, 2014). The average life span of an urban tree is between 10 to 25 years, yet municipal political decisions do not prioritize the maintenance of trees (Pothier & Millward, 2013) to ensure that they will reach maturity. Large healthy trees can remove up to 60 to 70 times the quantity of air pollution in comparison to a newly planted tree (Pothier & Millward, 2013). Currently, 68% of trees that comprise of the urban forest in Toronto are less than 15.2cm in diameter (City of Toronto, 2013). Thus, most of the trees within the city are newly planted and only 13% of trees are greater than 30.6cm in diameter (City of Toronto, 2013). The potential for these young trees to grow and contribute towards the tree canopy cover and provide benefits is largely determined by the quality of maintenance they receive. Post- planting maintenance of newly planted trees is critical for their survival and establishment success (Moskell & Alfred, 2013). Tree care offers residents an opportunity to engage in environmental stewardship activities through the City of Toronto, such as watering and mulching, which increases the likelihood of saplings to establish themselves to endure city stresses.

The City of Toronto prides itself on its reputation as a “city within a park” and boasts 10.2 million trees and a canopy cover of approximately 28% (City of Toronto, 2013). Outlined by Toronto’s Strategic Forest Management Plan 2012-2022, the canopy cover target by year 2050 is 40% (City of Toronto, 2013). Thus annually, 57,000 to 114,000 trees need to be planted on publicly owned land to achieve 40% canopy cover (City of Toronto, 2013). Such large tree

J.K.C. Lam 5 planting targets have led to an abrupt increase in the number of trees planted throughout the city. However, despite the best intentions, tree monitoring is an aspect that has often been overlooked due to limited resources. As a result of limited funding The City of Toronto lacks long-term monitoring data for naturalization sites. Repeated monitoring and evaluations are necessary for understanding long term trends related to tree survival, species composition, forest structure, tree size and tree health (City of Toronto, 2013). Naturalization projects should be monitored, evaluated and applied to subsequent initiatives (Evergreen, 2001). The data collected through monitoring programs can be used to make informed decisions about species selection and site preparation. For example, if a correlation between the number of participants and the quality of planting was evident within monitoring data, planting events in the future could enforce a maximum participant limit to ensure high quality planting. Without monitoring data, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of such programming and justify further investment into the green infrastructure.

The success of urban forest plantings is influenced by tree stock, the biophysical environment, the surrounding community and maintenance (Vogt, Watkins, Mincey, Patterson & Fischer, 2015). Plant survival within newly planted trees begins with the sapling and its origin ranging from seed, genetic material, and tree nursery practises. The size of the tree and type of plant material influences the survival and growth of the newly planted tree (Vogt et al., 2015). For monitoring purposes, it is important to note the size of the sapling being planted at a specific site, in additional to the plant origin and seed zone if possible. By tracking the plant stock from nursery, and gathering preliminary information regarding the planting site, relationships between survival and these factors can be accounted for.

The environment in which the tree is planted including available growing space, rooting volume, water availability, soil conditions and nutrient availability, affects growing success as well (Vogt et al., 2015). Data regarding the soil type, soil condition, annual precipitation availability and area of naturalization should be documented to reflect these environmental factors. In addition to maintenance provided to the trees post-planting such as mulching the capacity for the surrounding community to maintain the trees impacts their growth should also be recorded (Vogt et al., 2015). Post-planting events to re-mulch new plantings, and watering

J.K.C. Lam 6 contracts help support the establishment of the plants. The City of Toronto hosts several volunteer events in addition to long term Community Stewardship Programs to engage the community in ecological restoration work. The frequency of watering contracts, and stewardship events to nurture the plantings will increase their likelihood of survival.

To rationalize efforts put towards tree planting, understanding what is effective and what is ineffective is key to ecological restoration success. To continually increase the urban forest, the survival and planting rates must out-weigh losses from tree mortality and removal (Roman, 2014). The benefits of a tree planting program largely depend on the survival of trees, thus long- term mortality data is needed to improve the accuracy of tree survival projections (Roman, Battles & McBride, 2016) and improve restoration practices. Without tree survivorship data, there is no evidence to defend the success of a planting effort and argue its efficacy. There is a need to shift the emphasis from counting the number of the trees planted to focusing on the survival of newly planted trees (Roman, 2014). Most cities, including the City of Toronto are pressured to plant more trees each year but it can be argued that the urgency should be focused on maintaining the trees which are already planted. In a study surveying 32 local urban forestry organizations in the USA, common practices and challenges for local urban tree monitoring programs were identified (Roman, McPherson, Scharenbroch, & Bartens, 2013). The most commonly recorded tree attributes included species, condition rating, mortality status and diameter at breast height (Roman et al., 2013). The common goal between the organizations was to monitor the success of tree planting and use the data to proactively approach tree care (Roman et al., 2013). All the organizations faced similar challenges including limited staff & funding, data management, technology and field crew training (Roman et al., 2013). It is important to consider what data to collect, setting clear goals for monitoring and developing an appropriate database to store the data in addition to allocating funding and staffing resources (Roman et al., 2013). To better comprehend the state of restoration, organizations must monitor by collecting relevant data over the span of a multiple years which will determine the success of the restoration effort.

Despite the need for detailed data collection, resources such as funding and staff are finite and often limit the scope of monitoring applied. The program implemented must fall within the

J.K.C. Lam 7 staffing and funding capability of the organization. There are four main factors which dictate the ideal monitoring plan and these principles include: a) simplicity, b) cost-effectiveness, c) reliability, and d) objectivity (City of Toronto, 2013). Firstly, simplicity means that the criteria and indicators of success should be understandable to the layperson (City of Toronto, 2013). Secondly, cost-effectiveness refers to the monitoring method that is able to be collected under existing management and reporting systems (City of Toronto, 2013). Thirdly, reliability signifies that the indicator selected must provide useful information regarding the sustainability of the forest (City of Toronto, 2013). Lastly, objectivity provides an objective measure that is not affected by interpretive bias (City of Toronto, 2013) and that can be repeated over time. All four of these principles should be utilized in order to create an effective and practical monitoring protocol.

Engagement as a Measure of Success The nature of volunteer programs involves the contribution of inexperienced participants, however their involvement is essential in fostering a sense of stewardship. Naturalization has been undertaken to increase the diversity of natural habitats to improve the quality of urban parks, and community involvement has played an important role in citizen stewardship (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). This helps encourage residents to engage in forest stewardship, which also improves the environmental governance in the area (Moskell & Alfred, 2013). Voluntary citizen engagement plays a large role in supporting municipal tree management (Harper et al., 2018) and trained volunteers with tree care knowledge are essential to community volunteer-led initiatives (Harper et al., 2018). The community training can include tree identification, recognizing tree stresses, planting techniques, municipal bylaws, urban forestry issues and general tree care. Studies from Harper et al., (2018), and Moskell & Alfred (2013) have shown that citizen stewardship plays a critical role in ensuring the survival of existing trees and the ongoing maintenance they require. Urban tree stewardship is usually voluntary and requires leadership, which is where the City of Toronto’s Natural Environment and Community Programs (NECP) team comes into play.

J.K.C. Lam 8

NECP Planting Events Type and Year 30 24 25

20

15 12 2017 9 10 7 2018

NumberEvents of 5 5 1 0 Corporate Private Public School Type of Event

Figure 1 A count of NECP Events between 2017 and 2018 by event type The NECP engagement events between 2017 to 2018 resulted in 58 stewardship events which were hosted across the city (Figure 1; the full list of events is exhibited in Appendix Table 1). NECP hosted 25 and 33 volunteer tree planting events in 2017 and 2018 respectively. In 2017, NECP hosted one corporate event, seven private events, 17 public engagement events and engaged a total of 6,603 residents. In 2018, NECP hosted nine private events, 24 public events and engaged a total of 8,325 citizens. The map (Appendix Figure 1) demonstrates the volunteer- to-planted area ratio in 2019 planting events. Most events had less than 0.2 volunteer to planted park area density. However, Remberto Navia Sports Fields, Wexford Park, and Earl Bales Park had a higher than average ratio of 0.43, 0.5 and 0.93 respectively. For the purposes of this map, parks with multiple planting events in a year were merged into a volunteer to park area ratio, which explains the higher ratio at Earl Bales Park because it hosted two planting events in 2018. Other events such as mulching, seed ball creation and weeding activities are also offer by the NECP group. Although it is difficult to quantify the impact that stewardship events directly contribute to the community, it is important to recognize that tree planting events are worth more than the number trees planted in the ground. It allows communities to connect with their green spaces and promotes the importance of the environment.

J.K.C. Lam 9

Problem Definition The City of Toronto has not quantitatively measured the success of their volunteer plantings. Naturalization success can be measured as plant survivability, canopy cover percentage, vegetation density, or species composition depending on the goal of naturalization. For the purposes of this project, survival will be the measure of success. Monitoring efforts are costly, time-consuming to establish, expensive to implement and maintain, hence it is uncommon to have monitoring programs. A combination of constrained resources and lack of an appropriate analytical framework contributes to this gap in knowledge. This research will critically look at existing monitoring techniques and protocols to determine which methods are most suitable for the needs of the City of Toronto’s Natural Environment and Community Program’s volunteer planted naturalization sites. The investment of volunteer planting programs can be better be justified with empirical evidence.

Research Objectives The goal is to develop, test and propose a monitoring protocol to measure the survival of City of Toronto’s Natural Environment and Community Program’s volunteering plantings. Monitoring approaches will be assessed based on the simplicity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and objectivity criteria. The research will analyze existing naturalization monitoring practices in addition to the piloting new monitoring protocols, with the goal of offering the most suitable monitoring option. The objective of this project is to 1) assess various monitoring techniques in the context of urban naturalized areas, 2) determine the ideal frequency of monitoring, and 3) offer monitoring recommendations based on the funding, temporal limitations, and staffing available at the organization.

Methods A detailed understanding of the current naturalization monitoring techniques requires an extensive literature review from a variety of resources such as academia, municipalities, government ministries, and non-profit organizations such as Tree Canada. These monitoring protocols are compared to the City of Toronto’s previous monitoring programs. Previous planting success surveys conducted by the City of Toronto such as the 1994 Planting Success Survey, 1996 Metro Parkland Naturalization Compendium and Metro Parks and Culture

J.K.C. Lam 10

Parkland Naturalization 1997 Monitoring Program are examined. The data was collected in the summer of 2019 using three different protocols. First, a modified Vegetation Sampling Protocol (Puric-Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016), second a modified version of young tree and shrub monitoring protocol (TRCA, n.d.), and third a planting event survival protocol tailored to NECP’s volunteer program. Depending on the financial, temporal and human limitations of the monitoring organization, a recommendation will aid in determining the most optimal monitoring method to utilize. Case studies of other areas with naturalization monitoring programs from China, Italy, and Sweden were also considered (Ferrari et al., 2017; Stahl et al., 2011; Trac, Harrell, Hinckley & Henck, 2007).

Historical Monitoring at the City of Toronto The City of Toronto has had three prior naturalization monitoring protocol, which include Toronto’s Planting Success Survey, Trees Across Toronto and Tree Advocacy Planting Program, naturalization monitoring protocol used to measure different attributes of their planted specimens. These naturalization monitoring protocols are examined to determine the suitability for the needs of NECP volunteering plantings. The details of these methods are outlined in Table 1 below, the Historical Naturalization Monitoring at the City of Toronto is summarized by duration, frequency, season of surveying, description and attributes measured.

J.K.C. Lam 11

Duration of Frequenc Season of Attributes Method Brief Description Program y Survey Measured

-Sites were monitored by counting the total number of plants at each location -Mapping/Sketches -Survival rates were Planting -Photos calculated based on the Success 1993 - 1997 Annually Spring -Species Survival number planted & Survey -Counts number surviving -Comments -Differentiated between contractor and volunteer plantings

-Mapping -Success of volunteer tree -Wildlife & Habitat and shrub planting event -Groundcover were measured using -Woody Invasive growth and survival rates -Species & -First year of monitoring Prevalence Trees Across to serve as baseline data Fall- -Soil Condition, Toronto 2004 - 2012 Annually -Sites will be monitored Winter Site Preparation & (TAT) again in the 5th year, and Maintenance every 5 years after that -Observation of -Six quadrats (7m by 7m) Planted Material are established at each of (bud length, DBH, the planting sites, crown diameter, randomly distributed height, health, etc.)

-Random sampling of 10- 20% through shovel- -Name (common & tossed plots depending on Latin) Tree the site size (meant to be -Plot Number Anytime Advocacy used to extrapolate data -Acceptable height 2018 - (6 Planting Anytime for the entire site) -Acceptable Present months, Program -Shovel to be used as a Planting 1-2 years) (TAPP) pivot point, recording the -Acceptable Health details of all the plants -Dead/Dying within the circle (cord is -Comments 4m)

Table 1 Historical Naturalization Monitoring at the City of Toronto

J.K.C. Lam 12

City of Toronto’s Planting Success Survey The first attempt of monitoring the success of naturalization at the City of Toronto was through the Planting Success Surveys. These surveys were conducted between 1993 to 1997 and collected data on plant success using species survival counts, photographs, mapping and sketches. The goal of tree planting was to establish woodland communities on open areas, and early successional forest was the initial target community (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). It was expected that through creating this habitat would introduce canopy closure to increase the wildlife and biodiversity. Planting success surveys were conducted on planted trees, shrubs and wildflowers, as an effort to quantitively record the naturalization effort to improve the planting and maintenance procedures (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Pioneer species were planted in naturalization plots to aid the forest canopy growth, but further diversification of species was needed once the forest cover was established (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). By comparing the planting lists and the species accounted for in the parklands, there was an overall survival rate of 52% for trees and shrubs planted by the city (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). The report acknowledged that it was difficult counting plant material properly due to the lack of established boundaries for the monitored areas (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Other sources of error included discrepancies between delivered plants and the invoices of the planting plans, as well as plantings conducted by other groups would inflate the success rate. The survival rate for this program is misleading because these results only monitored short term site trends rather than long term planting trends.

The rationale behind the 1994 monitoring process was to inventory all living plants that were planted in order to determine a rate of survival for each species at each site (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). As each plant was counted on site, it was marked with a clothespin to avoid repetition and was visited during early spring before the surrounding vegetation grew too high (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Sites which were planted over multiple years were considered as one planting site, and this skewed the counts because it would have a high number of living plants solely due to the newly planted material (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). The size of plants and quality of growth was not recorded, and the count could foster a false sense of

J.K.C. Lam 13 success because it included damaged and stressed stock (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). The rationale was that a total count for each planted site would be more representative than a sample because of the variety of terrain and diversity of species involved (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). The average success rate is misleading because the survival at each site ranged from 8% to 93% through the 17 sites (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Despite the lower survival rates, these sites could still establish and naturalize the area thus contributing to the canopy cover (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Logically, sites with more recent plantings had a higher survival rate compared to the second- and third-year sites (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Therefore, the recently planted sites have inflated survival rates which have not been accounted for.

The 1994 Planting Success report analyzed the survival of each species and offered anecdotal explanations of their survival rates. For example, the European filbert (Corylus avellana) had a survival rate of 86%; it performed well at both the sites in which it was planted despite not being a native plant and there was a bird’s nest spotted in one of these trees (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Four major issues impeded the success of naturalization sites including: rodent browse, competition from other vegetation, poor planting techniques and exposed planting locations (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Rodents thrive in long grass habitat, and their feeding on young bark can girdle trees and shrubs. Competition from other vegetation, especially invasive species, obstructs the growth of the planted material. Especially for the volunteer plantings, much of the plant material planted by volunteers was loose in the ground, or not planted at grade. Some of the plants were planted in areas where they were subject to strong winds and salt spray which resulted in slow growth rates. In general, volunteer tree plantings had a low survival rate and slow annual growth plant material and it could be attributed to the inexperienced planters (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). It is difficult to attribute the mortality of trees solely onto volunteers, as there can be a combination of factors such as precipitation, pests, browse, site preparation and condition.

J.K.C. Lam 14

In the 1995 observations, planting sites had survival rates between 8% to 94%, and, like the 1994 report, the recently planted sites had a higher survival rate (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). An average survival rate of 52% between the planting sites was achieved which exceeded the expectation of 50% (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). As predicted, the survival rate of volunteering plantings averaged 41% (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). The records noted the need to control invasive plants such as dog strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). The 1996 protocol involved conducting a count within the first 5 years of plantings, followed by periodic counts to determine the survival rate of the species and sites (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). The success of a naturalization program should not only be measured by the survival of plants but in addition to the public engagement value (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). Public engagement values were not recorded as a part of the planting success program, however this is a valuable component that should be added.

The 1996 report predicted that 40-50% of the plant material would be lost in the first 3 years (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). However, trees which survive past 2 to 3 years post-planting are highly likely to become established on the site (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). Trees can achieve canopy closure within 3-5 years post planting which shade out competing vegetation and allow for plants to overlap as they mature (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). It has been noted that the plantings have seeded beyond the original site boundary, integrating themselves with the local plant community (Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department, 1997). The maps for the analysis were hand drawn and possibly inaccurate, making it difficult to precisely define the site boundaries. The methodology for data collection remains unchanged in 1996.

The 1997 monitoring program presents seven years of tree and shrub naturalization results (Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting, 1998). Between 1990 to 1997, over 65 sites in Toronto were naturalized and over 30,000 native trees and shrubs were planted (Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting, 1998). This monitoring program demonstrated that green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white ash (Fraxinus americana),

J.K.C. Lam 15 eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea) thrived between1990 to 1997 plantings (Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting, 1998). Improved survival rates benefit the ecosystem and create an increased value in the planting costs and funding for the programs (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). The 1994 planting survey recommended the use of tree guards, controlling competitive vegetation and more carefully selecting the planting locations and methods (Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department, 1995). Planting practices have emphasized that the quality of planting is paramount, and sites with community stewardship perform better (Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting, 1998). The 1997 planting success survey report notes that the counting method of monitoring was becoming unsustainable as the number of sites continued to increase (Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting, 1998). The 1997 report used the same methodology as the prior monitoring reports, however the report suggests with such a large population a sample-based approach should be taken (Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting, 1998). It is unclear when this program was discontinued but it was likely related to the 1998 amalgamation of Toronto which made this tedious monitoring program infeasible.

Trees Across Toronto Protocol The second documented naturalization monitoring protocol conducted by the city of Toronto began in 2004 and continued until 2012 (City of Toronto, 2010). Annually, staff would monitor green spaces using the Trees Across Toronto Protocol to measure the success of volunteer plantings organized by NECP (City of Toronto, 2010). The first year of monitoring serves as baseline data for each site, then sites were intended to be monitored again every fifth year during the fall or winter (City of Toronto, 2010). The purpose of the Trees Across Toronto (TAT) program was to evaluate the community planting events based on the survival and growth rates of the trees (City of Toronto, 2010). The monitoring began in the fall of 2004, several sites were chosen to represent NECP sites program (City of Toronto, 2010). The data sheet recorded attributes such as: the site layout, location in the park, evidence of wildlife and habitat such as dens or nests, inventory of ground cover, prevalence of woody invasive, soil conditions, site preparation and maintenance, species name, stem diameter, crown diameter, height, bud length,

J.K.C. Lam 16 health, and observations of planted material (City of Toronto, 2010). The protocol uses aerial imagery and GPS coordinates to map the location of the site on a printed map and records the site observation and general species distribution as seen in Figure 2 below (City of Toronto, 2010). Four polygons are identified at this planting site diagram consisting of a planting area that was tilled and subsoiled and a planting area which was not tilled or subsoiled. Other marked features include the parking lot, mature trees, and a footpath.

Figure 2 Map of Colonel Samuel Smith Park Planting Site 2007, marked up using TAT's protocol (City of Toronto, 2010)

Previously, the three 10m x 10m plots were monitored but large quadrats were difficult to locate in many naturalized sites. In the most updated version of the protocol, six survey plots are defined at each TAT site and measured 7m x 7m by using a randomization technique (City of Toronto, 2010). In the subsequent years of monitoring, new randomized plots in the site will be sampled, and due to the randomization, the plots monitored may overlap. The Trees Across Toronto protocol was modified in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 to improve the quality of monitoring and the sampling continued until 2012 (City of Toronto, 2010). The inconsistency in monitoring between consecutive years made it difficult to standardize and compare the results.

J.K.C. Lam 17

At each quadrat, the growth indicators sheet was completed, and attributes such as bud length were added by the recommendation of the Association for Canadian Educational Resources (ACER). The data recorded in-depth measurements of each plot, but the data has not yet been properly analyzed and gave the staff little insight for its intended purpose. NECP is mainly concerned with survival, thus the rigorous data collected from this program would be more detailed than necessary.

Tree Advocacy Planting Program Monitoring The third monitoring protocol used to examine the success of a naturalization site was Tree Advocacy Planting Program (TAPP) monitoring which offered a “snapshot” of the state of the site. These post-plant inspections were intended to illustrate the long-term survival of the naturalization sites (City of Toronto, 2018). Of the sites chosen for monitoring, approximately 10% to 20% of the site were sampled and used to extrapolate the full planting site (City of Toronto, 2018). The monitoring interval for this program is flexible, as it can be performed immediately after planting, or after a lapse of time to assess survival (City of Toronto, 2018). This method represents a randomized quality and survival check, however it is recognized that this method is not statically significant or scientifically reliable (City of Toronto, 2018). Random sampling operates under the assumption that the species planted are evenly randomly distributed across the sites, however in most instances this is not the case (City of Toronto, 2018). In the field, a randomized starting location is selected as the pivot point and the coordinates are recorded on the GPS, then a 4m cord is used to circumscribe the radius of the sampled area (City of Toronto, 2018). The surveyed area is 50.27m2 in size and as the surveyor walks around the circle using the cord, each tree and shrub within the plot are recorded onto the field sheet (City of Toronto, 2018). A count of the total acceptable and healthy plant material is tallied using a preestablished guideline based on a contract for the supply of plant material: deciduous 150cm>250cm, conifers 60cm>80cm, shrubs 60cm>80cm (City of Toronto, 2018). The next plot would be selected by walking 20 paces or using a shovel toss to determine the location of the next plot (City of Toronto, 2018). This process is repeated until 10 to 20% of the site is sampled, aiming for 20% whenever time permits (City of Toronto, 2018). Although it is simple to deploy this technique, the inconsistency between the monitoring frequency and repetition decreases the credibility for this technique.

J.K.C. Lam 18

Urban Monitoring Options Local pre-existing monitoring protocols in the region were analyzed for the verification of the applicability of the project. The protocols examined include: the Toronto Region Conservation Authority’s Young Tree Monitoring and Maintenance Program, Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network’s Shrub and Small-Tree Stratum Biodiversity Monitoring Protocol, Vegetation Sampling Protocol, Tree Canada’s Seedling Audit and Forests Ontario’s guidelines.

TRCA - The Young Tree Monitoring and Maintenance Program Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is one of the conservation authorities in Ontario whose purpose is to safeguard and enhance the health of watersheds and restore the natural environment (TRCA, 2019). The Young Tree and Shrub Monitoring and Maintenance Program (YTMP) was developed by the TRCA as a citizen science-based program designed to collect data and track the success of community plantings (TRCA, n.d.). The data is used to inform better species selection for restoration plantings, and tree growth data is gathered using a standardized data collection protocol by the ACER and Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) (TRCA, n.d.). The goal of this protocol is to analyze the growth and survival rates of the planted saplings and document the issues (TRCA, n.d.). This protocol is performed on the day of the planting event and seedlings are tagged as they are coming out of the trucks before the volunteers plant them into the ground (TRCA, n.d.). TRCA aims to monitor 30% of the plantings at each event they monitor (TRCA, n.d.). The location of each tagged tree and their baseline measurements are recorded by volunteers under the supervision of a TRCA staff member (TRCA, n.d.). As a result of tagging the trees and shrubs before they are planted, there is a likelihood that volunteers will clump the monitored plants together thus skewing the distribution of plants at the planting site. Once the data is collected, a staff member will create a map of the location of the tagged plants for volunteers to revisit in later years (TRCA, n.d.). The baseline data is collected on the day of the planting, then subsequent monitoring for fall plantings are in the spring, and spring plantings are monitored in the fall (TRCA, n.d.). The data collected through this monitoring protocol included measuring diameter of root collar, diameter at breast height (DBH), total height, crown, stance, damage, photos and comments (TRCA, n.d.). The first five years of growth are critical to the overall health and success of the planting (TRCA, n.d.).

J.K.C. Lam 19

Hence, the TRCA reassesses the plantings annually for five years (TRCA, n.d.). A trained volunteer group is asked to monitor the tagged plants in the following years, which ensures consistency in their data.

EMAN - Shrub and Small-Tree Stratum Biodiversity Monitoring Protocol Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie (1999) produced a terrestrial vegetation monitoring protocol for the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN), with the objective of yielding useful information on community composition and performance of plant species in a forest setting. For the scope of the naturalization plantings, the shrub and small tree stratum biodiversity monitoring protocol is the most suitable. Shrub and small tree data shed insight on the vegetation dynamic of the forest (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). In addition to invasive species behaviour in the forest, which can be tracked throughout the years (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). Ten 5m by 5m quadrats are recommended unless the site is densely populated, then twenty 2m by 2m quadrats can be used instead (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). The plots are then randomized on the site and trees are then tagged permanently to establish for future monitoring (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). A detailed description of the stand prior to monitoring serves as a baseline (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). The baseline data collected and recorded include species, DBH, condition, height, map of tagged individuals, canopy height and width and degree of canopy closure if applicable (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). After the baseline measurements, the stands should be remeasured within 5 years using the same field attributes (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). The EMAN protocol recommends the organization to outline the overall goals and objectives of the monitoring program, to guide the frequency and attributes recorded (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). The protocol further details the methodology to tag a tree, identifying plants, measuring DBH, mapping, differentiating tree condition, measuring tree heights, and canopy width. Using the data collected from the recommended protocol the following analyses can be completed: abundance, basal area, cover, density, relative density, dominance, relative dominance, frequency, relative frequency and importance value (Roberts-Pichette & Gillespie, 1999). Although this protocol was originally intended for a forested community, components of it can be modified to fit the needs of urban naturalization sites.

J.K.C. Lam 20

Vegetation Sampling Protocol The vegetation sampling protocol (VSP) was developed by Dr. Puric-Mladenovic & Dr. Kenney (2016) as a quantitative method to inventory and monitor a variety of vegetation types in the field. VSP uses fixed areas which allows for ease of replication and implementation (Puric- Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016). Users can achieve beyond the minimum data requirements through the modular approach, which allows for additional information to be collected on site (Puric-Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016). Such modules include plant abundance, tree measurements, dead standing trees, lying dead wood, soil microtopography, sub-plots, tree health and geographical information (Puric-Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016). The data collected from this protocol can be used to estimate biomass, carbon storage, leaf area, biodiversity, habitat suitability, landscape management and more (Puric-Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016). The process begins with pre-defined plots systematically generated by GIS programming. VSP plot size is flexible and adaptable to vegetation type (e.g. grasslands vs forests) and objectives of monitoring (e.g. forest monitoring vs. restoration). For example, the default area for forest monitoring is 400m2 and within the plot five subplots are established to measure woody plant regeneration and herbaceous vegetation (Puric-Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016). Depending on the type of vegetation and objective of the monitoring, the plot can be circular or square-shaped (Puric-Mladenovic & Kenney, 2016). This protocol produces more detailed data and is more data oriented compared to the needs of the NECP group.

Tree Canada Tree Canada is a registered Canadian charity dedicated to planting and nurturing trees across Canada (Tree Canada, 2019). Tree Canada’s monitoring program solely focuses on survival rates, as this is the most critical parameter for their funding partners (S. Quann, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). The Rural Seedling Program is funded by partners and monitored at years 1, 2 and 5 (Tree Canada, 2019). Once a tree reaches year 5 it is assumed that it will grow freely, however if the survival rate is less than 60%, Tree Canada will infill the site with new seedlings (S. Quann, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). Tree Canada offers the Compendium of Best Urban Forest Management Practices (Bardekjian, 2018) as a resource for urban foresters. There were no best practices directly relating to monitoring, however building public awareness and stewardship which supports urban forestry programs was recommended

J.K.C. Lam 21

(Bardekjian, 2018). The support from local communities is one of the strengths of urban forestry, and efforts to maintain this relationship are valued. Forests Ontario Forests Ontario is a non-profit registered charity organization dedicated to making Ontario’s forests greener through tree planting, education programs and community outreach (Forests Ontario, 2019). Normally, Forests Ontario partners monitor larger sites with a minimum of 15,000 trees, thus their monitoring protocol may not be applicable to the smaller scale of naturalization sites in Toronto (S. Chamberlin, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). Partners of Forests Ontario perform a monitoring assessment 1, 2, and 5 years after planting, and they adopted the monitoring procedures from the Ontario Woodlot Association (S. Chamberlin, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). The rationale behind the 1, 2, 5-year interval of monitoring was based on a couple factors. At year 1, they wanted to know the immediate signs of health and hopefully distinguish issues such as drought, disease, or browse (S. Chamberlin, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). By year 2, the sapling has been allowed to grow for two seasons and they wanted to track the growth of the plants at this point (S. Chamberlin, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). Lastly, at year 5 trees are free to grow and considered a survival success (S. Chamberlin, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2019). Committing to only monitoring 3 cohorts of plants each year limits the amount of field work that is needed each year. Like Tree Canada, the partners did not measure the growth of the trees, as it is not a priority for the funding partners.

Piloting Protocols During the summer, using the City of Toronto sites, protocols were tested for their simplicity, cost-effectiveness, reliability, and objectivity within the City of Toronto. (2013). As mentioned earlier, several monitoring methods were considered for testing such as TRCA’s Young Tree Monitoring Program (YTMP), a modified version of YTMP, TAPP monitoring, TAT monitoring, VSP and modified VSP. The detailed explanations of the protocols can be found in the section above. Table 2 (below) summarizes the urban monitoring options available for NECP to adopt. The protocols were assessed based on their description, advantages, disadvantages and overall preference for NECP’s needs.

J.K.C. Lam 22

Method Brief Description Advantages Disadvantages Preference Name Ranking -Biased sampling -10% of individual -Additional -Labour-intensive for specimens tagged during engagement staff time TRCA planting event opportunity -Requires staff and 2 YTMP -Record measurements to -Done on planting volunteers to return to track plant health/growth day site to collect the data from planting to Year 5 in subsequent years -Complications of -As above but using distinguishing natural -Random, unbiased transect data collection regeneration from sampling. Modified after Year 5 planted stock in Year 5 Advantage of 3 YTMP -In addition to adding and beyond baseline data from more YTMP sites from -Would require YTMP collection City of Toronto tagging of planted trees -Relatively quick to Assumes random -Random sampling of 10- deploy species distribution TAPP 20% through shovel- 4 -Good “snapshot” of -Not statistically tossed plots the planting status significant - Detailed data collection -Time consuming on site conditions and -Detailed -Data obtained is more TAT growth/ health information 6 detailed than required measurements within collected for this application random quadrats -Collects data in random -Time consuming -Detailed plots and extrapolates to -More detailed than VSP information 5 assess ecological condition this application collected of much larger natural area requires -Random, unbiased -Time consuming for -Transect data collection Modified sampling staff for growth/ health 1 VSP -Limited amount of -Higher level of detail measurements data collected than required Table 2 Urban Monitoring Options A monitoring protocol should ideally aim to sample 10% (S. Thomas, personal communications, July 15, 2019) of the planted trees and shrubs, however due to resource limitations, the pilot tried to sample as many plants as staff could facilitate (S. Thomas, personal communications, July 15, 2019). Initial site visits to McCowan District Park (planted in 2009, 2010 & 2011), Guildwood Village Park (planted in 2016) and Birkdale Ravine (planted in 2005). The initial site visits revealed that the sites planted more than three years ago differed drastically from the original planting plan which made it a challenge to monitor the changes. This could be a combination between the lack of survival and plants that naturally seeded into the site.

J.K.C. Lam 23

Modified VSP A modified version of VSP includes elements of both YTMP and VSP. The naturalization areas are mapped on GIS and overlaid with points along a transect. The points will dictate where plots (2m by 2m) will be placed (D. Puric-Mladenovic, personal communications, June 18, 2019). By generating the plots ahead of time, this ensures unbiased, random sampling. Within the plot the following was recorded: species, height, DBH, root collar, health/dieback rating, browse, vitality, and classification of the plot. These fields can be modified throughout the trial to be adjusted to the need of the project. The data sheet in Appendix 3 was used to collect data for the modified VSP method. In the first field testing, three sites were chosen from previous years: Adams Park (2016), L'Amoreaux Park (2017) and Downsview Dells (2018). The results from the first field testing collected data regarding geographical coordinates, status of the plant, species, height, root collar, health condition, browse, plot class and presence of trees in the subplot. The species codes use the first letters of the genus and species to create a short form. The results of Downsview Dells (2018) are found in Table 3 below, which indicate that there were several healthy plants at the park. Of the plants surveyed, ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) was the most abundant and white spruce (Picea glauca) was the largest individual examined. The results of L’Amoreaux Park shown in Table 4 below, highlighted that the most prevalent species was Eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and the site was dominated by grass.

DD X: 43.44.9N Y:79.30.13W Transect A Alive (Y/N) Species codes Height (cm) Root Collar Health Browse Plot Class Tree A1 Y PICGLAU 128 3.1 0 N Grass Y A2 Y POPTREM 57 1.2 0 N Grass Y A2 Y PHYOPUL 73 2.2 0 N Grass N A2 Y PHYOPUL 73 2.8 0 N Grass N A2 Y PHYOPUL 69 0.5 0 N Grass N A3 Y CORRACE 86 1.2 0 N Grass N A3 Y VIBLENT 65 1.7 0 I Grass N A3 Y VIBLENT 100 0.9 0 N Grass N A4 Y RHUTYPH 94 1.1 0 N DSV/VETCH Y A5 Y PHYOPUL 77 1.3 0 N DSV/VETCH N A6 Y POPTREM 63 1.1 1 N DSV Y A7 Y PHYOPUL 86 1.2 0 Y DSV N A7 Y PHYOPUL 78 3.3 0 N DSV N A8 Y QUEMARC 57 1.4 0 N Grass Y Table 3 Testing Modified VSP: Results from Downsview Dells (2018)

J.K.C. Lam 24

LAM X: 49.48.41 Y:79.18.30 X:43.48.39 Y:79.18.29 Species Transect A Alive (Y/N) Code Height (cm) Root Collar Health Browse Plot Class Tree A1 Y ROSBLAN 34 0.9 0 N Grass N A1 Y SAMNIGR 26 0.4 1 I Grass N A1 Y BETPAPY 230 2.9 0 N Grass Y A2 Y THUOCCI 182 3.4 0 N Grass Y A2 Y QUEMARC 161 3.5 0 N Grass Y A3 Y FILULMA 136 2.8 0 N Grass N A4 Y THUOCCI 137 4.5 0 N Grass Y A5 Y THUOCCI 181 4.1 0 N Grass Y A6 Y RUBODOR 8 0.1 3 N Grass Y A6 Y BETPAPY 229 2.7 0 N Grass Y A7 N NONE A8 Y THUOCCI 182 3.4 0 N Grass Y A8 Y CORSERI 77 1 0 N Grass N A9 Y PRUVIRG 93 1.5 0 N Grass N A9 Y RUBIDAE 29 0.3 0 N Grass N Table 4 Field Testing Modified VSP: Results from L’Amoreaux Park (2015 & 2017) The data collected was offered an analysis of the vegetation community. For example, at Downsview Dells, the plot classes could be analyzed individually. In Figure 3, it shows that the classes can be divided by plot type such as grass, dog strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum) and a combination of dog strangling vine and vetch (Vicia cracca) comprising of 64%, 22% and 14% of the transect respectively. If this monitoring technique was repeated, the transects can be replicated using the GPS start and end points for the transects, the plants can then be monitored for both survival and growth. Table 5 illustrates the estimated density from the planting plan, in comparison to the calculated density from the transect monitoring. The estimated plant density of Downsview Dells was 59%, compared to the actual density which was 44%. The estimated plant density at L’Amoreaux Park 2017 was 8%, however the calculation resulted in 42% plant density. The actual plant density at L’Amoreaux Park is denser than the expected density because L’Amoreaux Park has had multiple infill plantings over the past years, thus skewing the results of the calculation. Despite the advantages of this method it was time consuming and took approximately 2 hours per transect to complete a full inventory. This time commitment was not realistic for the staff to utilize across Toronto’s planting sites.

J.K.C. Lam 25

Plot Class Percentages at Downsview Dell (2018)

22%

14% Grass 64% DSV/VETCH DSV

Figure 3 Plot Class Percentages at Downsview Dells (2018)

Plants Tree Estimated Estimated Tree Actual Plant Actual Tree Site Area (m2) Total Total Plant Density Density Density Density Downsview Dells 510 300 80 59% 16% 44% 36% L’Amoreaux Park 1600 120 40 8% 3% 42% 22% Table 5 Field Testing Modified VSP: Density Calculation A reoccurring issue with monitoring NECP sites is the act of infill planting, as a single site was deliberately planted at for consecutive years. Another issue is overlapping polygons which is when two planting areas of overlap and the boundary of each year is blurred as seen in Figure 4 below. Heatherstone Stone Park illustrates the reoccurring planting issue. The planting polygons from years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2018 overlap as does 2014 and 2011. Without tags it is impossible to decipher which year each plant was planted, hence determining their survival can not be completed (S. Thomas, personal communications, July 15, 2019). Tagging and finding tags on plants is intensive but is the only method to verify the year of planting. Due to this caveat, it was decided that monitoring could not be retrospective, hence the protocols listed are designed for new plantings. Another issue of monitoring naturalization sites without tags, is that it isn’t clear which plants naturally germinated into the site, and which of the plants originated from the initial planting effort.

J.K.C. Lam 26

Figure 4 Example of Heatherstone Park where infill and overlap plantings polygons are illustrated

Modified YTMP The modified YTMP method is an adaptation of TRCA’s protocol. Adopted from the YMTP protocol, similar measurements would be recorded from the City of Toronto’s volunteer planting sites. To ensure random unbiased sampling, the plants will be selected along a transect, and the user will assess plants at a set interval. The strength of this method is the existing YTMP data which can be used as a baseline. Slightly modified from Table 2, an amended version of modified YTMP is being described for this field testing. For the purpose of the summer of 2019, trees planted spring of 2019 was tagged for monitoring in the subsequent years. In the second field testing, Collector for ArcGIS was used on a staff’s mobile phone to record the data, where ten tags were deployed at South Humber Park, Derrydowns Park, Earl Bales Park, Milliken District Park and Warden Woods North as a trial. These sites were all planted in Spring of 2019, and it was easy to distinguish the new plants due to the installation of mulch circles at the base of each tree planting. Due to a lack of resources, each location only has 10 tagged plants. The result of the second trial can be found in Appendix 4, and the attributes collected include: plant health, species, unique plant ID, planting year, planting season, and the X & Y GPS coordinate of the tag. The entry of species names was not yet standardized, hence some of the entries are recorded in common name, and others are in Latin. The unique plant ID is comprised of four components which begin with of a 3-letter abbreviation of the site’s name, followed by the planting season

J.K.C. Lam 27 either “S” for spring or “F” for fall and year the sample was planted. The last component of the plant ID is an assigned number on the tag. An example of the tag would read “SHP-S2019-02”, which indicates the tag is for a plant located at South Humber Park, planted during the spring season of 2019. This method was comparatively faster to implement, and corresponding maps were created using the tagging data. As seen below, Figure 5 illustrates the blue existing planting polygon digitized by city staff, overlaid with the tagged plants represented by red dots at South Humber Park. All the tagged plants can be found within the planting polygon; however, the tags are not evenly spaced throughout the site. This could be attributed to a combination of poor tag distribution and GPS accuracy. Ideally 10% of all the plantings would be monitored through this method, however due to the constrained resources 20 plants would be tagged and identified at each site. The location of tagged plants at Derrydowns Park is shown in Figure 6. The planting polygon has not yet been updated at this site, however the red points appear to be aligned with the existing green space.

Figure 5 Field Testing Modified YTMP: South Humber Park (map data provided by the City of Toronto)

J.K.C. Lam 28

Figure 6 Field Testing Modified YTMP: Derrydowns Park (map data provided by the City of Toronto)

The results from Earl Bales Park are displayed below in Figure 7, like Derrydowns Park the planting polygon is missing. However, a glaring issue at this site is that two of the tagged plants appear to be in the parking lot. This is likely a GPS issue, and moving forward the user adding the point to the map will need to manually adjust the location when the signal is poor. Milliken District Park showcased another issue with the polygon, as shown below in Figure 8. The tagged plants were outside of the planting polygons, but the orthoimage shows that they appear to be a part of the naturalized area. This suggests that the planting polygons are not accurately drawn. For future reference, staff should try to map the planting polygons while they are on site to ensure the polygon is accurately depicted on Arc Collector. Warden Woods North was a site which had infill planting in the past, but like Milliken District Park the polygons are not accurately drawn. In Figure 9, the polygons are rugged, and this would skew any future calculation using the planting polygons. Areas planted and overlapping planting polygons should be rectified before analysis are conducted using the dataset. Analyzing these maps, it was evident that the GPS was not always accurate, nor were the planting polygons, thus a data clean-up would be beneficial.

J.K.C. Lam 29

Figure 7 Field Testing Modified YTMP: Earl Bales Park (map data provided by the City of Toronto)

Figure 8 Field Testing Modified YTMP: Milliken District Park (map data provided by the City of Toronto)

J.K.C. Lam 30

Figure 9 Field Testing Modified YTMP: Warden Woods North Park (map data provided by the City of Toronto) Staff Feedback A meeting with NECP staff was conducted over the summer to receive feedback from the first two trials and gather input for the third field testing date. It was agreed that tagging was the best option moving forward as seen in the ranking matrix in Table 6. The matrix ranked each method against the criteria, with 1 being the least successful, and 5 being the most successful to determine the most suitable method. The matrix rated each method based on simplicity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and objectivity. The simplicity of modified YTMP meant that it was straight-forward and understandable to the layperson. The limiting factor of monitoring is the time investment for staff, since tagging can be deployed quicker than other methods. Due to this, the cost-effectiveness of a program is multiplied by 2 to put more weight on this category. Reliability refers to how useful the information gathered would be for reporting. Objectivity provides an unbiassed measure that can be repeated over time which is a strength of the modified YTMP. From this ranking system, modified YTMP was the preferred method and used as a starting point.

J.K.C. Lam 31

Cost-effectiveness Method Name Simplicity Reliability Objectivity Total (x2) TRCA YTMP 5 3 3 3 17 Modified YTMP 5 3 3 4 18 TAPP 3 2 1 2 Monitoring 10 TAT Monitoring 1 1 3 3 9 VSP 1 2 5 5 15

Modified VSP 3 2 4 4 15 Table 6 Methods Ranking Matrix Moving forward, more planting years will need to be monitored throughout the years as shown in Table 7 below. NECP planted at approximately 25 sites on average each year, and the monitoring will be conducted at half of the sites. Each year staff will tag 20 plants at 13 sites, hence tagging 260 plants each year. As per Tree Canada and Forests Ontario’s frequency recommendation, trees and shrubs will be monitored at year 1, 2 and 5. By year 2024, if staff monitor 3 years of planting, they will need to sample 1040 plants at 52 sites per year. Options to sample at years 2 & 5 or year 5 were added to make this program feasible for the staffing resources currently available. However, even with reduced monitoring years, even at year 5, the staff would have to accommodate sampling 520 plants at 26 sites on top of their existing workload. Partners such as TRCA, Toronto Field Naturalists and students can help with monitoring. The staff agreed that whenever possible, site information such as soil type, site preparation, rainfall and invasive species present is to be recorded for further analysis.

Monitoring Year 1, 2, 5 Year 2 & 5 Year 5 Only Tagging 260 260 260 Year 1 260 0 0 Year 2 260 260 0 Year 5 260 260 260 Total Plants Sampled 1040 780 520 Number of Sites 52 39 26 Table 7 Schedule Mock-up (2024) An anonymous staff survey in Appendix 5 was sent out to NECP staff at the City of Toronto to better understand the objectives, deliverables and desired outcomes of this project. First, the survey inquired about what the staff wanted to know about volunteer planting sites.

J.K.C. Lam 32

Staff requested the information of the overall percent survival rate in addition to species specific survival rate. A few staff members were interested in the number of volunteers engaged in the planting events, and whether there was a difference between community stewardship events, public planting and private planting events. Ideally, the possible causes of mortality would be included in the monitoring protocol to help inform future restoration. Second, the survey asked what high-level conclusions staff members would like to report to management or the public about the volunteer planting sites. This garnered a wide variety of responses such as planting survivorship by parks and overall survival of NECP plantings for the public to understand. In addition, on areas planted by volunteers, improvement on survival rates would be valuable information for upper management. Lastly, using the results, the cost-effectiveness of volunteering plantings based on survival in comparison to contractor plantings can be calculated to help enhance the overall programming.

Planting Event Survival Audit From the past field testing and refined methodology through this project, a new monitoring protocol was developed. This protocol was based on modified YTMP and named the Planting Event Survival Audit (PESA). The third field testing was conducted to revisit the sites tagged in field testing 2, to observe if GPS coordinates were accurate, as well as the time it would take to locate tagged plants. At Warden Woods North Park, only 30% of the tags could be located 3 weeks after the tags were deployed. Vegetation such as stickseed (Hackelia virginiana), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and vetch (Vicia cracca) had grown tremendously, covering the planted stock. It was essential to add non-biodegradable flagging tape in the future to help pinpoint the plants. The GPS coordinates were accurate most of the time, but some points needed to be manually adjusted for accuracy. There was not a discernable difference between the GPS accuracy of the mobile device with the aid of the Bad Elf GPS receiver. At Milliken Park there was considerably less weed growth, hence all but one tag was located. Currently, since aluminum plant tags are used to mark the tree, there is a concern about the durability of the tag lasting 5 years. Going forward, a more durable tag such as an embossed aluminum tag can be used. During the second visit, it was evident that all the tags were mainly on the west side of the planting polygon and the plantings on the east side were not accounted for. This issue was noted and integrated into the new protocol to ensure there would be an even distribution of tags

J.K.C. Lam 33 throughout the planting site. Lastly, by integrating the suggestions made based on previous site visits, a new site, Williamson- Newbold, was tagged. A sample of the data collected can be examined in Figure 10, which includes fields such as plant health, species, unique plant ID, planting year, planting season and initial health of the specimen. Fall 2019’s planting season will serve as the first pilot for this naturalization monitoring, and a draft of the protocol is found in Appendix 6. The sites selected for monitoring were randomly generated, and staff are expected to tag on the day of the planting event. A sample of the tagging performed by staff on the day of the planting event can be seen in Figure 11 below. This map is an example of the naturalization monitoring protocol completed at Earl Bales Park, during the fall 2019 planting season. The planting Figure 10 Sample point entry using Arc Collector polygon was also created on the day of the planting, increasing the accuracy of the planting area boundaries. In comparison to the previous polygon and distribution of tags, the process is now more evenly distributed through the site.

J.K.C. Lam 34

Figure 11 Planting Event Survival Audit at Earl Bales Fall 2019 (map data provided by the City of Toronto) International Monitoring Protocol Comparison Nationally in Canada, there is a general lack of rigorous and reputable naturalization monitoring program. Through the literature review, select protocols from Italy, China and Sweden were examined as a comparison to the Planting Event Survival Audit developed through the internship. Rome, Italy has noted there is a lack of long-term survival and growth in urban and peri urban plantations, which ignited the long-term morning program (Ferrari et al., 2017). Rome decided to adopt the Continuous Forest Inventory, like VSP, which continuously monitors a permanent sample plot periodically from year 6 to 24 following planting (Ferrari et al., 2017). This method has allowed scientists to draw conclusions about the forest’s growth dynamics, annual carbon uptake, and species stratification (Ferrari et al., 2017). A total of 40 plots of varying sizes were established thorough Rome and each plot contained at least 36 trees (Ferrari et al., 2017). A minimum tree requirement could help combat the issue of irregularly shaped planting sites, and aid with creating representative monitoring sites. The longer a site is monitored the more data and conclusions that can be drawn, such as carbon uptake or growth rates. The long-term data collection is valuable as the wealth of knowledge will allow for complex analysis.

J.K.C. Lam 35

China has implemented two reforestation programs to combat floods of 1998: The Natural Forest Protection Program and Sloping Land Conversion Program (Grain for Green) (Trac et al., 2007). A small-scale study was launched to investigate the success of each program, 10 years after the first plantings (Trac et al., 2007). Growth was measured as either successful, struggling or unsuccessful depending on the species and height of the vegetation throughout the course of monitoring (Trac et al., 2007). There were two main planting periods, once approximately in 1995 and another around 2000, thus it was distinct which plantings belonged to which period (Trac et al., 2007). A customized scale of success could be adopted as different species grow at differing rates, since it would be more effective to compare it against realistic growth rates. Permanent plots were not explicitly set up for this experiment, however the sites were only altered by the afforestation programs which allowed the researchers to definitively conclude the success was directly attributed to the programs.

Sweden uses a landscape-level and multiscale biodiversity monitoring program thorough their entire country, known as National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) (Stahl et al., 2011). There are 631 sample plots distributed through Sweden, of which 20% are surveyed each year, therefore it takes five years for a complete inventory of the sites (Stahl et al., 2011). Like VSP, this sample-based stratified inventory acquires data across several spatial scales (Stahl et al., 2011). The perimeter of the plots is 5km by 5km, and around the square plots there are 12 equidistant points where circular plots are sampled for vegetation (Stahl et al., 2011). The data collected allows researchers to conduct analysis of natural landscape changes, anthropogenic impact and natural biological diversity (Stahl et al., 2011). The meticulous set up of this monitoring program is scientifically sound and allows for conclusions to be drawn about land use, status and change for the distribution of plants and area of each landscape. Internationally there is a shift from tagging individual plants to establishing permanent monitoring sites to continually monitor the sites.

Recommendations Based on the results of the field trials of summer 2019 it is recommended that the City of Toronto continue with the Planting Event Survival Audit which will allow staff to monitor the survival of the plantings on a smaller scale in the short-term. Results from this exercise can be

J.K.C. Lam 36 used to feed into a “report card” style of reporting which will be simpler for the public to absorb. The Town of Oakville has produced Urban Forest Health Monitoring reports since 2014, and it aids with determining the state of the forest, trends and patterns throughout time (Town of Oakville, 2019). Each year a third of the town’s woodland is assessed for pests, disease, and disturbances. Each woodlot is also given a health rating, so it is simple to understand (Town of Oakville, 2019). The City of Toronto could report similarly as seen in the sample report card shown in Appendix 7. This report was based on real data collected through the TAT monitoring protocol in 2005 which is being analyzed by the University of Toronto’s Forests in Settled and Urban Landscapes Applied Research Group. The report lists all the species present at the park along with its health rating and breakdown of the park’s general health rating. At this particular site, 81%, 7.8%, 0.5% and 10.7% of the plants sampled were healthy, moderate, unhealthy and dead respectively. For the species which appeared on the planting list, a percentage survival could be calculated. Paper birch (Betula papyrifera), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) and serviceberry had the highest survival rate of the species planted. From the observations attached to the data sheet, rodents, insects, bad planting practices and browse were the largest contributing factor to plant mortality. A measure of engagement can be added to the report so that it is incorporated in the “success” of the planting event. Moving forward, provided that the funding and staff resources are adequate to execute a long-term plot monitoring program, the City of Toronto should strive for permanent plots which are periodically sampled like China, Italy and Sweden. Currently, there are not any standardized methods in Canada, thus the Continuous Forest Inventory protocol is recommended as a starting point.

Conclusion There is a plethora of challenges which make the monitoring naturalization sites difficult to execute. Through the exploration of existing local and international monitoring protocols and field testing it can be determined that the Naturalization Monitoring Protocol is the favoured short-term solution for this gap in knowledge. From the available literature, the suggested frequency of monitoring is at year 1, 2 and 5. After 5 years, some of the monitored sites can transition into becoming long-term monitoring plots. These plots will shift from the monitoring of plantings to the monitoring of the canopy cover and quality of the habitat. The survival of

J.K.C. Lam 37 healthy plantings will ensure that the benefits of urban forests and can be reaped by citizens. Volunteer tree planting events offers the community engagement opportunity which is beneficial towards fostering stewardship. Naturalization will increase the canopy cover, wildlife habitat, urban biodiversity, air and water quality. Municipalities should invest resources in not only the planting event but the mulching, watering and weeding of the site after the event to help improve plant establishment. Municipalities and organizations can make informed decisions with their naturalization monitoring efforts. It is advisable to partake in any capacity of monitoring if possible, to collect a baseline dataset because it is impossible to retrospectively collect this information. The City of Toronto and other cities can use these options as a guideline to monitor the success of their plantings and find opportunities to help new plantings survive in an urban environment.

J.K.C. Lam 38

References Bardekjian, A. (2018). Compendium of best urban forest management practices. Second Edition. Originally commissioned to Tree Canada by Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from: https://treecanada.ca/resources/canadian-urban-forest-compendium/

Chisholm, S. (2004). The growing role of citizen engagement in urban naturalization: The case of Canada. Ekistics, 35-44.

City of Toronto (2010). City of Toronto Natural Environment & Community Programs: Trees Across Toronto Monitoring Protocol Draft. Internal Report: unpublished.

City of Toronto. (2013). Strategic Forest Management Plan. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer- service/long-term-vision-plans-and-strategies/strategic-forest-management-plan/

City of Toronto (2018). Naturalization Planting Post-Plant Inspection and/ or Long-Term Survival Monitoring Protocol. Internal Report: unpublished.

Evergreen. (2001). Urban naturalization in Canada: a policy and program guidebook. Toronto.

Ferrari, B., Corona, P., Mancini, L. D., Salvati, R., & Barbati, A. (2017). Taking the pulse of forest plantations success in peri-urban environments through continuous inventory. New forests, 48(4), 527-545.

Forests Ontario. (2019). Forests Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.forestsontario.ca/about/vision-mission/

Harper, R. W., Huff, E. S., Bloniarz, D. V., DeStefano, S., & Nicolson, C. R. (2018). Exploring the characteristics of successful volunteer-led urban forest tree committees in Massachusetts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 34, 311-317. Kirk Biggar & Associates Forest Management Consulting (1998). Metro Parks and Culture Parkland Naturalization 1997 Monitoring Program. Internal Report: unpublished. McPherson, G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., Maco, S. E., & Xiao, Q. (2005). Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. Journal of forestry, 103(8), 411-416. Metro Toronto Parks and Culture Department Fall (1997). Metro Parkland Naturalization Compendium Fall 1996. Internal Report: unpublished.

Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department (1995). 1994 Planting Success Survey. Internal Report: unpublished.

Moskell, C., & Allred, S. B. (2013). Residents’ beliefs about responsibility for the stewardship of park trees and street trees in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 85- 95.

J.K.C. Lam 39

Pauleit, S. (2003, March). Urban street tree plantings: identifying the key requirements. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer (Vol. 156, No. 1, pp. 43-50). Thomas Telford Ltd. Pothier, A. J., & Millward, A. A. (2013). Valuing trees on city-centre institutional land: an opportunity for urban forest management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(9), 1380-1402.

Puric-Mladenovic, D. & Kenney, A. (2016). The VSP Field Inventory and Monitoring Pocket Guide. Internal Report: unpublished. Roberts-Pichette, P, and Gillespie, L. 1999. Terrestrial vegetation biodiversity monitoring protocols. EMAN Occasional Paper Series, Report No. 9. Ecological Monitoring Coordinating Office, Burlington, Ontario. Roman, L. A. (2014). How many trees are enough? Tree death and the urban canopy. Scenario Journal. Scenario 04. 8 p., 1-8.

Roman, L. A., Battles, J. J., & McBride, J. R. (2016). Urban tree mortality: a primer on demographic approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-158. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 24 p., 158, 1-24.

Roman, L. A., McPherson, E. G., Scharenbroch, B. C., & Bartens, J. (2013). Identifying common practices and challenges for local urban tree monitoring programs across the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39 (6): 292-299., 39(6), 292-299.

Song, X. P., Tan, P. Y., Edwards, P., & Richards, D. (2018). The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban forestry & urban greening, 29, 162-170.

Ståhl, G., Allard, A., Esseen, P. A., Glimskär, A., Ringvall, A., Svensson, J., ... & Lagerqvist, K. (2011). National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS)—scope, design, and experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 173(1-4), 579-595.

Town of Oakville. (2019). Urban Forest Health Monitoring Program. Retrieved from https://www.oakville.ca/residents/urban-forest-health-monitoring-program.html.

Trac, C. J., Harrell, S., Hinckley, T. M., & Henck, A. C. (2007). Reforestation programs in Southwest China: reported success, observed failure, and the reasons why. Journal of Mountain Science, 4(4), 275-292.

TRCA. (2019). About TRCA. Retrieved from https://trca.ca/about/

TRCA. (n.d.). Native Tree & Shrub Monitoring: A Monitoring & Maintenance Guide for Newly Planted Sites.

Tree Canada. (2019). About Tree Canada. Retrieved from https://treecanada.ca/about-us/

J.K.C. Lam 40

Vogt, J. M., Watkins, S. L., Mincey, S. K., Patterson, M. S., & Fischer, B. C. (2015). Explaining planted-tree survival and growth in urban neighborhoods: A social–ecological approach to studying recently-planted trees in Indianapolis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 130-143.

J.K.C. Lam 41

Appendices Appendix Table 1. Summary of NECP Engagement Events between 2017 to 2018

Total Area Participant Event Total Year Site Participants Planted Per Area Type Plants (m2) (m2) 2017 Earl Bales Public 400 740 4445 0.090 2017 Cedarvale Park Public 150 250 N/A N/A 2017 Norman Ingram P.S. School 160 200 N/A N/A 2017 Tyrell Landfill Public 150 900 N/A N/A 2017 Earl Bales School 60 150 4445 0.013 2017 Earl Bales Private 190 300 4445 0.043 2017 George Peck P.S. School 110 300 1100 0.100 Warden Woods & 2017 Private 60 50 100 0.600 Taylor Creek 2017 Beltine Trail Public 75 40 N/A N/A Remberto Navia Sport 2017 Private 110 148 N/A N/A Fields 2017 Bayview Village Park School 50 75 N/A N/A 2017 ET Seton Corporate 57 173 700 0.081 2017 Morningside Heights Public 300 535 535 0.561 2017 L'Amoreaux North Park Public 55 120 1600 0.034 2017 Jeff Healey Park Public 60 300 N/A N/A Humber Bay Butterfly 2017 Public 15 5 N/A N/A Habitat 2017 Wards Island Private 24 157 N/A N/A 2017 Cedarvale Park Public 80 297 N/A N/A 2017 Earl Bales Park Public 60 345 800 0.075 2017 Cedarbrook Park Public 150 664 800 0.188 2017 Cottonwood Flats Private 8 35 N/A N/A 2017 Crothers Woods Private 8 181 N/A N/A 2017 Wards Island Private 40 188 N/A N/A 2017 Warden Woods North Public 50 250 250 0.200 Toronto Islands - 2017 School 15 200 N/A N/A Hanlan's Point 2018 Warden Woods Public 450 500 525 0.857 2018 Beare Hill Public 125 408 500 0.250 2018 Beltline Trail Public 70 20 2260 0.031 2018 DVBW Public 60 118 200 0.300 2018 Downsview Dells Public 80 273 510 0.157

J.K.C. Lam 42

2018 Centennial Park Private 25 140 1370 0.018 TDSB Charles E 2018 Private 200 279 400 0.500 Webster PS 2018 Beare Hill Public 160 400 500 0.320 2018 Cedarvale Park Public 75 300 700 0.107 2018 Milliken District Park Public 75 250 1000 0.075 2018 Taylor Creek Park Private 60 51 320 0.188 2018 TDSB - Essex PS Private 210 200 380 0.553 2018 Heathercrest Park Public 80 250 660 0.121 Remberto Navia Sports 2018 Private 130 173 300 0.433 Fields 2018 Earl Bales Park Public 225 394 900 0.250 2018 Earl Bales Park Private 150 331 800 0.188 2018 Morningside Heights Public 100 423 800 0.125 2018 Milliken District Park Public 60 104 1000 0.060 2018 Toronto Islands Public 70 290 600 0.117 2018 Earl Bales Park Public 60 270 500 0.120 2018 Earl Bales Park Public 15 105 300 0.050 2018 Cedarvale Park Public 50 185 200 0.250 2018 Milliken District Park Public 37 300 1250 0.030 Chorley Park 2018 Public 70 320 500 0.140 Hill/Beltline Trail 2018 Colonel Samuel Smith Private 18 102 200 0.090 2018 Cedar Ridge Park Public 60 392 350 0.171 2018 Wexford Park Public 16 200 320 0.050 2018 Humber Bay Park East Public 0 85 130 0.000 2018 Gateway PS Private 240 165 650 0.369 2018 Hanlan's Point Private 49 500 5000 0.010 2018 Warden Woods Public 40 187 350 0.114 2018 Wanita Park Public 50 235 1235 0.040 2018 Sunnybrook Park Public 100 375 510 0.196

J.K.C. Lam 43

Appendix Table 2. Field Testing Modified YTMP Collection Plant Species Unique Plant ID Planting Planting x y Health Year Season 2 Serviceberry SHP-s2019-01 2019 Spring -79.4795 43.63682 0 Ninebark SHP-s2019-02 2019 Spring -79.4792 43.63677 4 Choke cherry SHP-s2019-03 2019 Spring -79.4792 43.63674 3 Choke cherry SHP-s2019-04 2019 Spring -79.4791 43.63673 1 Choke cherry SHP-s2019-05 2019 Spring -79.4791 43.6367 0 Nannyberry SHP-s2019-06 2019 Spring -79.479 43.63678 2 Choke cherry SHP-s2019-07 2019 Spring -79.4789 43.63674 0 Nannyberry SHP-s2019-08 2019 Spring -79.4789 43.63678 0 Rubus occidentalis SHP-s2019-09 2019 Spring -79.4787 43.63672 3 Sambucus racemosa SHP-s2019-10 2019 Spring -79.4788 43.63678 0 Choke cherry DDP-s2019-01 2019 Spring -79.5049 43.75926 0 Cornus racemosa DDP-s2019-02 2019 Spring -79.5048 43.75933 0 Prunus virginia DDP-s2019-03 2019 Spring -79.5048 43.75927 0 Cornus alternifolia DDP-s2019-04 2019 Spring -79.5048 43.75943 0 Rubus odoratus DDP-s2019-05 2019 Spring -79.5048 43.75942 0 Rubus odoratus DDP-s2019-06 2019 Spring -79.5049 43.75945 1 Prunus virginiana DDP-s2019-07 2019 Spring -79.5049 43.75945 1 Amelanchier laevis DDP-s2019-08 2019 Spring -79.5049 43.75941 1 Amelanchier laevis DDP-s2019-09 2019 Spring -79.505 43.75945 0 Amelanchier laevis DDP-s2019-10 2019 Spring -79.505 43.75946 1 Rubus occidentalis EBP-s2019-01 2019 Spring -79.4362 43.75528 1 Ostrya virginiana EBP-s2019-02 2019 Spring -79.4363 43.7553 0 Quercus rubra EBP-s2019-03 2019 Spring -79.4361 43.75514 2 Populus tremuloides EBP-s2019-04 2019 Spring -79.4363 43.75507 0 Cornus sericea EBP-s2019-05 2019 Spring -79.4362 43.75502 0 Cornus sericea EBP-s2019-06 2019 Spring -79.4362 43.75507 2 Amelanchier laevis EBP-s2019-06 2019 Spring -79.4363 43.75498 0 Cornus alternifolia EBP-s2019-07 2019 Spring -79.4364 43.75499 0 Cornus alternifolia EBP-s2019-08 2019 Spring -79.4363 43.75491 1 Prunus virginiana EBP-s2019-09 2019 Spring -79.4363 43.7549 0 Rubus odoratus EBP-s2019-10 2019 Spring -79.4363 43.75493 0 Amelanchier laevis MDP-s2019-01 2019 Spring -79.2727 43.82761 1 Sambucus racemosa MDP-s2018-02 2019 Spring -79.2727 43.82762 0 Pinus strobus MDP-s2019-03 2019 Spring -79.2727 43.82755 1 Prunus virginiana MDP-s2019-04 2019 Spring -79.2726 43.82753 1 Amelanchier laevis MDP-s2019-05 2019 Spring -79.2727 43.82746 0 Amelanchier laevis MDP-s2019-06 2019 Spring -79.2727 43.82743 2 Quercus rubra MDP-s2019-07 2019 Spring -79.2727 43.82739

J.K.C. Lam 44

1 Quercus alba MDP-s2019-08 2019 Spring -79.2726 43.82732 1 Betula papyrifera MDP-s2019-09 2019 Spring -79.2725 43.82726 4 Sambucus racemosa MDP-s2019-10 2019 Spring -79.2725 43.82723 0 Cornus racemosa WWN-s2019-01 2019 Spring -79.2818 43.71145 0 Cornus racemosa WWN-s2019-02 2019 Spring -79.2817 43.71144 0 Cornus sericea WWN-s2019-03 2019 Spring -79.2817 43.71145 0 Cornus racemosa WWN-s2019-04 2019 Spring -79.2815 43.71148 0 Rubus odoratus WWN-s2019-05 2019 Spring -79.2815 43.71147 1 Viburnum lentago WWN-s2019-06 2019 Spring -79.2814 43.71146 0 Cornus racemosa WWN-s2019-07 2019 Spring -79.2813 43.71149 0 Ninebark WWN-s2019-08 2019 Spring -79.2813 43.71141 0 Prunus virginiana WWN-s2019-09 2019 Spring -79.2813 43.71132 0 Ninebark WWN-s2019-10 2019 Spring -79.2813 43.71124

J.K.C. Lam 45

Appendix Figure 1. Map of Volunteer Engagement in 2018 (map data provided by the City of Toronto)

J.K.C. Lam 46

Appendix Figure 2. City of Toronto Park’s Report Card Mock-up (map data provided by the City of Toronto and the Forests in Settled and Urban Landscapes Applied Research Group)

J.K.C. Lam 47

Appendix A. Modified VSP Data Collection Form Draft Naturalization Monitoring Protocol Data Sheet

Surveyors: Date:

Site Name: Evidence of Mulch:

A: Transect Start: X: Y:

Transect End: X: Y:

B Transect Start: X: Y:

Transect End: X: Y:

C Transect Start: X: Y: : Transect End: X: Y:

Transect & Alive Species Height Root Health Browse Plot Plot (Y/N) (cm) Collar (0,1,2,3) (Y/N) Class

J.K.C. Lam 48

Appendix B. NECP Volunteer Planting Survey Questions

1. What do you want to know about volunteer plantings? (i.e. survival) 2. What high-level conclusions would you like to report to management or the public, based on the results of monitoring volunteer planting sites?

Appendix C. Planting Event Survival Audit Protocol Draft Rationale In order to track the success of a naturalization and the goal towards a greater canopy cover, planted sites must be monitored. This will allow for better decision in planning future naturalization and volunteer planting sites. Currently, aside from anecdotal commentary, there has no been a systematic approach towards monitoring the success of volunteer led planting sites. This protocol will allow us to draw rough conclusions about plantings.

Health and Safety - Sun safety (hat, sunscreen, light colors) - Hydration - Steel toe boots - High visibility safety vest - Insect Repellent - Tick Awareness

Equipment - Staff smartphone with ArcCollector access - Aluminum tags with wire - Pen - Non-biodegradable flagging tape - Planting plan - Bad Elf GPS Unit (optional?)

Site Selection Prior to Planting Season - Prior to the planting season sites will be entered in an excel file o Each site with a unique planting plan a different planting date will be considered an individual site o Ensure that the sites selected are planting events, as opposed to trail maintenance, mulching or a weed pull - Using the random number generator (=RAND()), random numbers from 0 to 1 will be assigned to each site o Then a filter will be applied to both the site and number generated, and it will rank the number from in ascending order - The 50% of the sites selected will be the ones with the smallest numbers generated o Ensure that there is a staff member at each of the monitored event with ArcCollector

J.K.C. Lam 49

- The list will be adjusted to fit the scheduling needs of staff as needed, but the goal is to sample 50% of the sites each season.

Initial Tagging - To be completed on the day of the planting - Plants will be a tagged by a staff member once all the plants have been planted - Twenty plantings will be selected at each site o Regardless of the size of the planting - To ensure there is an even distribution of monitored plantings, the total number of plantings will be divided by 20 o This will indicate how many plants will be in between each selected plant monitored o For example, if the planting had 300 plants, the staff member would select the 15th plant that they counted on the site to monitor o Try your best to evenly space out the tag among the planting site - Once a plant has been selected, the staff member will assign the plant a metal tag to be hung loosely on the lower branches. o A 3-letter short form will be created ahead of time for each of the parks selected ▪ For example, Warden Woods North is abbreviated to WWN & Milliken District Park is abbreviated to MDP o The tag will also include the season of planting, “S” for spring plantings and “F” for fall plantings, along with the year of planting o Lastly the code will include the plant number for that season. A hyphen will be added in between the park, season & year and plant number for clarification. Some examples of codes include: “WWN-S2019-01” and “MDP-F2019-02”. o This identifier will be used in the later years to find the planting again to assess it’s health - Flagging tape will be tied loosely on the top branches of the plant to help staff find the plant again in the future

- Input the planting into the ArcCollector o Using the aerial photo and landmarks at the site, using their best judgement the staff must create a new “point” in the NECP layer, and place it to the correct location o The GPS may not always be accurate, depending on the clouds, and locations, hence if needed, the user can manually move the point to a more appropriate location o The staff member will also need to input the species name, the unique plant ID, planting year, planting season, and health status

- The health status will be determined by the percentage of dieback observed. o Healthy is a plant with full foliage with up to 25% dieback, other categories include 25% to 50% dieback, 50% to 75% dieback and more than 75% dieback and dead plants

Follow up Monitoring

J.K.C. Lam 50

- Between spring and fall planting, staff will revisit the tagged sites at years 1, 3, and 5 - Using the GPS points logged during the initial tagging the staff member will use the GPS points and planting plan to relocate the plants which are tagged o In “Plant Health – Year 1”, “Plant Health – Year 3”, and “Plant Health – Year 5” the recorder will update the plant health status after locating the plant - At year 5, the last year of monitoring, the flagging tape and the metal tag will need to be removed from the plant.

Troubleshooting - Missing Tags o If tags are missing during a monitoring year, record that the plant could not be located. - Replacing tags o On need basis, if the tag requires to be re-tagged (missing) o Follow the naming convention above and create a new number for the plant (i.e.21) - Mass Vandalism o In the case of mass vandalism, the site will be retired

Reporting - As the data is updated on the ArcCollector, the information will be updated on the server as well - Once the data has been updated, a map of the health condition and survival of the plants can be generated on ArcMap - The number of residents engaged in each planting activity in addition to the ratio of volunteers to planted area can be mapped - The data collected through monitoring will be included in the reporting as a percentage of survival per site, in addition to percentage survival per species - All of this information can be combined into the report card for the public to understand

J.K.C. Lam 51