Appendix I: Existing Conditions Report

Existing Conditions Report

Tr inity Bellwoods Park

Existing Conditions Report

Summary Analysis of the Neighbourwoods© Tree Inventory Trinity Bellwoods Park

Presented to Friends of Trinity Bellwoods Park

November 2009

Report presented by:

The Trinity Tree Team

Brian Volz Annie McKenzie Caroline Booth Mike Halferty

Masters of Forest Conservation University of Toronto

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto i Existing Conditions Report

Acknowledgements

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

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto ii Existing Conditions Report

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Methodology ...... 1 3 Inventory Area ...... 2 4 Summary Analysis of the Tree Inventory ...... 3 4.1 Tree Diversity ...... 4 4.1.1 Tree Diversity by Genus ...... 5 4.1.2 Tree Diversity by Species ...... 6 4.2 Tree Size ...... 10 4.2.1 Distribution of Trees by Height Class ...... 10 4.2.2 Distribution of Trees by Diameter Class ...... 11 4.3 Tree Condition ...... 13 4.3.1 Overall Condition of Trees ...... 15 4.3.2 Tree Condition by Diameter Size Class...... 15 4.3.3 Tree Condition by Species ...... 17 5 Potential Risk Trees ...... 22 6 Candidate Heritage Trees ...... 27 7 References ...... 28

Appendix 1: All the trees with buffer set to the crown radius and color coded to condition rating Appendix II: Complete list of tree species in Trinity Bellwoods Park...... 30 Appendix III: Trees with less than 1% representation ...... 34 Appendix IV. Potential heritage trees...... 35 Appendix V: Neighbourwoods© quick reference guide...... 36

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto iii Existing Conditions Report

List of Figures

Figure 1: Aerial view of Trinity Bellwoods Park ...... 2 Figure 2: Distribution of native vs. non-native trees ...... 4 Figure 3: Number of deciduous vs. evergreen trees ...... 5 Figure 4: Distribution of trees by genus ...... 6 Figure 5: Distribution of species that represent more than 5% of the total number of trees ...... 7 Figure 6: Distribution of maples by species...... 8 Figure 7: Distribution of oaks by species ...... 8 Figure 8: Distribution of ashes by species...... 9 Figure 9: Distribution of coniferous trees by species ...... 9 Figure 10: Distribution of trees by height class...... 11 Figure 11. Distribution of trees by diameter class ...... 12 Figure 12: Size class distribution by species ...... 14 Figure 13: Condition of all trees ...... 15 Figure 14: Condition of all tree species by size class ...... 16 Figure 15: Condition for most common species ...... 18 Figure 16: Condition of Norway maples by size class...... 19 Figure 17: Condition of silver maples by size class ...... 20 Figure 18: Condition of sugar maples by size class...... 20 Figure 19: Condition of red and green ashes by size class...... 21 Figure 20: Condition of lindens/basswoods by size...... 21 Figure 21: Map of potential risk trees...... 24

List of Tables

Table 1: DBH classes by size...... 11 Table 2: Neighbourwoods© condition ratings ...... 15 Table 3: Neighbourwoods© inventory categories of interest when assessing tree risk ...... 23 Table 4: Table of high, medium and low priority risk trees in TBP ...... 25

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto iv Existing Conditions Report

1 Introduction

In the spring of 2009 the Friends of Trinity Bellwoods, a volunteer community group,

approached University of Toronto Forestry Coordinator Andy Kenney to inquire about the

creation of a tree inventory for their neighbourhood park. The enthusiastic group recognized the

park and its trees as a valuable resource to the community and has initiated the first step in

creating a Strategic Urban Forest Management Plan. Our company, Trinity Tree Team,

composed of 4 students from the University of Toronto’s Master of Forest Conservation

program, commends the Friends for choosing to hire Brian Volz to complete a tree inventory of

the park.

The work completed thus far includes GIS mapping of individual tree locations and an

inventory and health assessment of all the trees and naturalized areas within the park. All trees

have been measured in terms of diameter at breast height (DBH), crown width and height, and

overall tree height. The inventory has been the first step towards cataloguing tree data and

planning for the future of this important urban park.

2 Methodology

Over the summer of 2009, a tree inventory was completed for the over 800 trees in Trinity

Bellwoods Park. The data was collected according to Neighbourwoods© protocol, an inventory methodology designed for use by neighbourhood community members with little to no arboricultural experience. Diameter at breast height (DBH), crown width and height, and overall

tree height were measured for each tree. Individual trees were scored for the presence and

severity of a variety of condition attributes such as lean, rot cavity, and defoliation (see

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 1 Existing Conditions Report

Appendix IV for the Neighbourwoods© Quick Reference Guide) and a cumulative score was used to rate the trees’ overall condition as excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor (see Table 2:

Neighbourwoods© condition ratings, in section 3.3). Finally, each tree was mapped into a geographical information system (GIS), and all data were entered into a database for future reference. The inventory data collected for Trinity Bellwoods Park are the basis for the analysis contained within this report.

3 Inventory Area

Figure 1: Aerial view of Trinity Bellwoods Park (compiled image) (Source: URL: www.bing.com/maps)

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 2 Existing Conditions Report

Trinity Bellwoods Park (Figure 1) is bounded by Dundas Street on the North, Queen Street

on the South, Crawford Street and Shaw Street on the West and Gore Vale Avenue on the East.

The total area of the park is 15.1 hectares.

4 Summary Analysis of the Tree Inventory

This report summarises the distributions, for example by genera and species, size class,

native vs. non-native, deciduous vs. coniferous, and tree condition, of the existing trees in Trinity

Bellwoods Park. Simplifying the extensive data contained in the inventory is vital to

understanding the current composition and structure of this part of the urban forest. Only after understanding these characteristics can informed management decisions be made.

Simply analyzing species diversity is not sufficient because it does not give a complete picture of the forest structure. For instance, a particular species may be represented by a large number of trees, but they could all be recently planted and therefore small in size compared to their potential size at maturity. Other species may be numerous but represented primarily by old trees reaching the end of their life cycle. In addition, Trinity Bellwoods Park contains rare tree species that are represented by only one or two trees, such as the solitary sycamore maple in the northwest corner or the two bitternut hickories in the southeast. It is only after completing a tree inventory that hidden gems like these are brought to light. Using the inventory data, appropriate measures can be incorporated into the management plan that will help to increase diversity and improve the health of the park’s forest. Good planning and management is essential to improving the quality of the trees in this park, maximizing the environmental, economic and social benefits provided to the community.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 3 Existing Conditions Report

4.1 Tree Diversity

Trinity Bellwoods Park contains both native and non-native tree species, with native trees comprising the majority (about two-thirds of all trees – Figure 2. Refer to Appendix 1 for a list of all tree species occurring in the park). In general, native species are often preferable to non- natives because they are locally adapted to soil conditions and climate (UFI Inc. and Kenney

2008). As well, non-native tree and shrub species that are not naturally found in Ontario’s forests can become problematic if they invade woodlands, ravines and other natural areas. Though not all non-native species are invasive, several of the species in the park, including Norway maple,

Siberian Elm, and Manitoba maple, are considered invasive species in Ontario (Urban Forestry

Services 2009). When these trees and shrubs invade natural areas, they displace other tree species and ground layer vegetation and can permanently alter the composition of the forest

(Urban Forestry Services 2009).

non‐native, 290, 36%

native, 511, 64%

Figure 2: Distribution of native vs. non-native trees (total number of trees = 801)

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 4 Existing Conditions Report

There are more deciduous trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park than evergreens (Figure 3).

Deciduous species lose their leaves and become dormant during the winter, whereas evergreens

do not.

Evergreen 81, 10%

Deciduous 729, 90%

Figure 3: Number of deciduous vs. evergreen trees (total number of trees = 801)

4.1.1 Tree Diversity by Genus

Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park by genus. Genera that

represent less than 3% of the total are grouped into category “other". The three most common

genera in the park were maple (genus Acer) Ash (genus Fraxinus) and Oak (genus Quercus).

Maintaining biological diversity in the urban forest helps to safeguard against the effects of pest and disease epidemics. If the forest is made up of only a few different types of trees, a disease or pest that targets one of those types has the potential to destroy large portions of the canopy cover. For example, the spread of Dutch Elm disease in many North American cities killed most elm trees in a relatively short time and severely depleted many communities’ urban

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 5 Existing Conditions Report

forests. According to Santamour (2002), ideally less than 20% of urban trees should be from a

single genus and less than 10% should be of a single species. According to Santamour’s model,

within Trinity Bellwoods Park only maples (genus Acer) exceed the 20% guideline. However,

12% of the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park are ashes. This could be problematic because ash trees are vulnerable to the emerald ash borer, an insect that has been spreading through Ontario and has been spotted in Toronto (CFIA 2009).

139 Maple 17% Ash 305 31, 4% 38% Oak

33, 4% Linden

34, 4% Elm Honey Locust 40, 5% Spruce 47 6% Pine 78 94 10% 12% other

Figure 4: Distribution of trees by genus (total number of trees = 801)

4.1.2 Tree Diversity by Species

The Neighbourwoods© inventory revealed that there are 61 tree species in Trinity Bellwoods

Park (Appendix 1). Trees representing less than 1% of the total inventory are presented in

Appendix II. The distribution of tree species that represent more than 5% of the total number of

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 6 Existing Conditions Report

trees within Trinity Bellwoods Park is shown in Figure 5. The only species that is above the 10% recommended by Santamour (2002), as discussed above, is Norway maple.

Linden 41, Green/Red 5% Ash Norway 54, Maple 7.5% 138, 17.25% Silver Maple Sugar 62, Maple 7.75% 72, 9%

Figure 5: Distribution of species that represent more than 5% of the total number of trees within the park

The following graphs illustrate the tree species distribution in the three most common genera found in Trinity Bellwoods Park: Maple (Figure 6), Oak (Figure 7) and Ash (Figure 8). The species distribution of coniferous trees, which make up 10% of the total trees in Trinity

Bellwoods Park, is shown in Figure 9.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 7 Existing Conditions Report

Other, 7 Red Maple, 26

Norway Maple, 138 Silver Maple, 62

Sugar Maple, 72

Figure 6: Distribution of maples by species (305 trees total). “Other” includes sycamore maple (1), Amur maple (2), and Manitoba maple (4)

English Oak, 2 Bur Oak, 5 White Oak, 5

Pin Oak, 6

Red Oak, 39 Swamp White Oak, 21

Figure 7: Distribution of oaks by species (78 trees total)

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 8 Existing Conditions Report

European Ash, 4 Black Ash, 6

White Ash, 24 Red/Green Ash, 60

Figure 8: Distribution of ashes by species (94 trees total)

Douglas Fir, 5 Dawn Redwood, 5

Blue Spruce, 23 Austrian Pine, 15

White Spruce, White Pine, 10 16

Figure 9: Distribution of coniferous trees by species (74 trees total, cedar not included)

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 9 Existing Conditions Report

4.2 Tree Size

The benefits provided by trees are directly related to their size: larger trees provide more shade, are more efficient at filtering air pollutants, sequester more carbon, and provide more habitat for wildlife (Kenney 2000), and knowing the size of a tree is important in making management decisions. For the inventory of Trinity Bellwoods Park, the height and diameter at breast height (DBH) were measured for each tree ,which for many species, can be used to estimate tree age, and accordingly, how much larger the tree may be when it reaches full maturity (UFI Inc. and Kenney 2008).

4.2.1 Distribution of Trees by Height Class

Smaller trees are often planted on streets in the city of Toronto because they interact less with restrictions such as power lines, signs and buildings. Trinity Bellwoods Park, however, offers a green space where trees can grow to maturity, providing additional benefits such as reducing wind speed and attenuating storm water flows.

Although large trees are the most important in terms of environmental benefits, it is also crucial to maintain a diversity of tree sizes and ages so that old trees will be replaced by young trees when they die. Figure 10 shows the height class distribution of all the trees in Trinity

Bellwoods Park. Tree height was divided into three classes based on the inventory data: less than

5 meters, 5 to 10 meters, 10 to 15 meters, and greater than 15 meters. Almost a third of the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park are large trees with a height greater than 15m. The trees in the smallest category may be under-represented because the naturally-established saplings that were growing in naturalized areas were not measured.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 10 Existing Conditions Report

300

250

200 239 226 229 trees 150 30% 28% 29% of

# 100 107 50 13%

0 <5m 5 ‐ 10m 10 ‐ 15m > 15m Height class

Figure 10: Distribution of trees by height class (801 trees total)

4.2.2 Distribution of Trees by Diameter Class

The Neighbourwoods© inventory also used diameter at breast height (DBH) to measure tree size. The diameter of each tree trunk was measured at roughly 1.5 meters from the ground and the DBH measurements were then grouped into six diameter classes. Figure 11 illustrates the number of trees in each diameter class in Trinity Bellwoods Park.

Table 1: DBH classes by size

Class DBH 1 <16cm 2 16-30 3 31-45 4 46-60 5 61-76 6 >76

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 11 Existing Conditions Report

300

250 239, 200 30%

179, trees 150 163, 22% of

20% # 100 106, 13% 50 65, 8% 49, 6% 0 123456 Diameter Class

Figure 11. Distribution of trees by diameter class (801 trees total)

The diameter distribution for each species that comprise more than 2.5% of all the trees in the park is shown in Figure 12. This graph reveals that there have been no recent plantings of

Norway maple in Trinity Bellwoods Park, due primarily to proactive planting practices which aim to reduce or eliminate planting invasive non-native species within the urban environment.

Another interesting thing to note is that swamp white oaks show relatively high representation, but all are within the smallest size class.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 12 Existing Conditions Report

4.3 Tree Condition

Healthy trees that reach their maximum growth potential and develop full crowns supported by strong branch structure provide many environmental benefits. Although trees in natural and

urban forests do eventually decline and die, the process of decline for trees in urban settings is

more pronounced because they are exposed to stresses such as soil compaction, lack of nutrients,

air pollution, drought, and confined space (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney 2009). Monitoring and

maintaining the health of young trees is therefore important because it increases their ability to

replace declining older trees. Monitoring and maintaining the health of older trees is also of

importance because it can significantly increase the life span of these trees, reducing the risk to

public safety and increasing the environmental benefits that are provided by large trees.

Understanding the condition of trees and their growing environment is important in identifying serious problems, making informed management decisions, and for guiding long- term maintenance of the urban forest (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney 2009). Tree condition is determined by evaluating the structural integrity of the tree and its state of health (CLTA 1992).

Studying tree condition across genera and species is an important tool that aids in the decision making process for future plantings. In this inventory, tree condition was derived by rating the condition and characteristics of the crown, foliage, trunk and roots using the Neighbouroods© protocol. The resulting overall condition categories are described in Table 2.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 13 Existing Conditions Report

40 trees

# 30

0 Swamp Blue Red/Green Honey Silver Sugar Norway White Ash Red Oak Linden spp. Red Maple White Oak Spruce Ash Locust Maple Maple Maple size class 1 21 4 15 9 2 20 2 10 22 27 0 size class 2 0 18 4 14 9 6 6 12 9 12 13 size class 3 0 0 7 31 25 13 27 14 11 27 72 size class 4 00195212212834 size class 5 0005103010518 size class 6 001103106412

Figure 12: Size class distribution by species

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 14 Existing Conditions Report

Table 2: Neighbourwoods© condition ratings

Rating Description EXCELLENT Tree is free of any visible defects GOOD No serious problem FAIR Minor problems in one or more category POOR Major problems exist VERY POOR Serious problems exist

Every tree in Trinity Bellwoods Park was given a condition rating that is recorded in the

inventory database.

4.3.1 Overall Condition of Trees

The overall condition of all the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park is shown in Figure 13. In general, the trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park are in good health with 72% in excellent or good condition, with no serious problems. However, 16% of the trees in the park are in poor or very poor condition, meaning that they have major health problems.

4.3.2 Tree Condition by Diameter Size Class 450 400 350 396, 300 49% 250 trees 200 of 90, 49, 82,

# 150 184, 11% 6% 10% 100 23% 50 0 excellent good fair poor verypoor Condition rating

Figure 13: Condition of all trees

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 15 Existing Conditions Report

Evaluating the condition of trees in each diameter class is useful in understanding the sizes of trees that are declining or are in poor health. Maintaining good tree condition in all of the six diameter classes is important. A variety of tree sizes coupled with good tree health will ensure regeneration in the urban forest: healthy small trees are needed to replace the old trees that are naturally declining and dying. The condition of the trees in each diameter size class in Trinity

Bellwoods Park is shown in Figure 14 (refer to Table 1 for diameter size class explanation).

120 100 80 60 trees 40 of 20 # 0 size class 1 size class 2 size class 3 size class 4 size class 5 size class 6 excellent 109 77 100 59 31 31 good 63 42 35 21 14 5 fair 30 18 18 6 9 4 poor 13156842 very poor 24 11 20 12 7 7

Figure 14: Condition of all tree species by size class

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 16 Existing Conditions Report

4.3.3 Tree Condition by Species

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

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 17 Existing Conditions Report

160

140

120

trees 100

# 80

0 Swamp Blue Red/Green Honey Silver Sugar Norway White Ash Red Oak Linden spp. Red Maple White Oak Spruce Ash Locust Maple Maple Maple very poor 0018330311425 poor 00156124229 fair 6011371542910 good 0 2 5 15 10 12 7 7 18 19 37 excellent 15 21 16 19 8 22 27 8 29 38 57

Figure 15: Condition for most common species (species representing >2.5% of all trees)

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 18 Existing Conditions Report

60 very poor

poor 50 fair

40 good trees excellent of

# 30

0 123456 size class

Figure 16: Condition of Norway maples by size class

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 19 Existing Conditions Report

15 trees

of 10

0 123456 size class

Figure 17: Condition of silver maples by size class

20 trees

15 of

# 10

0 123456 size class

Figure 18: Condition of sugar maples by size class.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 20 Existing Conditions Report

18 16 14 12 trees 10 of 8 # 6 4 2 0 123456 size class

5 Figure 19: Condition of red and green ashes by size class.

15 trees

# 10

0 123456 size class

Figure 20: Condition of lindens/basswoods by size.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 21 Existing Conditions Report

5 Potential Risk Trees

By keeping the tree inventory up to date, Friends of Trinity Bellwoods volunteers can play an

important role in identifying potential risk trees. Not every tree with a defect is hazardous (van

Wassenaer, and Kenney 2001), and the ultimate risk diagnosis and treatment of trees should

always be done by a certified arborist with training and experience in tree risk assessment. The

available inventory data for Trinity Bellwoods Park can however help the community to assess

which trees are most likely to present a risk and are therefore in greatest need of professional

attention. In this report, we have categorized potential risk trees into three levels: high, medium,

and low priority for detailed inspection. These categories can be used to assess the level of

attention required by the City of Toronto. For example, a tree categorized as “high priority” may

need immediate assessment, while a “low priority” tree could be assessed during future

inspections or inventories. The priority levels are based on the data collected in the

The inventory categories of particular interest when assessing potential risk are: dead or broken branch; poor branch attachment; lean, rot or cavity in the trunk; and crack. A score of 3 was required in these categories in order for the tree to be considered as a potential risk (see

Table 3 for a description of a score of 3 in each category). A minimum DBH of 30cm was also required, acknowledging that large trees in decline present a higher potential risk than small trees.

The high priority trees are those that have a crack or lean, as these can be indicative of complete tree failure and possible collapse. Medium priority trees are those with a broken or

dead branch, a potentially dangerous condition, but one that can be easily dealt with through

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 22 Existing Conditions Report

pruning. Low priority trees are those displaying trunk rot or poor branch attachment, not necessarily in need of immediate action but to be flagged for future monitoring.

Table 3: Neighbourwoods© inventory categories of interest when assessing tree risk, with criteria for a score of 3 and associated risk priority level

Priority Defect Description of a score of 3 level There is a V-shaped union between a major branch and the main stem with evidence of Poor Branch Attachment included bark and/or the union is showing signs Low of failure An area of rot or an open cavity which is greater Rot or Cavity - Trunk than 1/2 the diameter of the stem is present. Low The tree has one or more large dead or broken Dead or Broken Branch branches or stubs originating from the main stem Medium or a scaffold branch. The tree has a serious lean (>15° from vertical) with some evidence of root mounding or soil Lean cracking on the side of the tree away from the High lean. One major crack (extending more than 1/2 the Crack diameter of the stem) is present or one or more High major cracks is in contact with another defect.

A risk assessment protocol must also take into consideration the location of the tree. Failure does not present a high risk unless the tree is in close proximity to a target, such as a building or high traffic area. As such, only trees within 15 metres of a path, road or sidewalk were considered for attention under the potential risk priority levels. Fifteen metres represents an average maximum tree height and was considered a reasonable buffer to protect public traffic. It should be noted that, as a high-traffic public space, the entirety of the park falls overall within the upper range of potential location risk, and the system used here is simply to stratify the park within a narrow upper range.

A list of high, medium and low risk trees is provided in Table 4, along with a colour-coded map (Figure 21). It should be stressed that the risk criteria used for this categorization are not based on professional standards, and thus should be used as a guideline only. Table 4 and

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 23 Existing Conditions Report

Figure 21 also include some of trees that did not meet the risk criteria described above, but were nonetheless flagged as potentially dangerous during the inventory.

Figure 21: Map of potential risk trees in TBP. Trees in: red = high priority; orange = medium priority and; yellow = low priority. Trees marked in green did not meet risk criteria, but were flagged during inventory as potentially dangerous.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 24 Existing Conditions Report

Table 4: Table of high, medium and low priority risk trees in TBP. Risk criteria categories are highlighted. Trees flagged as potentially dangerous during inventory are included as Special Concern.

Comments Condition

TreeNo Species TrunkDiame CrownWidth HeightClas DeadorBrok PoorBranch Lean RotorCavit Crack CableorBra 397 Sugar 46 10 11.8 2 3 0 3 3 0 hazardous very poor maple 431 Black ash 102 20 17.04 2 2 0 3 3 0 in state of decline very poor 337 Horse 44 9 13.2 2 0 0 2 3 0 very poor chestnut 592 Black 76 13 24.64 3 0 3 3 3 0 very unsafe. crack in very poor

High locust stem, unbalanced and leaning 573 Manatoba 31 9 19.04 1 0 3 0 0 0 very poor maple 620 Green ash 60 15 24.5 1 0 3 1 0 0 large portion of tree very poor broken off, leaning 251 Mountain 37 7 10 3 1 2 0 0 0 very poor ash 309 Norway 56 14 12.2 3 0 1 1 0 0 pruning needed very poor maple 333 American 55 17 18.2 3 0 1 1 0 0 poor elm 429 Silver 89 20 18.24 3 0 1 2 0 0 very poor maple

219 Mountain 48 12 12.2 3 2 0 0 0 0 declining very poor ash 655 Norway 80 12 18.8 3 1 0 2 0 0 poor health very poor

Medium maple 722 Green ash 43 12 18.6 3 0 0 0 2 0 large crack b/t two very poor branches 11 Red ash 65 9 9.8 3 0 0 2 0 0 very poor 248 American 109 19 23.6 3 0 0 3 0 0 suckering and very poor elm appears to be almost dead 339 Silver 105 6 12.4 3 0 0 3 0 0 good habitat ‐ no very poor maple danger to people 42 Norway 46 13 11.55 1 0 0 3 0 0 very poor maple 628 Scotts elm 41 10 16.5 1 0 0 3 0 0 very poor 698 Crab 33 9 7.28 1 0 0 3 0 0 very poor

Low apple 359 Silver 53 16 23.4 0 2 0 3 0 0 very poor maple

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 25 Existing Conditions Report

56 Silver 99 18 17 0 0 0 3 0 0 excellent habitat very poor maple tree. in state of decline 147 Norway 33 10 11.85 0 0 0 3 0 0 stem scar and rot very poor maple 360 Silver 61 17 23.4 0 0 0 3 0 0 very poor maple 457 Horse 63 8 14.6 1 2 2 3 2 0 removal suggested very poor chestnut 748 Norway 35 12 10.95 1 0 1 3 0 0 very poor maple 222 Norway 72 19 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 fair maple 249 hackberry 42 15 12.2 0 3 0 0 0 0 very poor 470 Sugar 75 11 24.4 2 0 0 0 0 0 dangerous dead good maple broken branch 66 Silver 63 19 20.7 2 0 0 1 0 0 dangerous dead very poor

maple branches (HANGING)! 93 American 84 15 18.3 2 0 0 1 0 0 dangerous dead very poor concern elm branches (HANGING) discoloration in Special leaves. 662 American 74 17 21.9 1 2 0 1 0 1 was cabled‐ is now poor elm broken. co‐dom stems

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 26 Existing Conditions Report

6 Candidate Heritage Trees

The recognition of Heritage Tree status is done by Trees Ontario. To be classified as a

heritage tree, a tree usually must be of a certain minimum DBH, based on what is considered to

be the upper limit for the species, and will be exceptional in some aesthetic, natural, cultural, or

historical way. For example, it may be a rare species regionally, provincially, or nationally,

include cultural modifications by Aboriginals, or have been planted to commemorate a historic

event. Recognition of Heritage Trees in Trinity Bellwoods Park may help to secure future

conservation funding and efforts, bring visitors to the Park, and provide opportunities for

education.

To nominate a tree for Heritage status, one must first register to become a nominator on

Trees Ontario’s website1, and then electronically submit a nomination form 2 detailing the tree’s characteristics and importance. Trees Ontario will then evaluate the application, if the tree is considered to be a likely candidate, a Heritage Tree expert will visit the tree. A subsequent review of the expert’s opinion combined with the original application will be carried out to decide on the tree’s final status.

During the inventory process, a number of trees in the Park were identified as being potential

Heritage Trees (Appendix III). It is recommended that these trees be re-examined and that, where desired, applications be submitted to Trees Ontario to begin the Heritage Tree designation process.

1 http://www.treesontario.ca/register/nominator.php 2 http://www.treesontario.ca/programs/index.php/heritage_tree_nomination

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 27 Existing Conditions Report

7 References

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2009. Emerald ash borer - Agrilus planipennis. Available online: . Last accessed 20 November 2009.

CTLA. 1992. Guide for Plant Appraisal. Official Publication of the International Society of Arboriculture. 8th Edition. 101 pp.

Kenney, W.A. “Leaf Area Density as an Urban Forestry Planning and Management Tool.” in The Forestry Chronicle, 2000, Vol 76:2.

Kjeldsen-Kragh Keller, Julie. 2007. Strategic Urban Forest Management Plan for Harbord Village: Final Paper for the Master of Forest Conservation Degree. Available online: http://harbordvillage.com/files/Urban Forest Management Plan for Harbord Village, Part 201.pdf. Last accessed 10 November 2009.

Puric-Mladenovic D. and Kenney W.A. 2009. Neighbourwood summary analysis of the tree inventory, Bonnerworth neighbourhood, Peterborough, Ontario. Available online: http://urbanforest.greenup.on.ca/media/Report_Bonnerworth_Web.pdf. Last accessed 16 November 2009.

Santamour, F.S. Jr, 2002. Trees for Urban Planting: Diversity, Uniformity, and Common Sense, US National Arboretum, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C,

UFI (Urban Forest Innovations) Inc. and Kenney, A. 2008. Urban Forest Strategic Management Plan: Town of Oakville: 2008 – 2027. Available online: http://www.oakville.ca/Media_Files/agendas-csc-2008/041508csca-item5.App.B.pdf last visited on 11/13/2009

Urban Forestry Services 2009. City of Toronto Fact Sheet 3: Controlling Invasive Pests. Available online: http://www.toronto.ca/trees/pdfs/Fact_3_Controlling_Invasive_Plants.pdf. Accessed November 16th, 2009.

Van Wassenaer, P. and W.A. Kenney. 2001. Strategic Urban Forest Planning. Available at: http://larva.forestry.utoronto.ca/urban/neighbourwoods/Strategic%20Urban% 20Forest%20Planning.htm. Last accessed November 3rd, 2009.

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 28 Existing Conditions Report

Appendix 1: All the trees with buffer set to the crown radius and color coded to condition rating

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 29 Existing Conditions Report

Appendix II: Complete list of tree species in Trinity Bellwoods Park.

Common name: Type: Scientific name: Native range: Maximum height (m): (m): height Maximum (cm): MaximumDiameter Maximum age: rare Regionally Crabapple Crab Apple Malus hybrids 8 N/A N/A No N/A Black Ash Ash Fraxinus nigra 21 61 N/A No Southeastern Ontario 120-200 European Ash Ash Fraxinus excelsior 20 N/A years No Europe, SW Asia Red/Green Ash Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 60 N/A No Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Red/Green Ash Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 60 N/A No Great Lakes-St. Lawrence White Ash Ash Fraxinus americana 30 150 200 No North-East US Basswood Linden Tilia americana 35 100 200 No Eastern North America European Beech Beech Fagus sylvatica 25 120 N/A No Europe Serviceberry Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis 20 20 N/A No North America Ohio Buckeye Buckeye/Horsechestnut Aesculus glabra 15 50 N/A No Southern Tip of Ontario, USA Catalpa species Catalpa Catalpa sp. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Red Cedar Juniper Juniperus virginiana 9 20 N/A No South-Eastern Ontario Eastern White Cedar Cedar (Thuja) Thuja occidentalis 15 30 700 No South-Eastern Canada Yellow Cedar False Cypress Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 25 90 N/A No Pacific Coast Choke Cherry Cherry/Plum Prunus virginiana 9 15 N/A No North America Cherry species Cherry/Plum Prunus sp. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Kentucky Coffetree Coffetree Gymnocladus dioicus 25 60 75 Yes North America Amur Corktree Phellodendron Phellodendron amurense 12 N/A N/A No China, Japan

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 30 Existing Conditions Report

Common name: Type: Scientific name: Native range: Maximum height (m): (m): height Maximum (cm): MaximumDiameter Maximum age: rare Regionally American Elm Elm Ulmus americana 35 175 200 No Eastern North America English Elm Elm Ulmus procera N/A N/A N/A No Great Britain, Western Europe Scotch Elm Elm Ulmus glabra 30 N/A N/A No Europe, Western Asia Siberian Elm Elm Ulmus pumila 21 N/A N/A No Northeastern Asia Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 60 200 500 No Weatern North America several Ginkgo Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 25 80 100s No China Hackberry Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 15 50 150 No Southern Ontario, Quebec, USA Bitternut Hickory Hickory Carya cordiformis 25 50 150 No southern Ontario & Quebec Shagbark Hickory Hickory Carya ovata 25 60 200 No Southern Ontario, Quebec, USA Common Balkan Peninsula in Southeastern Horsechestnut Buckeye/Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 25 50 100 No Europe Black Locust Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 25 60 90 No Eastern US North America: Carolinian and Honey Locust Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos 30 90 120 Yes surrounding areas Amur Maple Maple Acer ginnala 7 N/A N/A No Eastern Asia Naturalized beyond its natural Manitoba Maple Maple Acer negundo 20 75 60 No range. Norway Maple Maple Acer platanoides 25 N/A N/A No Europe Red Maple Maple Acer rubrum 25 60 100 No South-Eastern US Silver Maple Maple Acer saccharinum 35 100 130 No North America Maritime provinces, Southern Sugar Maple Maple Acer saccharum 35 90 200 No Ontario and Quebec. Sycamore Maple Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 30 N/A N/A No Europe to Western Asia

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 31 Existing Conditions Report

Common name: Type: Scientific name: Native range: Maximum height (m): (m): height Maximum (cm): MaximumDiameter Maximum age: rare Regionally Mountain Finnish Whitebeam Ash/Whitebeam Sorbus x hybrida N/A N/A N/A No N/A Bur Oak Oak Quercus macrocarpa 15 60 200 Yes North-Eastern US several English Oak Oak Quercus robur 35 N/A 100s No Europe Pin Oak Oak Quercus palustris 20 60 100 Yes North-Eastern US Great Lake, St. Lawrence, Red Oak Oak Quercus rubra 25 90 150 No Carolinian, North-Eastern US Swamp White Oak Oak Quercus bicolor 22 90 200 No North America several White Oak Oak Quercus alba 35 120 100s Yes North-Eastern US Austrian Pine Pine Pinus nigra 20 30 N/A No Southern Europe South-Eastern Canada, North- White Pine Pine Pinus strobus 30 100 200 No Eastern US London Plane Plane-Sycamore Platanus x acerifolia 35 N/A N/A No N/A Eastern North America from Mexico Redbud Redbud Cercis canadensis 8 25.4 N/A No north, Pelee Island Metasequoia Dawn Redwood Redwood glyptostroboides 35 300 N/A No Szechwan, China Japanese pagoda tree Sophora Sophora japonica 20 N/A N/A No Japan, Korea and China Beech spp. Beech Fagus spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Chestnut spp. Chestnut Castanea sp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Linden spp. Linden Tilia sp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Mountin Mountin-Ash spp. Ash/Whitebeam Sorbus spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Mulberry spp. Mulberry Morus spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 32 Existing Conditions Report

Common name: Type: Scientific name: Native range: Maximum height (m): (m): height Maximum (cm): MaximumDiameter Maximum age: rare Regionally Willow spp. Willow Salix spp. N/A N/A N/A No N/A Blue Spruce Spruce Picea pungens 30 90 600 No US Rocky Mountains White Spruce Spruce Picea glauca 25 60 200 No North America: Across Canada Tulip Tree Tulip-Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 35 100 150 No North America Japanese Zelkova Zelkova Zelkova serrata 25 N/A N/A No N/A

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 33 Existing Conditions Report

Appendix III: Trees with less than 1% representation

Common Name Scientific Name # of Trees. % of Total Native? Black Ash Fraxinus nigra 6 0.75% YES European Ash Fraxinus excelsior 4 0.50% NO Basswood Tilia americana 6 0.75% YES Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis 2 0.25% YES Ohio Buckeye Aesculus glabra 2 0.25% YES Catalpa species Catalpa spp. 8 1.00% NO Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana 2 0.25% YES Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 1 0.12% YES Yellow Cedar Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 4 0.50% NO Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 2 0.25% YES Amur Corktree Phellodendron amurense 2 0.25% NO English Elm Ulmus procera 1 0.12% NO Scotch Elm Ulmus glabra 7 0.87% NO Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata 5 0.62% NO Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 0.62% NO Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 4 0.50% NO Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis 3 0.37% YES Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata 1 0.12% YES Common Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 5 0.62% NO Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 5 0.62% NO Amur Maple Acer ginnala 2 0.25% NO Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 0.50% NO Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 1 0.12% NO Finnish Whitebeam Sorbus x hybrida 3 0.37% NO Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa 5 0.62% YES English Oak Quercus robur 2 0.25% NO Pin Oak Quercus palustris 6 0.75% YES White Oak Quercus alba 5 0.62% YES London Plane Platanus x acerifolia 3 0.37% NO Redbud Cercis canadensis 4 0.50% YES Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides 5 0.62% NO Japanese pagoda tree Sophora japonica 1 0.12% NO Beech spp. Fagus spp. 4 0.50% YES Mountin-Ash spp. Sorbus spp. 2 0.25% YES Mulberry spp. Morus spp. 3 0.37% YES Willow spp. Salix spp. 3 0.37% YES Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 4 0.50% YES

Trinity Tree Team, University of Toronto 34 Existing Conditions Report

Appendix IV. Potential heritage trees.

Trunk Diameter Considered Heritage Tree Common name Diameter for Heritage Diameter Tree Rating Number (DBH) (cm) Significance (cm) Approached in %

431 Black Ash 102 89 100% very poor 683 Black Ash 74 89 83% good 577 Red/Green Ash 93 130 72% poor 128 White Ash 88 163 54% excellent 450 American Elm 147 151 97% very poor 579 American Elm 129 151 85% fair 648 American Elm 123 151 81% fair 148 American Elm 111 151 74% good 248 American Elm 109 151 72% very poor 39 American Elm 106 151 70% good 161 American Elm 100 151 66% excellent 588 Bitternut Hickory 102 101 100% good 216 Bitternut Hickory 83 101 82% good 681 Shagbark Hickory 56 101 55% very poor 169 Black Locust 118 155 76% excellent 601 Silver Maple 108 208 52% good 340 Silver Maple 101 208 49% fair 41 Sugar Maple 105 191 55% poor 516 Sugar Maple 84 191 44% good 470 Sugar Maple 75 191 39% good 804 Sycamore Maple 78 85 92% good 70 Pin Oak 75 138 54% good 504 Pin Oak 62 138 45% excellent 624 Red Oak 117 45 100% very poor 444 Linden spp. 75 0 excellent