Plantings and Planting Plan

Planting List, Glen Cedar bridge, 2019 (subject to species availability)

Latin Name	Common Name
TREES
Acer rubrum	Red Maple
Acer sacchrum	Sugar Maple
Populus grandidentata	Large Toothed Aspen
Fagus grandifolia	American Beech
Quercus macrocarpa	Bur Oak
Quercus rubra	Red Oak
Thuja occidentalis	Eastern white cedar
Tsuga canadensis	Eastern hemlock
SHRUBS
Cornus alternifolia	Alternate Leaved dogwood
Cornus amomum	Silky Dogwood
Cephalanthus occidentalis	Buttonbush
Hammemalis virginiana	Witch Hazel
Prunus virginiana	Choke Cherry
Rubus odoratus	Purple flowering raspberry
Rubus occidentalis	Black raspberry
Sambucus canadensis	Common elderberry
Source: Parks, Forestry & Recreation

Planting plan, south end of ravine, 2016

To see the planting plan for the south end of the ravine in 2016, click here:

cedarvale-ravine-planting-plan-2016

Forest Management Plan by UofT students, 2016

FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE CEDARVALE PARK

Janina Kowalski

Elpidio Chavez

Urban Forest Conservation (FOR1575H-F)

December 2016

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the inhabitants of the Cedarvale Park, big and small, for their contribution to this project. In particular, we would like to acknowledge all of the work that the Friends of Cedarvale have conducted in the past years, and send a shout out to John Cummings, Susan Aaron and Ivor Simmons for welcoming us to their Steering Committee meeting, and for all of the help offered throughout the entire process. We would like to extend another thank you to Deborah Sheppard for enthusiastically offering us her property to perform the slope inventory. Thanks also goes to Lukas Seehausen and Justin Gaudon for their guidance and support during the creation of this report. Thank you to our families for all the patience and support (and the hot chocolate). And finally, thank you to all our fellow students in the Urban Forest Conservation class at the University of Toronto.

Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 4
1. Benefits of the Urban Forest (include survey quotations) ………….. 4
2. Context of the Plan (methodology) ………………………………… 4
3. Development of Plan (Kenney et al criteria) ……………………….. 4
4. Goals and Objectives ……………………………………………….. 5
5. Long Term Vision ………………………………………………….. 6
History of the Park …………………………………………………………. 6
Ecological Context …………………………………………………………. 7
Community Context ………………………………………………………… 10
Policy Context ……………………………………………………………… 12
1. City of Toronto Official Plan ………………………………………. 12
2. Toronto Municipal Code …………………………………………… 12
  1. Parks Bylaw………………………………………………… 12
  2. Ravine and Natural Features Bylaw ……………………….. 13
3. Sustaining and Expanding the Urban Forest ………………………. 13
4. Toronto Ravine Strategy …………………………………………… 13
Strategic Plan ……………………………………………………………….. 13
1. Tree Inventory ……………………………………………………… 14
  1. Canopy cover ……………………………………………….. 14
  2. Age distribution …………………………………………….. 14
  3. Species suitability …………………………………………… 14
  4. Species distribution …………………………………………. 15
  5. Condition of trees …………………………………………… 15
  6. Native Vegetation …………………………………………… 15
  7. Heritage Tree Potential ……………………………………… 15
2. Available Planting Areas ……………………………………………. 16
3. Invasive Species Management Plan …………………………..…….. 16
  1. Current challenges …………………………………………… 16
  2. Future challenges ……………………………………………. 17
4. Tree Maintenance & Care …………………………………………… 17
  1. Tree Hazard Workshop ……………………………………… 17
5. Increase Awareness of the Urban Forest ……………………………. 18
  1. Support & Diversify Current Educational Programs ………… 18
  2. Increase Outreach Opportunities …………………………….. 19
6. Funding Resources …………………………………………………… 20
7. Community Partnerships …………………………………………….. 20
Management Plans …………………………………………………………. 21
1. 2017- 2021 …………………………………………………………. 21
2. 2022- 2026 …………………………………………………………. 21
3. 2027- 2031 …………………………………………………………. 22
4. 2032- 2036 …………………………………………………………. 22
First Annual Operating Plan ……………………………………………….. 23
Budget ……………………………………………………………………… 24
References …………………………………………………………………. . 25

List of Figures

Figure 1: Localization of the Cedarvale Park within the city of Toronto .…………………. 8

Figure 2: Ecozones and Ecoregions of Ontario ……………………………………………. 9

Figure 3: Age distribution of the Ward 21 residents ………………………………………. 10

Figure 4: Family types of the Ward 21 residents ………………………………………….. 11

Figure 5: Top Ten Mother Tongue Languages of the Ward 21 residents ………………… 11

List of Tables

Table 1: Management plan 2017- 2021 ……………………………………………….. 21

Table 2: Management plan 2022- 2026 ……………………………………………….. 21

Table 3: Management plan 2027- 2031 ……………………………………………….. 22

Table 4: Management plan 2032- 2036 ……………………………………………….. 22

Table 5: First Annual Operating Plan (2017) ………………………………………………… 23

Table 6: Budget for the first Annual Operating Plan (2017) ……………………………… 24

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Criteria and performance indicators for the vegetation resource,

the community framework and the resource management approach…………. 28

Table 1. Criteria and performance indicators for the vegetation resource.

Table 2. Criteria and performance indicators for the community framework.

Table 3. Criteria and performance indicators for the resource management approach.

Appendix 2. Survey sent to the Friends of Cedarvale members ………………………. 31

Appendix 3. Analysis of the survey responses ………………………………………… 32

Appendix 4. Sample inventory performed to slope adjacent to private property ……… 34

Table 1. Inventory of trees in slope adjacent to private property.

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of trees inventoried in slope adjacent to private property.

Appendix 5. List of plants compiled by the Friends of Cedarvale ……………………. 36

1. Introduction

1.1 Benefits of the Urban Forests

The need for a healthy urban forest is now greater than ever. The gradual rising of global temperatures, the increasingly invasive human development and the rising levels of pollution make urban forests an invaluable asset for a city in any part of the world (Duffy, 1999). Urban forests provide multiple benefits to city residents; they help mitigate heat island effect, clean air and water, provide shelter and food for wildlife, increase property values, and help save energy, among many others (Duinker et al 2015). Sufficient canopy cover can even improve social ties among neighbors and reduce aggressive behavior (USDA Forest Service, 2016), and is associated with health benefits such as lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, enhanced survival after a heart attack and more rapid recovery from surgery (City of Toronto, 2013b). Furthermore, the trees in a city are an important part of its infrastructure, and, if properly managed, they provide positive returns on investment. In Toronto, the urban forest is estimated to provide ecological services equivalent to more than $28.2 million every year and stores 1.1 million metrics tons of carbon or the equivalent of annual carbon emissions from 733,000 automobiles (City of Toronto, 2013b). That makes an investment in expanding the canopy cover in the Cedarvale Park a wise decision that is well worth the effort. And while the percent of canopy varies across regions, the city of Toronto had in 2013 a forest cover of 26.6% – 28% and a goal of expanding it to 40% (City of Toronto, 2013a), the usual target recommended by urban forestry experts (Kenney et al. 2011).

1.2 Context of the Plan

The proposed urban forest management plan is driven by canopy cover, species diversity, and species distribution objectives, and is based on criteria and indicators established by renowned urban forest specialist Dr. Andy Kenney (Kenney et al. 2011). The three main areas of the plan are as follows: the vegetation resource, the community framework and the resource management approach. Each area has a set of criteria and performance indicators. It is upon this framework that we based our categories for analysis and future recommendation (Appendix 1).

1.3 Development of the Plan

To develop recommendations for Cedarvale, we consulted with the Friends of Cedarvale, a local organization that tends to the park. This included participating in a walk through the park in October 2016, attending a Steering Committee meeting in November 2016, as well as liaising via email and sharing information on recent plantings. From this process a survey was developed to better understand the interests and needs of the Friends of Cedarvale. This survey was administered electronically in November 2016, with all of the people on the Friends of Cedarvale invited to participate. Questions addressed most common uses of the park, proposed improvements, challenges and possible skills of the participants related to urban forestry (Appendix 2). We received 8 responses out of approximately 200 requests, and the responses were analyzed to discern the key themes of the survey. The findings were that infrastructure, biological features, cleanliness, signage and dogs were the main areas of concern (Appendix 3).

There is currently no tree inventory data available for Cedarvale. There is some information in the publication Foxes and Watercress (1972) and the Friends of Cedarvale blog (https://friendsofcedarvale.wordpress.com/), but they mostly give data on species present, rather than specific spatial and tree health data. To obtain a general idea of which species are currently present in Cedarvale, a sample visual survey was performed along the main trail of the park (Figure 1), travelling from the south to the north, with no individual trees being assessed but instead only groups of trees were recorded. Only the species of the trees and the approximate location were included in the survey. The most common species present in the ravines along the trail are Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), Willows (Salix spp.), Red oak (Quercus rubra), and Birch (Betula spp.), plus a high density of invasive species like Norway maple (Acer platanoides), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), and European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica).

A large component of the ravines slopes are private property, and the actions of the homeowners and the composition and health of the slopes directly impact trees in the park. In order to have an approximate idea of the species composition and spatial distribution of the trees in the park a sample tree inventory was performed on the slope adjacent to, and including, a parcel of private property (Appendix 4). The following information was recorded in the inventory: tree species, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), total height, approximate age, approximate location, and general health. The age was calculated from the DBH and the species of each tree. The most common species found were Red oak (Quercus rubra), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), and Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Appendix 4). Some Horse chestnut (Aesculus Hippocastanum), Basswood (Tilia americana) and White cedar (Thuja occidentalis) saplings were also found.

1.4 Goals and Objectives

By increasing and conserving the canopy cover at Cedarvale Park we would be contributing to enhance the benefits provided by trees not only for the users of the park and for the surrounding neighborhoods, but also for the entire city of Toronto. The main objectives of the project are to develop:

A 20-year strategic plan
Four 5-year management plans, and
The Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the first year.

One of the most important parts of the plan is to perform an extensive and detailed inventory of the forest resources in the park. The inventory includes trees and shrubs, age distribution, species composition, tree condition, and existence of invasive species. Available growing space for new trees must also be determined, taking into account the underground and aboveground suitability for each space and light/shade conditions for the new trees. Further recommendations will be made following the standards used by the City of Toronto for planting trees in urban conditions, specifically in hard surfaces (Urban, 2013).

1.5 Long Term Vision

The long term vision is to develop a clear understanding of the forest resource with the goal of maintaining, increasing and diversifying the canopy cover while establishing Cedarvale Park as a hub for environmental education and events in partnership with local stakeholders & community organizations.

2. History of the Park

https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource/ser372/ss0052/s0372_ss0052_it0335.jpg

When the Township of York (now Toronto) was created in 1850, the area around what is currently Cedarvale Park Ravine was primarily agricultural land. As the city of Toronto expanded, the community around Cedarvale was first developed as a suburb around 1912 (Anthony 1978, 8). Henry Pellatt, the industrialist made famous through his construction of nearby Casa Loma, intended to build a community around the ravine, with tennis courts at the bottom (Skira 2010, Feb 7). This plan never came to fruition, and most development was slowed throughout World War I, with a brief increase in the 1920s, before decreasing with the Great Depression. The noted author Ernest Hemingway, while living in Toronto during the early 1920’s, lived in the neighbourhood and enjoyed walking through the ravine (Skira 2010, Feb 7). Cedarvale Ravine was a recreational area, with people walking, picnicking, skiing and swimming in the stream, with many local residents of the slopes planted gardens with ornamental and edible plants. (Anthony 1978) Some of the more unusual activities included fox hunting, and the Klondyke Motorcycle Races (Anthony 1978, 31).

After the post-war development boom, multiple expressways were planned for Toronto to connect the downtown core with the suburbs such as the Don Valley expressway, and the ill-fated Spadina Expressway, slated to run directly through Cedarvale Ravine. By 1966 properties were expropriated to make way for the incoming expressway, and by 1970 a large portion of the trees in the ravine were clearcut (Anthony 1978,23). However, due to popular protest within Toronto, including the efforts of noted urban theorist Jane Jacobs, the Spadina Expressway project was cancelled in 1971 (Kelly 2006, Apr 29, Milligan 2011). Large sewer pipes were installed in the floor of the ravine, displacing Castle Frank Brook. In 1972 plans were drafted to include the subway through Cedarvale Ravine. There was some restoration work in the ravine, with the exact date and company unclear. (Anthony 1978, 37).

The Castle Frank Brook, a tributary of the Don, flowed through Cedarvale Ravine, and was once strong enough to power a grist mill, and large enough to swim in (Ravine Developers 1972). Previously the portion of the park south of Bathurst was typically swampy, and supported an abundance of watercress (Nasturtium officinale) which was harvested and sold in shops along St. Clair West (Anthony 1978, 13). However, the Castle Frank Brook was diverted, and then virtually invisible by 1978. It currently is part of the Spadina Storm Trunk Sewer. (Ramsay-Brown 2013, Sep 26). Cedarvale Ravine was previously connected to the Nordheimer Ravine to the south, but a large portion north of St. Clair was filled in during the 1950s. (Anthony 1978, 1)

The Friends of Cedarvale is a volunteer organization that was created in December 2012, and is made up of a Steering Committee of six people, and an extensive membership list. They are, “dedicated to maintaining and improving Cedarvale Park and Ravine,” (Friends of Cedarvale 2016) through various events and activities such as nature walks, tree planting, clean up days, info days and invasive species removal.

3. Ecological Context

Cedarvale Ravine is host to many species, a list of which was compiled by Friends of Cedarvale, and is included in Appendix 5. The ecology of the ravine has been greatly impacted by anthropogenic events, and the species previously found within the ravine included kingfishers, red foxes, pheasants and red headed woodpeckers (Anthony 1978, 13). The Cedarvale Park is located in the city of Toronto, North of St. Clair Ave. West, East of Bathurst St. (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Localization of the Cedarvale Park within the city of Toronto (Google Maps). The dotted line represents the main trail of the park.

The city of Toronto is located in the Lake Erie Lowland ecoregion of the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone (Figure 2) and falls in the Plant Hardiness Zone 6a (Natural Resources Canada, 2015). As observed in the visual survey performed along the main trail (Figure 1), there is mainly natural regeneration in the ravines.

Figure 2. Ecozones and Ecoregions of Ontario (adapted from: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/maps/eco/all/districts/index.html)

4. Community Context

Cedarvale Park is a multi-use space with several and highly diverse activities being performed in it usually on a seasonal basis. Activities such as running and walking, field sports, bird watching, dog walking, and skating are common. Some infrastructure present in the park includes a splash pad, tennis courts, a skating rink, and a baseball diamond.

The demographics surrounding the Cedarvale Park are also highly diverse, with people of many different ages, family types and languages using the park (City of Toronto, 2011). For example, every age group (0-5, 5-9, etc.) represents less than 9% of the total population (Figure 3). Of all the different family types, more than 43.7% of them are couples with children, 17.1% are lone parent households, indicating over half of Ward 21 are families with children. Just over half of the children are within the youngest age categories with 23.4% in the 0-5 age bracket and 30.0% of them being in the 6-14 year old category (Figure 4). More than 30% of the population of the Ward 21 has a language other than English as their mother tongue, and 2.2% of it have no knowledge of either English or French (Figure 5).

Figure 3. Age distribution of the Ward 21 residents.

Figure 4. Family types of the Ward 21 residents.

Figure 5. Top Ten Mother Tongue Languages of the Ward 21 residents.

With such diversity there have been some conflicting interests among park users. For example, according to the survey sent to the members of the Friends of Cedarvale, many runners and walkers, and people who enjoy nature complain about the off-leash dogs that are common in the park. Another example is that some users want more “hard” infrastructure like benches, water fountains and sidewalks, while others think that there should be less concrete and more green areas.

5. Policy Context

5.1 City of Toronto Official Plan

The Official Plan outlines the land use, development and policy directions for the City of Toronto. Chapter 2 includes policies on the support and enhancement of the Green Space System and the restoring, creating and protecting of a variety of landscapes (City of Toronto 2015, 2.3.2, 1 c). In addition, both public agencies and citizens are, “encouraged to support the protection, enhancement and restoration of links within and between elements of the Green Space System.” (City of Toronto 2015, 2.3.2, 2) These policies are outlined more explicitly within Chapter 3.4. The Natural Environment, with specific reference to the urban forest. The policy goals outlined regarding the urban forest are to provide suitable growing environment, increase the canopy cover and diversity, in particular with long-lived native species and large shade trees, and to protect trees from injury and damage (City of Toronto 2015, 3.4, 1 d).

5.2 Toronto Municipal Code

5.2.1 Parks Bylaw

The parks bylaws outline expectations regarding park conduct, use and activities, as well as tree protection. The pertinent bylaws include 608-6B: Break, injure, deface, destroy, move or remove the whole or any part of a flower, plant material, fungus, tree or other vegetation or a building, structure, equipment or other property of the City, 608-6C:. Unless authorized by permit, climb, move or remove the whole or any part of a tree, rock, boulder, rock face or remove soil, sand or wood; and 608-6: In any manner, disturb ground which is under repair, prepared for planting, has been newly seeded or sodded or is in an area posted to that effect. (City of Toronto 2016a) Article VII outlines more specifically how this addresses trees, which typically requires a consultation with the General Manager before proceeding to alter or affix anything to a tree (City of Toronto 2016a, 608-40). Other relevant bylaws included permits required for events exceeding 25 persons (City of Toronto 2016a, 608-11A), and bylaws regarding dog conduct (City of Toronto 2016a, 608-34).

5.2.2 Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Bylaw

This suite of bylaws is focused upon tree protection, the dumping of waste or other types of garden debris, and alteration of the grade of the land within ravines, digging or trenching and the construction of fences and retaining walls (City of Toronto, 2016b). Private property owners are required to obtain permits to participate in any of the aforementioned activities if part of their property falls within this designation. Similar to the Parks bylaws, any alteration or maintenance work on a tree is required to be approved by the General Manager.

5.3 Sustaining and Expanding the Urban Forest: Toronto’s Strategic Forest Management Plan

This plan outlines the regional context, current practices and future directions of Toronto’s urban forest within a 10 year period. The strategic goals listed are: increase the canopy cover, achieve equitable distribution, increase biodiversity, increase awareness, promote stewardship, and improve monitoring (City of Toronto 2013b, 19-20). Addressing stresses unique to the urban environment, the long term vision is to conceptualize, “Toronto’s diverse urban forest [as] the vital green infrastructure which creates healthy neighbourhoods, supports habitat and biodiversity, promotes clean air and water, offers opportunities for recreation and education, fosters economic prosperity and enhances quality of life for everyone in the city.” (City of Toronto 2013b, 19)

5.4 Toronto Ravine Strategy

This document is still in development and slated to be released in May 2017 to comprehensively address the use, management and health of the ravine system in Toronto. As outlined, the goal of this document is to, “contain a vision for the ravine system and a set of principles to guide planning and policy” (City of Toronto, 2016c) The draft guiding principles that have been proposed are to protect, invest in, connect with, partner with and celebrate Toronto’s ravines. This document will influence the future direction for management in Cedarvale, and future policy recommendations should be included within future iterations of this management plan.

6. Strategic Plan

The strategic plan proposed for the Cedarvale Park includes the following sections: a tree inventory, an inventory of available planting areas, an invasive species management plan, tree maintenance recommendations, awareness of the urban forest, funding resources, and community partnerships.

6.1 Tree Inventory

Having a thorough, detailed and accurate inventory of the tree resource is a key component of a management plan. The information contained in the inventory is crucial as a guide for planting new trees, for having accurate calculations about the canopy cover, and to achieve adequate age and spatial distribution, assessment of species suitability, species diversity, and the integration of native vegetation as part of the criteria and performance indicators for the vegetation resource as delineated by Kenney et al. (2011) (see Appendix 1).

Since the forest structure can change with the removing, adding or even the maintenance of trees, the inventory needs to be updated regularly (Urban Forest Innovations Inc. and Kenney, 2008). If a new tree is planted it must be registered in the inventory and the previously available space must be removed from the inventory of potential planting locations. Equally, if a tree is removed the corresponding information must be deleted or modified from the tree inventory to reflect the change and the information of the corresponding space must be entered into the inventory of available planting locations.

A protocol like Neighbourwoods© (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney, 2014) can be applied to perform a complete and detailed tree inventory. The collected information must ideally be entered into a database and a geographical information system (GIS) for greater manageability.

6.1.1 Canopy cover

An estimation of the potential canopy cover and the existing canopy cover must be conducted in order to establish the desired total canopy cover. The key objective is to achieve climate-appropriate degree of tree cover. Based on the brief visual survey performed on the ravines along the main trail, we consider that currently the canopy cover in Cedarvale Park is approximately 50%-75%, but no official assessment exists.

6.1.2. Age distribution

The key objective is to provide an uneven age distribution of trees with no more than 25% of the tree population in each of the four Relative DBH classes (0%-25%, 26%-50%, etc.). This will ensure that the tree canopy will be maintained, and prevents significant simultaneous mortality within the tree population. In addition, an uneven age distribution supports natural regeneration processes.

6.1.3. Species suitability

It is recommended that the entire tree population is comprised of species suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional plant hardiness. This will ensure more successful rates of recruitment, and decrease associated management costs.

6.1.4. Species distribution

Species diversity is determined not only by the number of species present, but also by how they are spatially distributed. The key objective is to establish a genetically diverse tree population across the community. This will create a more resilient tree population able to withstand various urban pressures, as well as unexpected acute events. Since the benefits provided by an urban forest composed of diverse species are much larger than those provided by monocultures (Kenney et al. 2011), the less numerous species in the park must be recommended over those with a much larger representation. For example, according to our visual survey of the ravines along the main trail, the Red oak seems to be one of the most common trees and, though a native species, could potentially be avoided. Nevertheless, the decision of which species are the most common depends on the results of a complete and detailed inventory.

6.1.5. Condition of trees

The tree inventory must include detailed tree condition and risk ratings. This information would be used to take preventative action, and predict future risk. Currently there is no preventive tree maintenance program in the park, only a request based/reactive system.

6.1.6. Native Vegetation

Generally native species offer more ecosystem benefits and support greater ecological integrity (Tallamy, 2015). Therefore, the use of native species must be encouraged and the invasive species must be recognized, and their use discouraged. A current definition of invasive species includes, “non-native species whose introduction or spread negatively impacts native biodiversity, the economy and/or society, including human health.” (Ontario Invasive Plant Council, 2016 a). Currently the use of native species is voluntary on the private residential properties adjacent to the park. Although not directly within the boundaries of the park, this can still impact the composition of species in the park through the dispersal of seeds, and their subsequent growth.

6.1.7. Heritage Tree Potential

The tree inventory may include information about potential heritage trees. A tree can be recognized as a heritage tree if it possesses cultural, social or historical significance; if it has a rare or exceptional size, shape, age, colour, genetic constitution, or if it is a prominent community landmark (Forests Ontario, 2009).

6.2 Available Planting Areas

An inventory of potential planting locations for future use is highly recommended. The inventory should include the following information:

Unique identification number
Light/shade conditions: Shade tolerance required for the new trees in each particular spot
Width: Maximum width required for the new tree at maturity in each particular spot.
Height: Maximum height required for the new tree at maturity in each particular spot.
Assessment of the underground and aboveground conditions (hydro, present and future construction) that could make a spot unsuitable for planting new trees.
Coordinates of each potential planting location.

This information is then entered into a database and a geographical information system (GIS) to show the spatial location of each potential planting space. Ideally, a list of recommended species must be provided. The species must fulfill the required shade tolerance, width, and height for each specific spot. According to Tallamy (2015), native species offer more benefits than non-native species; therefore, it is highly recommended that only native species are to be planted in the new spots. As mentioned before, an adequate spatial distribution of tree species is an important performance indicator of the species diversity, and thus, should also be observed for planting new trees.

6.3 Invasive Species Management Plan

6.3.1 Current Challenges

Invasive species can be defined as “non-native species whose introduction or spread negatively impacts native biodiversity, the economy and or society, including human health.” (Ontario Invasive Plant Council, 2016 a). In Ontario some of the most important forest pests are the Emerald ash borer (EAB) (Argrilus planipennis), the Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), the Gyspsy moth (Lymantria dispar), and the Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) (Ontario’s Invading Species Awareness Program, 2016). One of the many benefits that native plants provide is that they support more species of herbivorous insects than non-native species (Tallamy, 2015). Approximately 90% of all the herbivorous insects are specialists, meaning that they feed only on certain type of plants, and therefore they cannot feed on non-native ones; if the native plants are replaced with foreign ones, the vast majority of insects are not able to feed, and therefore, they are at risk of disappearing from a particular ecosystem (Tallamy, 2015). Furthermore, Clem (2015) declares that when native plants are removed and replaced with non-natives, the entire ecosystem is negatively impacted.

According to our visual survey performed along the main trail, some of the most common invasive species present in the Cedarvale park are: Norway maple (Acer platanoides), Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Dog strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum) and Phragmites (Phragmites australis). Virtually all of the ash trees were removed by the city (J. Cummings, personal comm.), and while no signs of the EAB were detected in the park, we still recommend an extensive and careful examination of the area.

We do not recommend removing mature trees because, even if non-native, they still offer benefits such as water filtration and shade. As Kenney et al. (2011) state, invasive plants should generally be discouraged but, in some cases, even potential invasive trees may be preferable to no trees at all. Thus, we recommend the implementation of an invasive species management plan with the objective of controlling proliferation of invasive species and establishing an early detection program. Removal of invasive weeds can be carried out by volunteers and the planting of non-native trees can be discouraged through awareness and education campaigns.

6.3.2. Future challenges: Early detection and awareness.

One of the most important aspects of an invasive species management plan is the early detection of new species in the area. As a general rule, invasive species arrive to a place with the aid of humans rather than by their own means of introduction (Ontario Invasive Plant Council, 2016 b). Thus, we recommend establishing a program of workshops aimed to educate the park users in detecting invasive species as early as possible and to raise awareness about the importance of prevention.

6.4 Tree Maintenance & Care

Currently there are no preventive maintenance or risk assessment programs for the Cedarvale Park, with trees being maintained or remediation being performed on a request/reactive basis. Kenney et al. (2011) differentiate between intensively managed parts of an urban forest and extensively managed woodlands, that is, areas where trees are managed individually with arboricultural techniques and areas where trees are managed en masse with silvicultural techniques. Cedarvale Park could be subjected to both. Either way, we recommend establish a series of pruning and tree hazard workshops by city staff for the members of the Friends of Cedarvale and for the users of the park in general.

6.4.1. Tree hazard workshop

A tree hazard workshop could help park users identify tree hazards before they become an imminent threat, saving time and resources for city personnel. These workshops can also help to engage and educate the community about tree health.

6.5 Increase Awareness of the Urban Forest

6.5.1 Support & Diversify Current Environmental Programs

Currently, the Friends of Cedarvale organize nature walks, clean up days and planting events within the park. Typically the planting events are more popular (S. Aaron, personal comm.), and the nature walks often draw adults and seniors (J. Cummings, personal comm.). These events are enjoyed by the local community, and offer local environmental education opportunities. To try and engage more members of the community and not just the “usual suspects,” a survey can be created to discern whether certain themes or topics are more interesting than others. An online survey can be created through platforms such as Typeform or Survey Monkey, and supported through other participatory methods such as suggestions written on sticky notes at a tabling event. Through this process new partnerships can be formed with Toronto organizations to do a “guest” tour, or to find local community members with an interest in leading some educational events. Inspired by the actions of Park People (2016, Jul 21), another potential opportunity could be through identifying bilingual community members to assist with translation or offer insight into other cultural practices which may serve as a barrier for newcomers or other new members from participating.

In addition to learning about park histories and ecologies, walk attendees can also be active participants in the process through including citizen science monitoring projects. The Friends of Cedarvale have experience collecting data upon flora and fauna in the park, and would be excellent participants. Potential citizen science projects include City Trees and the Toronto Ravine Revitalization Study. City Trees is an open source map on which participants can map urban trees, and the Ravine Revitalization Study is collecting biodiversity information on Toronto’s ravines.

Families and children can be encouraged to participate in the educational activities put forth by the Friends of Cedarvale through programming targeted directly at their needs. This can include a monthly nature play group that is facilitated to encourage children to learn from and engage with the local environment. Nature crafts can also be incorporated within events, or as a standalone event in itself, with activities like the creation of pinecone bird feeders or insect hotels. Other options could be to incorporate games, songs and tactile connections during a nature walk. Once organized, these resources could be kept in a folder with the Steering Committee for future reference and use. Currently Park People have created resource package for how to host a campfire, picnic and movie within the park (Park People 2016). Using these guides would be an easy way to support more programming within the park. For more independent options, a Little Free Library, or a similar program, would allow park visitors to access free books on environmental topics. Field guides and children’s stories can be included to supplement activities within the park, or to answer questions about observations while in the park. An ideal location for a mini-library would be in a well trafficked area, such as near the south entrance on Tichester St.

Analyzing the surveys, there was a high interest in informative signage highlighting the local ecologies, histories and directions within the park. Cedarvale has a unique and fascinating history which would be a way to bring vibrancy to the park. This would be in line with the wayfinding project suggested through the Toronto Ravine Strategy, and other Toronto initiatives such as the Tree tours.

6.5.2 Increase Outreach Opportunities

As outlined earlier, the private property owners along the slopes and how they tend to their properties can greatly impact the ecology of the park. One of the survey respondents expressed concern about owners dumping the contents of their pools down the slope, and this is in violation of the Ravine and Natural Features Bylaw. Currently the Friends of Cedarvale are participating in a campaign to inform homeowners about the applicable bylaws.

During the sample slope survey, there was interest from a neighbour about the process. Participating in similar surveys would be a way to directly speak with homeowners, record which species were living along the slopes, and evaluate the impact upon Cedarvale. The Friends of Cedarvale would be responsible for completing the survey, however, they could also include the homeowners, and show them how to identify certain species, or how to measure the DBH. It would be an important opportunity to discuss the importance of native species, and the impact that introduced species could have within the ravine (eg. Sullivan et al 2005). This more personal and interactive form of engagement will take longer to complete, however, it would create a locus for environmental education, and potential future engagement with the Friends of Cedarvale. Initially engagement would focus on the properties adjacent to the ravine, but over time engagement projects would focus on areas further from the park.

Effective communication and multiple communication strategies will lead to a more informed local community. To draw more members that may not read the flyers, or already be part of the member list, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter would be valuable resources. They would provide a way for information about events or other informational points relating to the park can be shared. They can also serve as a method to share links to different technologies which may enhance some of the park experiences for users, such as an app for bird or plant identification. It would also offer a way for users of the park and members of the Friends of Cedarvale to upload content or events that they think are interesting and can benefit the park.

Outreach opportunities can also be gained through increased visibility during events in Cedarvale through the wearing of identifying hats or t-shirts. Although previously discussed (J. Cummings, personal comm.), this idea warrants merit as it will offer an opportunity for spontaneous engagement with passersby, and feedback on the park and/or event. Community members may not know with whom to speak about concerns or questions about the park, and being visibly identified during events may help to connect community members with the Friends of Cedarvale.

6.6 Funding Resources

Currently there is no independent funding for the Friends of Cedarvale, and the resources for the planting and mulching days are from the city (S. Aaron, personal comm.). It is important to stay within the capacities of a volunteer organization and not serve as a replacement for the work the city of Toronto facilitates. Bearing this in mind, increasing funding capacity would allow for more Cedarvale-focused activities, and open up event opportunities. The first step would be for Friends of Cedarvale to apply for some of the available grants within the city. Options could include but are not limited to, the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Mountain Equipment Co-Op Advocacy & Awareness Grant and Mountain Equipment Co-Op Access & Activity Grant. To increase other accessible funding opportunities, Friends of Cedarvale could partner with local organizations and institutions, such as the Leo Baeck Day School, to participate in a schoolyard naturalization program, such as the Evergreen Learning Grounds School Ground Greening Grants.

6.7 Community Partnerships

To increase capacity and build relationships, community partnerships are encouraged. This expanded view of the opportunities within the park has the potential to integrate other uses and engage a broader membership regarding activities within Cedarvale. Situating Friends of Cedarvale as the hub for multiple events can also build user relationships. This would also help engage other members of the community which may not know about Friends of Cedarvale, or consider that their activities are not within their realm of interest. Joint programming also increases opportunities for environmental events within the park without having to greatly extend organizational budgets. Potential partnership organizations within the community include, but are not limited to, the Wychwood library, Anishnawbe Health Toronto, and the Wychwood Business Improvement Area.

In addition to community partnerships, making connections with other environmental organizations will offer opportunities to exchange success stories, and to have a network to reach out to for suggestions on how to overcome challenges. Currently the Friends of Cedarvale are working with LEAF, and participating in their Adopt-a-Tree program. To create more partnerships, a few organizations that would be aligned with the work of Friends of Cedarvale are, but not limited to, the Urban Forest Stewardship Network, Ontario Urban Forest Council, Park People and the Toronto Environmental Alliance.

7. Management Plans

7.1 Table 1. Management plan 2017- 2021

Activity	Year	Priority (1=highest)
Tree inventory	2017	1
Develop invasive species management plan	2018	2
Available spaces inventory	2018	1
Slope owner engagement	2017-2021	2
Apply for grants	2017	1
Start to connect with local organizations	2017-2021	2
Develop educational materials & signage	2017-2021	3
Apply adaptive management according to success rate and climate change	2017-2021	1

7.2 Table 2. Management plan 2022- 2026

Activity	Year	Priority (1=highest)
Apply impact of invasive species management plan	2022	1
Evaluate & maintain tree inventory	2022-2026	1
Reforestation & maintenance program	2022-2026	1
Continue applying for grants	2022-2026	1
Maintain relationships with local organizations	2022-2026	2
Refine educational programs & signage	2022-2026	2
Apply adaptive management according to success rate and climate change	2022-2026	1

7.3 Table 3. Management plan 2027- 2031

Activity	Year	Priority (1=highest)
Evaluate & maintain tree inventory	2027-2031	1
Evaluate invasive species management plan	2027-2031	1
Continue applying for grants	2027-2031	1
Evaluate community relationships	2027-2031	2
Evaluate educational materials & signage	2027-2031	2
Apply adaptive management according to success rate and climate change	2027-2031	1

7.4 Table 4. Management plan 2032- 2036

Activity	Year	Priority (1=highest)
Evaluate & maintain tree inventory	2032-2036	1
Continue applying invasive species management plan	2032-2036	1
Continue applying for grants	2032-2036	1
Strengthen community relationships	2032-2036	2
Continue to develop educational materials	2032-2036	2
Develop the next 20-year management plan	2036	2
Apply adaptive management according to success rate and climate change	2032-2036	1

8. First Annul Operating Plan (2017)

Table 5. First Annual Operating Plan (2017)

Activity	Month	Priority (1= highest)
Assemble a year plan for scheduled events	January 2017	1
Establish a fundraising campaign and apply for grants	January 2017	1
Hire 1 summer student to perform inventory	June-September 2017	1
Recruit volunteers to aid with inventory (at least 3)	June-September 2017	1
Perform a complete tree inventory	June-September 2017	1
Adaptive management for long term goals; climate change & successes	Throughout the year	1
Maintain current support from LEAF, Park People and the City of Toronto	Throughout the year	2
Increase presence on social media platforms	Throughout the year	2
Organize 1 family-oriented event	Throughout the year	2
Connect with Wychwood Library and Leo Baeck Day School to create joint programming	February 2017	3
At year end assess the effectiveness of the past year’s programming to determine successes and future challenges	December 2017	3

9. Budget

The proposed budget corresponds to the first Annual Operating Plan (2017) (Table 2)

Table 6. Budget for the first Annual Operating Plan (2017)

Concept	Amount	Total
Summer student	$1500 * 3 months	$4500
Tools (2 sets of clinometer, measuring tape, and DBH tape)
Clinometer	$235
Measuring tape	$65
DBH tape	$50
Total	$350 * 2	$700
Promotional materials (hats/t-shirts)		$200
Total:		$5400

References

Anthony, Karen G. (1978) For the love of nature: a case for survival – the Cedarvale ravine. City of Toronto Archives.

City of Toronto (2011) Ward 21 Profiles. Retrieved on December 10, 2016. http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/City%20Planning/Wards/Files/pdf/W/Ward%2021%20Profile%202011.pdf

City of Toronto (2013a) Every Tree Counts: A portrait of Toronto’s urban forest. City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Urban Forestry, Toronto, Ontario.

City of Toronto (2013b) Sustaining and expanding the urban forest: Toronto’s strategic forest management plan. City of Toronto Parks Forestry and Recreation, Urban Forestry, Toronto, Ontario.

City of Toronto (2015) Toronto Official Plan. Toronto City Planning. Retrieved from: http://www1.toronto.ca/planning/chapters1-5.pdf

City of Toronto. (2016a) Chapter 608, Parks. Toronto Municipal Code. Retrieved from: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf

City of Toronto. (2016b) Chapter 658, Ravine and Natural Feature Protection. Toronto Municipal Code. Retrieved from: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_658.pdf

City of Toronto. (2016c) Toronto Ravine Strategy: Draft Principles and Actions. Retrieved from:http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=91be0ba80120d410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=470bdada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

City Trees. (2016) What is this? Retrieved from: https://citytrees.ca/overview/what-is-this

Clem, Carl (2015) Impacts of native and non-native plants on urban insect communities: are native plants better than non-native? M. Sc. thesis, Graduate Faculty of Auburn University

Clark, James R., Matheny, Nelda P., Cross, Genni and Wake, Victoria. (1997) A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23 (1). 17- 30.

Duffy, Natasha (1999), Design limitations to potential leaf area density in urban forests, M.Sc.F. thesis, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto.

Duinker, P. N., C. Ordóñez, J.W.N. Steenberg, K.H. Miller, S.A. Toni, and S.A. Nitoslawski. (2015). Trees in Canadian cities: indispensable life form for urban sustainability. Sustainability 7, 7379-7396.

Evergreen. (2016) Funding Opportunities. Retrieved from: https://www.evergreen.ca/get-involved/funding-opportunities/school-ground-grants/

Forests Ontario (2009) Community Engagement, Heritage Trees, retrieved on December 13, 2016. http://www.forestsontario.ca/community/in-the-spotlight/heritage-trees/

Friends of Cedarvale. (2016) About Us. [Blog] Retrieved from: https://friendsofcedarvale.wordpress.com/about/

Kelly, Deirdre. (2006, Apr 29) The Places that Mattered to Jane Jacobs. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-places-that-mattered-to-jane-jacobs/article707866/

Kenney, Andy, van Wassenaer, Philip, and Sater, Alexander (2011) Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management, International Society of Arboriculture.

Little Free Library. (2016) Little Free Library FAQs. Retrieved from: https://littlefreelibrary.org/faqs/

Milligan, Ian. (2011) ““This Board Has a Duty to Intervene”: Challenging the Spadina Expressway through the Ontario Municipal Board, 1963–1971.” Urban History Review. 39 (2), p. 25-39.

Mountain Equipment Co-op. (2016) Advocacy and Awareness. Retrieved from: https://www.mec.ca/en/explore/advocacy-and-awareness/

Natural Resources Canada (2015), Plant Hardiness Zone by Municipality, Retrieved on December 10, 2016, http://www.planthardiness.gc.ca/?m=22&lang=en&prov=Ontario&val=Y

Ontario Invasive Plant Council (2016 a) A Landowner’s Guide to Managing and Controlling Invasive Plants in Ontario, Retrieved on January 15, 2017 from:

http://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/35266_LandOwnerGuide_June262013_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Ontario Invasive Plant Council (2016 b) The Landowner’s Guide to Controlling Invasive Woodland Plants, Retrieved on January 15, 2017 from:

http://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/GuideControlInvasiveWoodPlantsWEB.pdf

Ontario’s Invasive Species Awareness Program (2016) Retrieved on December 10, 2016, http://www.invadingspecies.com/invaders/forest/

Ontario Trillium Foundation. (2016) Seed Grants. Retrieved from: http://www.otf.ca/what-we-fund/investment-streams/seed-grants

Park People. (2016, Jul 21) Pride is a thing with stilts: Field Notes from Arts in the Park. Retrieved from: https://parkpeople.ca/archives/2553

Park People. (2016) Park Toolkit. Retrieved from: https://parkpeople.ca/parktoolkit

Ramsay-Brown, Jason. (2013, Sep 26) Ravine Secrets. Now Magazine. Retrieved from: https://nowtoronto.com/news/ravine-secrets/

Ravine Developers. (1972) Foxes and Watercress: A Proposal for the Cedarvale- Nordheimer Ravine. Toronto, ON: Manuel Buchewald.

Skira, Edward. (2010, Feb 7) A Pictorial History of Toronto’s Cedarvale Neighbourhood. Retrieved from: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2010/02/pictorial-history-torontos-cedarvale-neighbourhood

Sullivan, John Susan M. Timmins, & Peter A. Williams. (2005). Movement of exotic plants into coastal native forests from gardens in northern new zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 29(1), 1-10.

Tallamy, Douglas (2015) Bringing Nature Home, Timber Press.

Toronto Ravine Revitalization Study. (2016) Citizen Science. Retrived from: https://torontoravines.org/citizenscience/

Urban Forest Innovations Inc. and Kenney, Andy (2008) Urban Forest Strategic Management Plan: Town of Oakville 2008-2027.

Urban, James (2013) Tree planting solutions in hard boulevard surfaces best practices manual, DTAH Consultants

USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. Retrieved on October 30, 2016. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/

Appendix 1. Criteria and performance indicators for the vegetation resource, the community framework and the resource management approach.

Table 1. Criteria and performance indicators for the vegetation resource.

Table 2. Criteria and performance indicators for the community framework.

Table 3. Criteria and performance indicators for the resource management approach.

Appendix 2. Survey sent to the Friends of Cedarvale members

Appendix 3. Analysis of the survey responses.

Running/Walking was ranked 1: 6 surveys
Other 1 rankings:
Refuge from concrete, relaxation, recharging, meditation, learning, reconnecting with nature, grounding, resting, inspiration, wondering, strolling (ranked two categories as 1)
Enjoyment of nature (ranked two categories as 1)
Bird watching
One survey was incorrectly completed

Appendix 4. Sample inventory performed to slope adjacent to private property.

Table 1. Inventory of trees in slope adjacent to private property.

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of trees inventoried in slope adjacent to private property.