Category: Uncategorized

  • Fall Planting Recap: The Naturalized Mid-American

    Note: A prior version of this article ran in The Goshen News on 11/25/17.

    by Aaron Kingsley

    David Gerber helped the town of Hesston, Kansas plant trees when he lived there. This fall he helped his neighborhood in Goshen plant 18 new trees. And it wasn’t just David; it was a bunch of others from his neighborhood, too, who got excited about the possibility, saw the potential, and decided to make it a reality.

    A year ago, Trees For Goshen (TFG) held a series of meetings with Goshen neighborhood associations. TFG is a non-profit organization which works to promote tree planting and tree care throughout the City, on public and private property. The meetings were designed to help neighborhoods understand more clearly the benefits of their urban tree canopy, and to also think about ways to promote tree canopy. Each neighborhood is unique, with different amounts of existing tree cover, different economic realities, different levels of interest in tree canopy. But all of them were presented with information derived from Goshen’s public tree inventory (2011), Goshen’s Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (2013) and Goshen’s GIS to help them become more aware of the trees in their immediate environment.

    David’s neighborhood, College Farm, was one which brought a large contingent to the initial meeting. One of the things which was discussed at that time was the fact that College Farm has fairly mature existing canopy – that is, it has lots of trees already, and many of them are not small trees. The neighborhood was largely built in the 1950s and 60s, and many large trees date to the era of development – silver maples, red oaks, Norway maples, sweet gums, more silver maples, sycamores, more silver maples. Certainly, there are some open pockets throughout the neighborhood, including a more recently developed cul-de-sac, and a large interior area surrounded by homes – referred to by some residents as Central Park – which functions as a small commons. Even so, the neighborhood is not hurting for trees.

    But one of the important notes which was discussed was the fact that mature trees won’t last forever. They can, and ought to, be cared for and helped to thrive as long as is reasonable, since mature trees provide the most benefits. Nevertheless, the time will come – for some, sooner than later – when they can no longer remain in place. And in that light, it is important – maybe even critical – to begin planting new trees.

    The College Farm group seemed especially tuned-in to this message. While TFG worked with East Lincoln Crossroads and Chamberlain Neighborhoods to plant trees in the spring, and with West Goshen Neighborhood in the summer to demonstrate how best to care for storm-damaged trees, they kept contact with David and College Farm. David enlisted his neighbor, Cliff Bush, and early in the fall had some meetings with TFG to plan a fall planting.

    With TFG providing consulting, organizational and fundraising support, interested folks from College Farm met three times at different properties to walk through and assess the existing canopy. As the consultant, this was a great opportunity for me to get to know the neighborhood’s trees and people. From these consultations people were able to get an idea about what kinds of trees could be planted on their properties, and how they would fit into a long-range project of building canopy into the future.
    There were more visits to select sites and species. At one home I saw a magnificent silver maple in the back, and identified space for two dogwoods in the front. I met with a woman who had a spot picked out for a tree in the side yard and needed to choose the right one (a serviceberry). At another home we chose a beech, as well as at Cliff’s. Someone else chose a tulip and a hophornbeam. Others chose London planetree, crabapple, redbud. David chose a serviceberry for himself and a black gum for his neighbor. A fundraising committee was quickly put together to raise the money for the trees. Tree recipients decided to plant the trees themselves to keep costs down. The trees were ordered and the money was raised.

    Two Saturday’s ago, with a threat of rain in the forecast, about twenty volunteers from the neighborhood, including five college students, gathered at Cliff’s house to plant trees. After a couple demonstration plantings, we split up into groups and moved from home to home. The trees were planted in time for pizza at noon; and when the pizza was gone the rain began to fall.
    David said, “It wouldn’t have happened if TFG hadn’t instigated, pushed the idea.” Maybe. But neither would it have happened if David and his neighbors hadn’t decided to work beyond their own properties for community good. Growing the canopy grows the neighborhood.

  • Report: 2016 Neighborhood Associations Input Meetings Results

    Quick Facts

    • Meeting dates: November 10 and 14, December 15, 2016.
    • Number of signed attendees: 22
    • Number of NAs represented: 10*
    • Number of potential projects identified: 53.
    • Types of potential projects identified: 3 (Tree Planting, Preservation, Issues/Hazards/Maintenance).
    • Other possible activities identified: Technical Assistance, Education/Promotion.

    ————————————————————————–

    Between November and mid-December, the new nonprofit organization Trees for Goshen (TFG) held three input meetings with Goshen’s neighborhood associations (NAs). The city currently has a total of 15 NAs. TFG invited representatives from each NA; there were a total of 10 represented at the meetings.

    The purpose of the meetings was twofold: first, to establish relationships with Goshen’s NAs and second, to identify potential forestry projects to collaborate on. A total of 53 potential projects were identified, or approximately 5 per represented NA. There were three main types of projects identified – tree planting, tree preservation, and issues/hazards/maintenance.

    TFG’s current fundraising model is project-based. We seek to identify projects that will benefit their neighborhoods, and once identified and developed, raise funds to implement them. For tree planting projects, we are on a spring/fall schedule. For spring of 2017, we intend to install between 1 and 5 tree planting projects, although each project is contingent on the success of fundraising efforts. Please note that projects not fully funded may be installed partially – in other words, if the aim is to raise funds for 10 trees and only enough for five are raised, the five funded trees can still be planted. Projects not selected initially will remain in consideration for fall as well as subsequent years.

    Over the coming weeks, TFG will seek to identify the highest priority projects from the list derived from the meetings and prepare them for installation in the spring. Due to the short time frame for spring, smaller, uncomplicated projects are the most feasible and therefore have the best chance of being selected. Additionally, there is a set of requirements/guidelines for projects to be eligible for fundraising:

    • Maximum of 1 project per neighborhood for each time cycle (spring/fall)
    • All projects must have formal approval of landowner(s)
    • All projects must have a resident collaborator to assist with fundraising, installation, and monitoring. This may be someone other than the property owner(s)
    • Tree planting projects must have a commitment to weekly watering for at least two growing seasons following installation. This is to help ensure that trees planted will survive and become fully established. Again, watering commitments may be made by people other than the property owner(s), so long as they have permission to do so.

    The target timeline for spring 2017 projects is as follows:

    • Mid-January: Finalize selected projects – ensure permissions, commitments, program and budget are in place.
    • February-March: Fundraising.
    • April – May: Installation

    Thank you to everyone who attended our meetings. We are very grateful that you took the time out of your busy schedule to meet with us and discuss your community’s needs and desires in relationship to its urban forest. It’s our hope that by establishing a dialogue with Goshen’s residents we will empower you to take action to improve your neighborhoods with all of the benefits that trees bestow. We look forward to working with you in the future.
    * Note: Neighborhood Associations represented at the meetings: Chamberlain, College Farm, East Lincoln Crossroads, East Goshen, Historic Southside, Pickwick Village, Historic Racemere Peninsula, Rieth Park, Terrace Park, West Goshen.

     

    nhoodassocattendance

  • THE NATURALIZED MID-AMERICAN: Goshen’s urban forest becoming more diverse

    As I looked over the 2014 numbers, I began to wonder what the larger picture looked like. So I went back and tallied all the trees planted for the past five years, 2010-2014.

    This came to 1,925 trees and 48 species. The top 10 species planted over the last five years break down like this: honeylocust (8.2 percent), hackberry (7.5 percent), swamp white oak (7.4 percent), London planetree (6.3 percent), red maple (5.7 percent), red oak (5.5 percent), serviceberry (4.7 percent), sugar maple (4.6 percent), red bud (4.6 percent) and bur oak (3.7 percent).

    We are also planting increasing numbers of elm, sweet gum, basswood and Kentucky coffeetree. The largest genii are oak (19 percent) and maple (10.5percent).

    There are several factors beyond needing to increase our non-maple diversity which drive decisions about what species to plant. Urban settings are tough environments, so we need tough trees that can survive. Climate change is another factor — needing to think carefully about which trees will fare better and which will fare worse over the next 50 to 100 years.

    We also have to consider that there are some trees which we simply can’t plant anymore, such as ash, because of pests or disease.

    As I look at the five-year numbers I think we’re on a pretty good course as far as planting and diversifying our urban forest for the next generations. There are certainly some adjustments that can be made: honeylocust and hackberry do not need to be our flagship trees (though they are very important); small understory trees like dogwood, red bud and serviceberry can be featured more; the maple genus can actually be favored somewhat more over time. But the overall take-away is that the Maple City’s urban forest is moving in some healthy directions.

    As evidence, take a look at the Goshen Urban Forest Benefits videos on the city of Goshen website link or athttp://www.goshenindiana.org/content/goshen-urban-forest-benefits-videos. You can also find the Annual Forestry Report for 2014 on the city website, under Park and Recreation Department.

    A previous version of this post appeared in the Goshen News.