Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[onewheeldave]

They are posted many times on here, but are those responsible for the posts spokespeople for STAG? They've not identified themselves as such when informing us about the group's stated aims?

 

I'm not being obtuse, it's a genuine question.

 

Maybe they're a bit like me- not that bothered about ticking boxes, waiting for the approval of others, setting up committees, bureaucracy, delaying things for months/years while they do things the 'proper' way (i.e. approved by the authorities) and watch the world continue to slide into oblivion?

 

Maybe, like me, they're more interested in actual results, which, in this case, would be alerting as many people as possible, that Sheffield's trees are being hacked down as we watch?

 

If you're really concerned, why not report them to STAG, see if they care about this possible breach in protocols

[Eccy Beach]

Maybe they're a bit like me- not that bothered about ticking boxes, waiting for the approval of others, setting up committees, bureaucracy, delaying things for months/years while they do things the 'proper' way (i.e. approved by the authorities) and watch the world continue to slide into oblivion?

 

Maybe, like me, they're more interested in actual results, which, in this case, would be alerting as many people as possible, that Sheffield's trees are being hacked down as we watch?

 

If you're really concerned, why not report them to STAG, see if they care about this possible breach in protocols

 

Glad you see clarifying the stated aims of their most public campaign as 'box ticking', lets just leave it in the 'to do list' with the £350m the NHS is getting from Brexit.....

[Longcol]

 

The figures will vary significantly between size or tree, and number of trees, but it nether-the-less remains the case that street trees help to alleviate flooding, which is one of the reasons why planting them is recommended, as stated in the Woodland Trust literature that I linked to.

 

I imagine for street trees the main benefit is rain interception vs water absorption because of the often impermeable road/pavement surfaces reducing the ability to absorb water.

 

Mature trees can intercept 25-35% of rainwater that falls onto their canopy. Streets that have significant mature tree canopy cover, such as Western Road for example, are therefore likely to see a significant decrease in rainwater reaching the ground, thus reducing water run off and flooding.

 

Those figures would appear to be well on the high side.

 

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcin065.pdf/$FILE/fcin065.pdf

 

"Studies in the UK have found that between 25 and 45% of annual rainfall is typically lost by interception1 from conifer stands, compared with 10–25% for broadleaves (Calder et al., 2003)."

 

And as only about 50% of Western Road has canopy cover we're probably looking at nearer 5 - 12% - for the half of the year the trees are in leaf - I'd tend towards the lower end as the Western Road trees planted in the pavement aren't anything like the size of trees of a similar age in eg parks.

 

Also there is a limit to the capacity of trees to intercept rainfall.

 

http://www.northlandnemo.org/images/800TreeCityUSABulletin_55.pdf

 

" Depending on size and species, a single tree may store 100 gallons or more, at least until it reaches saturation after about one to two inches of rainfall"

 

So when we have sufficient rainfall that may cause a flooding event trees soon lose their ability to intercept rainfall.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Longcol

[Bargepole23]

What are you blathering on about? Generation selfish? Is someone bitter about having a crappy job and not being able to afford a house??

 

People of all ages, including young people are trying to save the perfectly healthy trees for everyone, nothing to do with houses or pensions. You should be bitter about the fact that you are paying for Amey to make massive profits by chopping down perfectly healthy trees because it is easier and cheaper than looking after them.

 

Any evidence for that claim?

[onewheeldave]

Glad you see clarifying the stated aims of their most public campaign as 'box ticking'.....

 

I wasn't. 'Box ticking' and the other things on that list are the establishment/authorities way of doing things.

 

From what I can see, STAG consists, in large part, of activists- given that some of them were recently arrested, they're clearly willing to break the law.

 

(Although from the polices recent statement, it's clear that on that occasion, once again, it was the police/council breaking the law, not the activists).

 

Some people are now cottoning on to the fact that it's often the authorities themselves that are commiting the immoral acts, and breaking the laws.

 

And that 'doing things the proper way' is simply playing right into the systems hands, as it generally delays/stalls/blocks what is actually required i.e. action.

 

In the words of Audre Lorde

"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audre_Lorde

[Robin-H]

Those figures would appear to be well on the high side.

 

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcin065.pdf/$FILE/fcin065.pdf

 

"Studies in the UK have found that between 25 and 45% of annual rainfall is typically lost by interception1 from conifer stands, compared with 10–25% for broadleaves (Calder et al., 2003)."

 

And as only about 50% of Western Road has canopy cover we're probably looking at nearer 5 - 12% - for the half of the year the trees are in leaf - I'd tend towards the lower end as the Western Road trees planted in the pavement aren't anything like the size of trees of a similar age in eg parks.

 

Also there is a limit to the capacity of trees to intercept rainfall.

 

http://www.northlandnemo.org/images/800TreeCityUSABulletin_55.pdf

 

" Depending on size and species, a single tree may store 100 gallons or more, at least until it reaches saturation after about one to two inches of rainfall"

 

So when we have sufficient rainfall that may cause a flooding event trees soon lose their ability to intercept rainfall.

 

You are the right, the figures I quoted were from a study about mature trees in general, and did not initially make a distinction between broadleaf and evergreen.

 

A 10-25% reduction for each tree is still significant. Indeed, any reduction, no matter how small, will help to reduce flooding. As has been pointed out this has to be in conjunction with proper clean up of leaf fall and making sure gutters/drains are not blocked, which could contribute for localised flooding and offset the reduction.

 

If people were arguing that the only benefit of street trees was that it helped to reduce flooding, and that this benefit could be cancelled out by inadequate removal of leaf fall, then it could be argued that there was no net benefit for the retention of trees.

 

That is not being argued however - the water interception is one of many benefits, which have been mentioned numerously on here, and are easily findable through a quick google search.

 

If you are arguing that street trees do not contribute at all to the reduction of water run off and therefore on flooding, which you final point seems to be suggesting, then you are directly contradicting the advice of the Woodland Trust on this matter, which specifically mentions planting street and roadside trees to help mitigate flooding risks.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 14:55 ----------

 

They are posted many times on here, but are those responsible for the posts spokespeople for STAG? They've not identified themselves as such when informing us about the group's stated aims?

 

I'm not being obtuse, it's a genuine question.

 

I have attended STAG meetings locally (for the Crookes/Walkley area) and the issue of which trees to ribbon was raised. It was stated and agreed at the meeting that every tree which has been highlighted to be felled should be ribboned. This was for the reasons that I have discussed on here. This was also agreed due to the fact that it was the method that had been used previously in other areas of the city.

[Olive]

I've no idea if they're on STAG's website, but, as you can see, they're certainly posted many, many times on this thread, so, hopefully any confusion here can now be ended

 

That's alright then, all the general public has to do is wade through 50-odd pages of a forum to find out what the ribbons mean. Glad that's sorted!

[Guest makapaka]

That's alright then, all the general public has to do is wade through 50-odd pages of a forum to find out what the ribbons mean. Glad that's sorted!

 

Remember - it's no way misleading that sometimes stag put "save our tree" on a tree that they don't necessarily disagree should be felled but they may do.

 

Also that they could sit on the panel that decided the trees future but don't because there's no point.

 

Also that if the council removes a tree it's because Amey are profiteering but if the council replaces a tree it's a PR exercise.

 

Keep with the program please.

[Olive]

Remember - it's no way misleading that sometimes stag put "save our tree" on a tree that they don't necessarily disagree should be felled but they may do.

 

Also that they could sit on the panel that decided the trees future but don't because there's no point.

 

Also that if the council removes a tree it's because Amey are profiteering but if the council replaces a tree it's a PR exercise.

 

Keep with the program please.

 

Yes, note to self - must try harder.

[Bargepole23]

Cycled up Rustlings Road tonight as usual, the new trees look quite nice, and appropriate for the location. Not sure of the species, anybody know?