<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-size: 13px;color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><pre class="msgPlainWrapNoScroll" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Courier New', 'Lucida Sans Typewriter', monospace; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">Hi Astrid and All:
I took a look at the document you linked to - thanks very much for making this available. I have a few thoughts / questions based on my own experience working on large public infrastructure projects and with contractors:
• the tree protection fencing component is too vague and the wording has too many Contractor loopholes. It only specifies a fence around the tree. What is the maximum area available to the tree? How is that determined? Is that the Critical Root Zone or…? Since trees don't grow in a void, what about the landscape the tree is populating? If the fencing is only around the tree that means the surrounding landscape is not protected. If a tree is to be protected, then the landscape it's growing in has to be protected as well. It also indicates what has to be excluded but what about concrete washout and the like? There needs to be a provision for construction materials that are in close enough proximity to contaminate the soil.
• why not value all the trees prior to any construction occurring. It's very important for Contractors to know this since a high value is somewha of a discouragement to negligence. There should be photos and documentation that supports the pre-construction condition / value of the tree.
• There should be a deposit / security bond that is related to the value of the trees that fall within the work footprint and thus have a higher risk of suffering construction damage. $700 is a bit of a joke (no offense) and its loss would certainly not preclude a Contractor from damaging a tree.
• the arborist doing the pre-construction assessment should be required to make a determination about the probability of roots that cannot be protected because of their location within the work footprint. Depending on the project, tunneling or augering under the roots should be a consideration. An alternative would be pre-construction root pruning. Certified Arborists, experienced with pneumatic excavation, would then be required to access the root zone using pneumatic excavation, followed by root pruning. There should be a specification for this activity including the protection of any exposed roots during the operation as well as appropriate backfilling of the area with native soil (soil that was removed). The protection fence can then be set at this point so that no roots are damaged during construction.
• If any protected area needs to be accessed or encroached on for any reason, the landscape should be protected by installing landscape fabric, covered with a 12" layer of wood chips followed with the installation of modular ground surface protection mats and an access ramp. This will greatly mitigate soil compaction of the tree's rooting area.
• There is no establishment guarantee period stipulated. Currently, the minimum is 2 years but that is not noted. In addition, watering "regularly" is too vague. There needs to be a determined time and amount for the watering and there needs to be a way to document this. One way of controlling the amount is for tree gators or their equivalent to be used. They take a 20 gallon fill-up which is what should be reuired for a week. An inspector can easily drive by each tree following the designated watering appointment and determine if the Gator has been filled up. The Contractor should also be required to maintain the Gators as the weep holes can get clogged.
Hope this helps
Naomi</pre><br><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 0px; border-left: #0000ff 2px solid; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial,sans-serif; color: black;">-----Original Message-----
<br>From: Astrid Nielsen via CANUFNET <canufnet@list.web.net>
<br>Sent: Jan 17, 2017 11:29 AM
<br>To: "Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks)" <michelle.chartier@saskatoon.ca>, Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet@list.web.net>
<br>Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection
<br><br><div dir="ltr">Hi Michelle,<div><br></div><div>Last May, 2016, the City of Ottawa adopted new infill housing guidelines to help protect trees during infill development. These require a Tree Disclosure Information Report submitted as part of the Building Permit Application process. Details on the location and health of protected trees need to be included on the grading plan for the site. This gives the opportunity for developers and city staff to see the impacts to the tree canopy early on. As far as neighbouring trees are concerned, they are required to be included in the report if they are large enough to be protected under the private tree by-law and their critical root zone extends into the proposed zone of excavation You can check out more at:</div><div><br></div><div><a target="_blank" href="http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/trees-and-community-forests#tree-and-infill-development">http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/trees-and-community-forests#tree-and-infill-development</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Some background....</div><div><br></div><div>The City of Ottawa has both a private tree by-law and a city-tree by-law. The private tree by-law was implemented in 2009 and requires that "distinctive trees", i.e. over 50 cm in diameter on properties less than 1 ha in urban areas need a permit from the City of Ottawa to remove. For properties larger than 1 ha (i.e. mostly subdivision developments), permits are required to remove trees greater than 10 cm.</div><div><br></div><div>Through regular subdivision applications and those files going through Committee of Adjustments, there is opportunity for trees to be captured early in the development process. However, for those infill developments that require only building permits, there was no mechanism to ensure that they are considered during the actual planning stage. Although developers would require Distinctive Tree Permit to remove trees greater than 50 cm, this was done often at the last minute once the plans had all been approved, or once the tree was damaged to the point of no return or because it presented a hazard to construction crews. </div><div><br></div><div>The new infill housing guidelines are the next step in helping to ensure that trees and protection are considered earlier in the planning process. It's not perfect, but a good start. And, it results in better reporting by the applicants as mapping the trees is a requirement. </div><div><br></div><div>I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.</div><div><br></div><div>Astrid</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:small">__________________________________________</span><br style="font-size:small"><span style="font-size:small"><b>Astrid Nielsen</b></span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">MFC, RPF, ISA Certified</font><span style="font-size:small"> Arborist®</span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><a target="_blank" href="mailto:astrid.nielsen@dendronforestry.ca" style="font-size:12.8px">astrid.nielsen@dendronforestry.ca</a><br></font></div><div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">+1.613.805.WOOD (9663)</font></div></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.dendronforestry.ca">www.dendronforestry.ca</a></font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks) via CANUFNET <span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:canufnet@list.web.net">canufnet@list.web.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-2220490877169607541WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi all,
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I’m trying to track down samples of city policies or bylaws related to tree protection that effectively balance the protection of established trees and new in-fill building.
Saskatoon is currently seeing several large building projects and homes being built in established neighbourhoods where the work site is surrounded by large valuable City trees. We currently have a City Council policy in place that provide Urban Forestry with
direction related to tree protection. As part of this policy we do not remove large (>15cm” diameter) healthy trees for development. However we are finding ourselves in a difficult position of attempting to work with construction companies hired to build what
does not reasonably allow for preservation or protection of the existing tree(s). In some cases the building footprint requires excavation that will result in ~40%-50% root removal. Often the damage is done on the private property side when our City trees
are close to property lines or in some cases straddle property lines (funny how tree roots just don’t respect property lines).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I know there are several cities that have tree protection bylaws and some also protect private trees. I’m wondering if anyone knows of a really good example that might include
standards that include what can and can’t be done on private property adjacent to City trees. I’d also like to know if anyone can share their experience or views (what has worked and what hasn’t worked) with existing Bylaw or policies.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thanks,
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Michelle Chartier<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">City of Saskatoon
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Community Services, Parks Division<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Superintendent - Urban Forestry/Pest Management<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Ph: <a target="_blank" href="tel:(306)%20975-2537" value="+13069752537">306.975-2537</a> Fax: <a target="_blank" href="tel:(306)%20975-3034" value="+13069753034">306.975.3034</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a target="_blank" href="mailto:michelle.chartier@saskatoon.ca">michelle.chartier@saskatoon.ca</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</canufnet@list.web.net></michelle.chartier@saskatoon.ca></canufnet@list.web.net></blockquote></div></body></html>