[CANUFNET] Impacts of private tree protection bylaws on canopy cover

[Julian Dunster]

In general, municipalities must lead the way in replanting trees, as a 
means of showing private landowners what can be done.

But, in general, many municipalities do not practice what they preach, 
and so we constantly see requirements imposed on citizens that are not 
imposed or, are completely ignored by various municipal departments - 
engineering departments are especially poor at setting an example, but 
often,  planning and development departments are not far behind. It does 
not send a good message if the local government cannot lead by example.

jd

On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.


Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified Arborist,
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378,
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
BC Wildlife Danger Tree Assessor
Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

North American distributor for Rinntech
www.dunster.ca

On 8/23/2016 8:28 AM, peter.wynnyczuk peter.wynnyczuk wrote:
>
> Hi Amber,
>
> An opinion on this is, since I have experience on both municipal and 
> consultant experience on the  GTA Private Tree Protection Bylaw 
> process. I have learned the following:
>
> 1) A Private Tree Bylaw, if single stem and size based, it is much 
> easier for the municipality and homeowner to understand and have a 
> process to guide what is cut and the ratio of replacement(s), cash in 
> lieu, based on individual municipal criteria, staff/technology 
> resources and tree age/population. Some rapidly developing 
> municipalities have higher concentrations of tree planting in a 
> shorter time, then as they mature may be impacted by the Bylaw in a 
> larger group.
>
> 2) The Municipality has to have the resources to effectively and 
> efficiently mange the permitting process for both homeowner 
> applications as well as developer applications such that they can be 
> dealt with in a timely manner. Less that say a month or 6 weeks.
>
> 3) Industrial/developable lands should be required, as allowed for in 
> the Planning Act, to provide to the Municipality an existing tree 
> inventory and protection plan, new proposed landscaping as part of the 
> development application, which is outside of the Municipal Act, but 
> the policy of the Municipality under the Planning Act. A point that 
> has never been clear to me is that is you have a registered site plan 
> on title, then the conditions of the agreement with stay with the 
> lands until de-registered. Therefore the Municipal Act would not apply 
> in my opinion. If someone has another view please chime in.
>
> 4) Respecting a hesitance by homeowners to plant trees, I think this 
> can be overcome if there is an Arbor Day Tree planting program in 
> elementary schools to engage the students about the benefits of trees 
> which can have an echo effect on parents choice to plant trees or not. 
> As most homeowners usually, this may be old data, stay in their homes 
> for about 7 years on average, so planting today may not see impacts by 
> any bylaw, say 20cm dbh, for about 15 to 20 years.
>
> 4) As far as research goes on impacts on canopy cover, I would have to 
> say that is very difficult to ascertain as with trees:
>
> a) dying and not requiring a permit as they fall under the Propeprty 
> Stds. Bylaw,
>
> b)EAB killed trees, which variew with each municiaplaity as to its 
> prtion of the tree population
>
> c) trees removed under the planning Act for development purposes may 
> be treated in a different way than single tree permit applications in 
> terms of replacements, depending on the sophistication of the 
> municipality.
>
> 5) A multi-faceted rollout campaign for any new or revised Tree Bylaws 
> should be carefully planned out over several media vehicles, paper 
> media, workshops, community meetings, council orientation, 
> e-media over at least 4 seasons, and have an email list of tree 
> services/consultants to engage them during any orientation phase needed.
>
> Larger tree focus does enter into a greater challenge of assessing the 
> hazard risk component for an application to remove, as the key would 
> be competent staff and a council who would be willing to take a stand 
> on not removing a significant/large tree with some defects.
>
> In summary, in my opinion, to ask for data that would be reflective of 
> this one facet of tree removal/replacement and the overall picture of 
> Canopy cover impacts would be a challenge to inventory/compare over 
> time to this one component only.
>
> Hope this helps and if you have any feedback please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Wynnyczuk
>
>
>
>
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> From: Amber Cantell <amber at reforestlondon.ca>
>> Date: August 19, 2016 at 10:25 AM
>>
>> Good morning everyone,
>>
>> The City of London has recently tabled a private tree protection 
>> bylaw which will provide additional protection for trees > 75cm DBH, 
>> and I am interested in better understanding how effective such a 
>> bylaw is likely to be in terms of improving canopy cover, as, on the 
>> one hand, we'll presumably see reduced cutting of large trees (and 
>> guaranteed replacement when they come down) but may see reduced 
>> planting in other yards if residents don't want to "tie up" their 
>> land (something we often find is a major hurdle with some industrial 
>> landowners).
>>
>> I know that many other communities have private tree bylaws, but I 
>> haven't yet seen any research assessing their overall impacts on 
>> canopy cover. Would anyone out there be aware of research along these 
>> lines, or, for those municipalities with private tree bylaws, have 
>> any of you actively monitored the impact on cutting vs. planting 
>> rates on residential lands following the implementation of the bylaw?
>>
>> Many thanks!
>> Amber
>>
>