[CANUFNET] tree protection

Tue Jan 17 14:37:10 EST 2017

Excellent points, Phillip and Julian.

I agree with Julian that cities have a lot of pressure to save trees during development but during the 8 years of enforcing Surrey's tree bylaw very definitely not every tree needs or should be retained.   That as arborists we should educate Council and Planning on trees and what is best for them and the safety of the people they would be putting around them.   For example if a "nice" tree is starting to decline before development it is very unlikely it will get better after development - one the water table has changed, the roots are cut and the site compacted with glacial till.    Especially our native deciduous trees in the lower mainland.

Also I agree about the comments on enforcement.   Having a tree bylaw without enforcement is 'just a good idea'.   At the City of Surrey, my section has 4 arborists that among many other duties enforce the tree bylaw.     We will fine/prosecute for barriers down/removed, removed trees without permits, bad pruning, damaging trees, burying trees, etc.  We have several ways for enforcement.   One is fines through our Bylaw officers -tickets for small offences (bad pruning) or going to court for larger issues like multiple tree removal without permits.

We will add permit fee penalties for infraction during development.  Also we can and will hold up permits (building or development) until fees are paid or an arborist mitigation report has been approved.   We will ask and get tree damage mitigated and use stop inspection or stop work orders to make sure the work is done.

It is possible to have a strong private property bylaw and enforce it as well.  Surrey is doing just that.   Doesn't make us the most popular section in the City though but that's ok.   When I became manager for this section, I was told the motto here was  - "We're not happy till you're not happy".    And for the people damaging trees in Surrey, we try very hard to make them less happy with their work against trees.

Steve Whitton
Tree and Landscape Manager
City of Surrey

Direct Phone: 604-591-4505
Tree and Landscape Section
Tree Hot Line:  604-591-4675
Fax:      604-591-2680
www.surrey.ca/treeprotection<http://www.surrey.ca/treeprotection>

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip van Wassenaer via CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet at list.web.net]
Sent: January-17-17 10:19 AM
To: jd at dunster.ca; 'Julian Dunster'; 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection

Thanks Julian,

I think another reality check is how will tree protection be enforced? In

many cases it just simply won't be and after all the nice by-laws and

policies and discussions and reports, permits etc., when the development

starts the "protected" trees get damaged or destroyed...and many many times

with absolutely no penalty to the developer. This is even worse when as we

see in so many cases, the damage is to the trees next door.

So if you intend to develop a tree protection policy that will work, you

have to consider at the front end what your approach to enforcement will be,

understand if you can legally utilize that approach and then plan for

appropriate resources to make that happen.

Philip van Wassenaer

Urban Forest innovations inc.

-----Original Message-----

From: CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Julian

Dunster via CANUFNET

Sent: January-17-17 11:35 AM

To: canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>

Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection

Largely missing from the debate so far is a discussion as to whether or not

the trees are worth saving. I know it is politically correct to save every

tree - Monty Python images of every tree is sacred float into view.  Well

over twenty years ago Jeremy Barrell in the UK floated out the concept of

SULE -

Safe Useful Life Expectancy to deal with this. The first step is to do

decide how much longer the tree has in place in a safe condition with no

disturbance, but allowing for normal weather etc. If it is not long then

scrap it and replant. If it is long then get everyone on board at the

outset. But, as is so often the case, arborists

are not the key players. The planners and other design professionals are.

The engineers, architects, landscape architects, plus the bureaucrats all

have a significant role to play in saving trees effectively and in ensuring

that new plantings will work well. For the latter, how many municipal design

standards pay much heed to Jim Urban's work?

My suspicion is not many. And none of these issues are helped when many

cities do not practice what they preach - something I see all the time where

engineering and parks departments implement work that would attract a stop

work order, a fine, or at least a heated discussion, were such activity to

be found on a private development site.

It's as much a cultural problem as a technical one.

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<http://www.dunster.ca>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170117/f1468a53/attachment.html>