[CANUFNET] tree protection

Wed Jan 18 22:09:02 EST 2017

Hi Naomi, Michelle, and all folks,

This is a great discussion - so many good points! Although in some ways
it's unfortunate that municipalities across Canada are experiencing so many
challenges, it's encouraging to see that so much progress has been done,
and many are thinking along the same lines.

Naomi, thanks for your reply to my email about the City of Ottawa Infill
guidelines. Here are a few comments to follow up with. However, I should
first point out that I am a consulting forester and do not work for the
City of Ottawa, so views are my own:). However, I did work at the City for
7 years and was involved in developing some of these policies, so I
 appreciate some of the challenges of trying to create the "perfect" policy
and related documentation.

- Tree protection fencing: the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is to be identified
on the drawing, and it states that the protection fencing must be placed
around this area and approved prior to construction beginning. The CRZ is
10X the diameter of the trunk. For those of us familiar with construction
sites, we know that protecting the full CRZ is often not possible, but at
least it's marked on the plan to help illustrate the impact the
construction will have on the tree
- Valuing the trees prior to construction: this could be something that the
arborists/foresters hired to do the work could do, and it would be useful
for the applicant to have a sense of the tree value. These guidelines are a
good first step in encouraging developers to think about the trees earlier
on in infill development projects. When a new process or guideline is
developed, it's easy to have ideas of how it could be better, how it could
do more. But in a municipality, one has to consider that support from
council is needed to push things forward, and drastic changes are a hard
sell.
- Deposit: The $700 deposit is to ensure that a new tree gets planted in
the city right of way. If a city tree is already present, then it can be
used as a deposit to ensure that it isn't damaged during construction. If
it is, further fines can be imposed under the by-law. Again, it would be
ideal if the value of the tree could be collected as a deposit...perhaps
one day we will see this.

I hope this addresses some of your questions. As others have indicated,
policies and by-laws are really only as effective as those who implement
them, and this is a function of budgets and funding. Urban forestry is a
relatively young field in Canada, and there is still so much to learn an to
be done. It's frustrating but exciting at the same time! We've made
significant improvements in a short period of time, and as urbanites become
more environmentally, social, and health conscious, I see this trend
continuing.

Astrid

__________________________________________
*Astrid Nielsen*
MFC, RPF, ISA Certified Arborist®

astrid.nielsen at dendronforestry.ca
+1.613.805.WOOD (9663)

www.dendronforestry.ca

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Naomi Zurcher <treerap at sprintmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Astrid Nielsen via CANUFNET
> Sent: Jan 17, 2017 11:29 AM
> To: "Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks)" , Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] tree protection
>
> Hi Michelle,
>
> 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:
>
> http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/trees-
> and-community-forests#tree-and-infill-development
>
> Some background....
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.
>
> Astrid
>
>
> __________________________________________
> *Astrid Nielsen*
> MFC, RPF, ISA Certified Arborist®
>
> astrid.nielsen at dendronforestry.ca
> +1.613.805.WOOD (9663)
>
> www.dendronforestry.ca
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Chartier, Michelle (CY - Parks) via
> CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michelle Chartier
>>
>> City of Saskatoon
>>
>> Community Services, Parks Division
>>
>> Superintendent - Urban Forestry/Pest Management
>>
>> Ph: 306.975-2537 <(306)%20975-2537>  Fax: 306.975.3034 <(306)%20975-3034>
>>
>> michelle.chartier at saskatoon.ca
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20170118/e6d8b087/attachment.html>