[CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

[Julian Dunster]

As  a professional planner, I would love to know what 'true planning' is.

The carbon sequestration concept is more myth than reality. Most studies 
suggest that urban trees sequester around 1.4 to 1.7% of the carbon 
produced by human activities. In effect a largely irrelevant amount as 
an offset. I don't doubt developers will embrace whatever they can to 
get approval and planting trees is a very cheap additional cost, far 
less than saving them and working around them where feasible. But we 
need to get away from the idea that one of the main benefits of urban 
forests is carbon sequestration. Health benefits and enhanced livability 
are far higher economic benefits and area  much better justification.

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
Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

North American distributor for Rinntech
www.dunster.ca
www.treelaw.info
www.rinntech.info

On Wed/12/2/2020 1:48 PM, Alice (Personal GMail) via CANUFNET wrote:
> A Sin of omission
> If it involves true planning then the cost of trees will be a savings 
> when owners or tenants are involved in planning , planting, 
> maintenance, monitoring  and reporting!
>
> Trees carbon sequestered and carbon dioxide drawdowns can be used to 
> offset the building emissions and if properly built hold water and 
> save taxes
> and don’t forget grey water usage
>
> Developers who get these concepts have been building and selling 
> successfully in Georgetown
> Alice
> On Dec 2, 2020, 4:42 PM -0500, Michael Richardson via CANUFNET 
> <canufnet at list.web.net>, wrote:
>> The trunk formula method is obsolete, it has been replaced by the Trunk
>> Formulae Technique.
>>
>> The TRM or TFT do not "apply" a value to a tree but rather both are
>> calculations of the cost of reproduction. Cost is not value!
>>
>> If you wish to calculate the value of a tree on a development site 
>> then in
>> all likelihood the value is negative as it will be a cost to the 
>> developer
>> to maintain and it may be used to sterilize development rights and reduce
>> development footprint which reduces profit and is a negative CREMV.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Good morning Crispin,
>>> I developed the City of Cambridge private tree bylaw based on the 
>>> economic
>>> disincentive concept. It uses the trunk formula method to apply a value
>>> to any trees protected within scope of the bylaw; anyone can get an
>>> approved permit if they pay the fees. While the trunk formula method
>>> isn't the best fit for every situation, it is a reasonable standard that
>>> the public can understand and apply. The fees go into a reserve account
>>> which funds a tree planting program operated by a local not-for-profit
>>> REEP (https://reepgreen.ca/trees/) that plants trees back on private
>>> property (no funds are used for city tree planting). It applies to
>>> development and non-development scenarios. You can review it here:
>>> https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/resources/Private-Tree-Forestry-By-Law-124-18.pdf
>>>
>>> Brian Geerts
>>>
>>>
>>> This message, including any attachments, may contain information 
>>> which is
>>> confidential
>>> and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only
>>> for the use of the
>>> designated recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure
>>> is strictly prohibited.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this
>>> message by mistake,
>>> please notify the sender by replying via email, and destroy all 
>>> copies of
>>> this message, including
>>> any attachments, without making a copy. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>> From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Wood, 
>>> Crispin
>>> via CANUFNET
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:59 AM
>>> To: canufnet at list.web.net
>>> Cc: Wood, Crispin <woodc at halifax.ca>; Gempton, Shilo 
>>> <gemptos at halifax.ca>
>>> Subject: [External] Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection
>>>
>>> Hello Folks,
>>>
>>> Council has asked Halifax Administration to investigate options to
>>> incentivize tree retention on private lands scheduled for new 
>>> development
>>> (subdivisions etc.). I am curious if other municipalities have 
>>> conducted a
>>> similar jurisdictional review that they might be willing to share, 
>>> or have
>>> any experiences with private tree bylaws or other planning tools used to
>>> either incentivize, disincentivize or compensate for urban canopy 
>>> loss in
>>> greenfield development?
>>>
>>> I know some of you may have already responded to a colleague of mine via
>>> the CUSP mind hive, and thank you.
>>>
>>> Crispin Wood, MSFM
>>> Superintendent of Urban Forestry
>>> Road Operations & Construction
>>> Transportation & Public Works
>>> (902) 225-2774
>>>
>>> HËLIFËX
>>> PO BOX 1749
>>> HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5
>>> halifax.ca<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.halifax.ca_&d=DwMFCQ&c=bd_3_Wi6wDlmHnKqRGbLBw&r=2-CE2uoYfoXIy2A2HncdYSlz3CQUgXMWswMfY512CRk&m=yP5SNkVdwrfJw7fk2t8LcqyQY7FwFMwJmRTwZ-YVH14&s=6-ZIYJ5kYpMUWVI4F6-aTaBHTcsnx2_H_jEzSmQb_r4&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20201202/a12804cc/attachment-0001.htm>