[CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

Thu Dec 3 13:49:54 EST 2020

Hello Crispin. I have a totally different take on your Council's desire to, "incentive tree retention on private land" in that I don't regard it as a "tree bylaw" issue. Tree bylaws are meant to ensure that trees remain on the landscape and are managed well, until the planning process says otherwise. Tree bylaws are not a planning tool and have little to do with the planning process. 

It is the planning process which dictates whether or not trees will remain on the landscape under Official Plans and zoning bylaws. I have often thought that to truly incentivize private landowners to retain trees on their land (that they could otherwise remove) municipalities need to look at tax incentives. That is, a break on their municipal taxes for allowing trees to grow on their properties and thereby contributing to all those public benefits...Maybe Halifax could be the first to seriously look into this form of incentive for private owners under a Municipal Tree Tax Incentive program. You can contact me privately if you want to know more.

- M

-----Original Message-----
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Andrew Smit via CANUFNET
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 9:17 PM
To: canufnet at list.web.net
Cc: andrew at treescapecanada.ca
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

Hello Crispin, 

In my experience, the Trunk Formula Technique provides inflated reproduction costs when applied to individual trees within large compartments/groupings of trees. Due to the density and coalescing crowns of the trees in these compartments, basing the replacement calculations on the individual trees/stems within the grouping can be considered to be superadequate in that a lesser number of trees spaced appropriately could achieve the same canopy area and benefit within a set period of time.

One alternative would be choosing an appraisal method within the cost approach such as the Cost Compounding Technique (refer to the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition) that will help you calculate a cost to reproduce the overall utility of the canopy area being lost on an equal area basis.  You could estimate how many caliper nursery plantings of similar stature it would take to ensure replacement of the existing tree cover on an equal area basis within a set period of time such as 25 years (this would be the "years to parity" portion of the equation). I have seen undocumented studies by industry colleagues suggesting that one 50mm caliper planting will produce a canopy area of approximately 55m2 by age 25 yrs.  With this assumption, you can infer that one 50mm caliper planting is required for every 55m2 of removed canopy cover. For example, a 275m2 area of removed canopy cover would need a total of five 50mm caliper plantings in order to reproduce the total lost canopy cover within 25 years. 

You would then extrapolate the reproduction costs of these trees through the cost compounding formula. Alternatively, you could come up with a cost to replant each caliper tree and use this as a levy amount rather than the appraisal result.

I hope that helps.

Andrew Smit
General Manager & Consulting Arborist
ISA Certified Arborist Municipal Specialist (ON1292AM) Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (ISA, QTRA) Qualified Tree & Plant Appraiser (ASCA) Certified Butternut Health Assessor (BHA 673)

W: (705) 745-1803  |  M: (705) 927-3334
E: andrew at treescapecanada.ca
W: https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treescapecanada.ca%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1ab27b7e4fe041ffecdb08d8979f45a9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637426057608154714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=RqodBCm2I4tkO4u6OOOWM3nBFvVQhfobqQgK5WyoM%2Bg%3D&reserved=0

Proud of our 22 year "no lost time" injury record!

-----Original Message-----
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of canufnet-request at list.web.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 11:55 AM
To: canufnet at list.web.net
Subject: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 189, Issue 2

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:59:13 +0000
From: "Wood, Crispin" <woodc at halifax.ca>
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Brian Geerts <GeertsB at cambridge.ca>, "Gempton, Shilo"
	<gemptos at halifax.ca>, "Holinsky, Michael" <holinsm at halifax.ca>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection
Message-ID:

<YQBPR0101MB1603E5BDF1B46B07422E5526D5F30 at YQBPR0101MB1603.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTL
OOK.COM>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso8859-7"

Thanks for this Brian,

Do you apply the trunk formula for trees in naturalized areas? Or how do you manage removals of large areas of trees?

Thanks also for the information about REEP. This is an innovative approach to using these funds, and ties into another project we are working on.

Crispin

From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Brian Geerts via CANUFNET
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:09 PM
To: 'Canadian Urban Forest Network' <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Brian Geerts <GeertsB at cambridge.ca>
Subject: [External Email] Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

[This email has been received from an external person or system]

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://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freepgreen.ca%2Ftrees%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1ab27b7e4fe041ffecdb08d8979f45a9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637426057608154714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Xddt2915tKS6%2BYg6W03tHrhI%2FHTip7TxmfJQrDFL6cc%3D&reserved=0) 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://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.ca%2Fen%2Flearn-about%2Fresources%2FPrivate-Tree-Forestry-By-L&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1ab27b7e4fe041ffecdb08d8979f45a9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637426057608154714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0%2BBcmR6Ebr%2FmfVYhPEbuaZteOdl0qxciGroE34kaKjQ%3D&reserved=0
aw-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<mailto: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<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Wood, Crispin <woodc at halifax.ca<mailto:woodc at halifax.ca>>; Gempton, Shilo <gemptos at halifax.ca<mailto: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

H?LIF?X
PO BOX 1749
HALIFAX NS B3J 3A5
halifax.ca<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.halifax.c&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1ab27b7e4fe041ffecdb08d8979f45a9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637426057608154714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ov3eONYHBVHTaXI22xs6ctDQB5aJkOJpqu4F66FrNI4%3D&reserved=0
a_&d=DwMFCQ&c=bd_3_Wi6wDlmHnKqRGbLBw&r=2-CE2uoYfoXIy2A2HncdYSlz3CQUgXMWswMfY
512CRk&m=yP5SNkVdwrfJw7fk2t8LcqyQY7FwFMwJmRTwZ-YVH14&s=6-ZIYJ5kYpMUWVI4F6-aT
aBHTcsnx2_H_jEzSmQb_r4&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.web.net%2Fpipermail%2Fcanufnet%2Fattachments%2F20201202%2F2aa3ff04%2Fattach&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1ab27b7e4fe041ffecdb08d8979f45a9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637426057608154714%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5o6%2BtCu7CfP0tleK4wvCpIDg%2BhVB5WrF4HdQ4dPU6QY%3D&reserved=0
ment.htm>

End of CANUFNET Digest, Vol 189, Issue 2
****************************************