[CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

[Peter Shields]

Hello Jack,

It has been my experience these details are in the actual bylaw. Some have a line stating they can enter adjacent lands to mitigate where a tree may negatively impact infrastructure.  Some have the ability to issue an order to a tree owner for the same. And if they do not, they can sometimes put the costs on their tax bill. Generally, they only manage Municipal Trees, not private trees.

It is impossible all risks are known to the municipality. Also, extreme risks are very rare as they are usually dealt with immediately so I may suggest to exercise caution in deeming a tree as such post casualty. Tree owners have a duty of care, including their trees and what a reasonable understanding of risks may be.

One last thing, municipalities generally do not assess private trees. If there is an obvious inherent risk, sometimes they may notify if seen. These would be for trees that are failing imminently or deemed an actual hazard. This is critically important to distinguish.

It sounds like it should be provable the municipality knew about the extreme risk and did not do anything to mitigate.

Cheers,


Peter Shields
RCA, ISA BCMA, TRAQ
www.shieldstree.com<olm://message-contents/AQACAAAAyQAAAAAAAAAAyAkBAAAAAAAA1AAAAAAAAQJDAAAAAAABCcgAAAAAAAECQwIAAIABAAAAMnBldGVyLnNoaWVsZHMxQGhvdG1haWwuY29tX0FjdGl2ZVN5bmNNaWNyb3NvZnRfSHhT/www.shieldstree.com>
(705) 500-4860<tel:+17055004860>
________________________________
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> on behalf of Naomi Zurcher via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 9:53:56 AM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Naomi Zurcher <treerap at sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Municipal Tree Risk Assessment Policies

Does the municipality have a Right-of-Way ordinance which would have changed the status of the private tree to a public tree given its proximity to a publicly accessible roadway?

Naomi Zürcher

On Oct 19, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Jack Radecki via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net<mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>> wrote:

I posted this morning on the American Society of Consulting Arborists Listserve the post as shown below. I know that many municipal tree managers subscribe to CANUFNET with hopes of getting an opinion or even a confirmation from within the Tree Risk Assessment Policy. Anyone is welcome to provide their opinions here. See below.

“I am looking for precedents or opinions on private trees targeting municipal rights of way. In this case a badly decayed willow had fallen across a roadway injuring a pedestrian. There was no sidewalk and the tree fell across the whole roadway. I have reviewed pictures showing extensive decay in a large open wound on the main stem easily visible from the roadway. This tree would easily have been labelled as an extreme risk for failure by a competent tree inspector. I do note that the shoot growth and foliage size and colour was still good despite the structural defect. As target is one of the 3 main components of tree risk assessment, should the municipality showed due diligence in inspecting this private tree targeting the road allowance that pedestrians frequently use? Does the responsibility fall to the municipality to note and take steps (action) to have the tree removed in terms of notice to the owners? Now that the tragedy has occured and litigation has begun what can be expected as a result? Remember that this is a private tree. I wonder how many municipal tree risk assessment policies include private trees? In 2005 I was retained within a coroners inquest sadly for a child death on an educational trail at a botanical garden. As a result of the decision from the inquest a mandate was initiated to have all Conservation Authorities, Municipalities and Private Institutions create and maintain a Tree Risk Assessment Policy.”

Jack Radecki RCA 342 Lindsay, Ontario, Canada

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20221019/46c1073f/attachment.htm>