Protecting and enhancing forestry in Brant

By Casandra Turnbull

Managing Editor

In a bid to solidify efforts to protect and enhance forestry, the County of Brant has developed a formal policy that will focus on preventative maintenance and creates more incentives for developers to retain rather than remove trees in land development. The Tree Protection and Enhancement Policy pulls existing undocumented practices across multiple county departments into one comprehensive policy that provides clear direction around tree protection, maintenance and canopy practices. The policy points to the existing Technical Tree Guidelines for detailed information. The goal is to support a growing community forest and ensure industry best practices are followed. It would also designate trees on municipally owned land as green infrastructure. This policy was presented during a May 6th Policy and Development Committee meeting and will go to council for ratification. One of the driving factors for developing this policy was a noticeably absent formal process to safeguard trees during internal projects and during external development projects, according to a staff report presented by Trent Meyers, Forestry Supervisor. The policy only applies to trees on municipal property and private property undergoing development.It was noted that to date, staff have successfully collaborated with other departments to ensure industry best practices, but a formalized process and document would standardize municipal practices and align with other strategies like Brant’s Climate Action Plan. Under the Climate Action Plan, the county has set a goal of achieving and maintaining a 30% canopy cover on all developed and developing lands by 2050. Achieving that goal means planting more trees, but also protecting trees from development and ensuring better maintenance so existing trees thrive and do not end up on a hazard removal list. The County manages a Hazard Tree Removal Program that requires an annual investment of approximately $350,000 across multiple departments to remove trees identified as hazards. Recognizing trees as green infrastructure and investing in tree maintenance ensures trees thrive and are less likely to become hazards. It would also ensure the trees are incorporated into planning projects rather than removed, or damaged, during projects. This approach would contribute to long-term cost savings.As the county works towards its Climate Action Plan targets, the Tree Compensation Fund plays a critical role. 

Developers have two options when developing land; remove trees and replant them elsewhere within the development area or pay fees set by the county’s Fees and Charges By-Law. The average cost to remove a tree is $523. Money from the fund is dedicated to new tree planting initiatives across the county, supporting reforestation efforts to help hit that 30% canopy target. Councillor Steve Howes questioned how the formal policy would come into play to protect trees from developers, a question he said he was recently asked by a constituent. “Isn’t there a way for us to ask developers to utilize existing trees within their site plans,” questioned Howes, saying it pains residents to see forestry cleared from lots, and wiping out wildlife habitats, to make room for development.  Meyers responded that there is no way to stop developers from removing trees, but the policy would enable the county to collect more compensation from developers who want to remove protected trees. In instances where the developer chooses to replace trees, the number of trees they must replant is determined by the size of the tree they remove. As an example, a tree with a breast height of 50-59 cms would require five replacement trees.“People might not be completely happy that we can’t stop them (developers from removing trees) but at least there are policies where we can get some compensation and there’s proper protection for the ones that are retained,” Meyers responded, and added that the increased compensation requirements will – and have already- resulted in more retention. “We are starting to see, because of increased compensation rates, developers are starting to take a different approach (in their plans),” said Meyers, using the example that instead of removing a big oak tree from a plot of land, they’re making that oak tree a focal point in the park block.  Councillor John Peirce wondered why give developers the option to pay compensation, rather than simply enforce them to replant the trees. Wouldn’t it be easier? He asked. Meyers responded that it would be easier, however, not all development lands have enough space to replant the number of trees required within the compensation chart, and by collecting the money the county can in turn pay contractors to replace trees across the county in designated areas. This new protection policy, which was unanimously supported by committee members, is also part of the county’s bigger plan to develop a Community Forest Strategy to ensure there’s sustainable, inclusive, and resilient forest system that supports the social, environmental, and economic health of the County of Brant. The strategy also aims to build strong partnerships with community groups and indigenous partners, support recreational use and other green initiatives, protect and preserve trees and enhance urban forests and green spaces. The county has launched a Engage Brant campaign encouraging residents to take a survey, ask questions and provide input into shaping the strategy. The survey is available at www.engagebrant.ca/communityforest and will remain open until May 16th.