Many of you will have been commissioned to prepare a report on a development site and assess the impact of development on localised vegetation. How many of you actually go one step further and police the site (as commissioned and payed to do so by the developer) prior to and throughout the construction stage in order to ensure that protective measures are kept in place and that tree retention and health/stability is maximised?

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul H, on March 11, 1999 at 17:06:06:

I have for eight years through a variety of construction projects on the same site. Contracts and contractors differed and their response to "policing" differed as well.

Wayne

Reply to post by Wayne Cahilly, on March 11, 1999 at 17:06:06:

How nice it would be if we could have the opportunity to oversee our recommendations. The opportunity very seldom arises out here. Most times the developer uses us to obtain the permits required, and then, unless municipal staff happen to see the project, we are rarely called upon again - untill something goes wrong by which time it is too late. Very few developers out here will pay for ongoing supervision, and as a consequence many good intentions do not come to fruition, all of which is very frustrating. Despite attempts to seek authority to be involved, I seldom see it happen, and that wll not change until the public / politicians and other design professions have a better understanding of what is required, before, during, and after development.

Julian Dunster
Bowen Island, BC
Canada

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on March 11, 1999 at 17:34:29:

Dear Julian

Its "happening now in the UK." The implementation of an Arboricultural Implication Study (AIS) with the provision of an Arboricultural Method Statement supplemented by Site Supervision options provides the Arboriculturist with an opportunity to site supervise with the agreement of both the Local Authority (LA) (written and agreed planning conditions) and the developer agreement to the conditions. Problems occur because the developer wishes to obtain detailed planning permission for residential development and associated infrastructure, and the LA wish to avoid maladministration, but foremost, the LA wish to see good arboricultural practise and adequate tree retention/protection measures for localised vegetation, trees, hedgerows, substantial shrubs etc. (many LA's do not have the resources to police sites as much as they would wish). The system is ideal, simplistic, and developers are content, as usually are the LA.

We now have a number of sites throughout 1999, policed and protected in accordance with conditions of planning, we have had excellent results both for the LA and the developer.

Providing sustainability, with the ability to manage vegetation is uttermost on our agenda.

Thanks have to go to Mike Lawson and Dealga O'Callaghan for their incredible insight.

You can also make these very important changes, the opportunity to do so is relatively easy. I suggest you go for it!

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul H, on March 11, 1999 at 21:51:49:

I stay busy on wooded construction sites as "Project Consulting Arborist" - a term which appears maybe 100 times in the "Tree Preservation and Protection Plan." These are plans written for the trees at the request of the owner, to satisfy local ordinance and/or an environmentally sensitive owner.

In a nutshell, the plans states that the Project Consulting Arborist must be present any time a contractor/subcontractor gets anywhere near a tree. All contractors/subcontractors must sign off on the plan which stipulates hefty financial penalties for damage to a tree.

It is a good system. I do all I can do to promote it through offering consulting services pro bono to any regulatory agency reconsidering tree ordinances.

Reply to post by Paul H, on March 11, 1999 at 17:06:06:

It is certainly true that a preservation / protection / retention / whatever you want to call it plan is only effective if it is followed and seing followed will require monitoring / policing / enforcement.

Offering the service, specifying it as desirable and effective or getting it included in regulations or approvals is a first step.

There are a number of practical issues that seem to affect actual implementation. 1) Owner / developer interest. An owner who intends to occupy or a developer who understands ultimate benefits is more likely to want it. 2) Regulation. If it's required there may be no choice. 3) Size of project. Having the enforcer ("Project Consulting Arborist" or whomever) on site whenever there is an action that might impact a specified tree can turn into a full time job. Adding a full time body - particularly at consultants' rates - can overwhelm the budget and/or margin of a small development. Owners, bankers and regulators may all be reluctant to impose "unreasonable" burdens on the development process. Large scope - particularly public sector - projects may more easily accomdate the added expense. Just recently consultants have told me of a highway and a sewer project where they just remain on site and watch whenever work is ongoing. 4) Carrot and Stick. This may not guarantee compliance or good result but can certainly encourage it. Lay out the specs. Explain how ongoing supervision helps. Make it very clear: Non-Compliance = no Certificate of Occupancy or heavy fines.

Reply to post by Paul H, on March 11, 1999 at 17:06:06:

Sometimes I have gotten to provide follow-up supervision on a project that I planned. The most successful was when I was hired by the person who intended to live in the house. He was an attorney who told the builder to do it, or they would see each other in court. It was his second house in 3 years; the first time he learned about tree preservation the traditional, hard way. But how many people build a second house?

If you can get a developer to understand that absolutely nothing is to take place in tree preservation areas without the project arborist being called back in, I see no reason for simply hanging around (or "lurking") and costing someone big bucks. Such is wasteful and fuels the animosity that seems to be our lot already.

Reply to post by Ed Milhous, on March 11, 1999 at 17:06:06:

The only employer of an ethical/forward-looking consulting arborist on a wooded construction site can be the owner. Or the owner's representative. Any other employer, with an interest in the project, represents a conflict of interest, in any situation I can imagine.

The motivation of the employer can be as esoteric (the law insists) or panoramic (I don't wish to offend) as imaginable -- it does not change the duties, responsibilities, actions -- of the tree advocate, the arborist.

Ongoing supervision is spelled out in the well-thought-out Tree Preservation and Protection Plan. It is all in writing, signed & agreed to by every contractor to enter the premises.

You agree to abide by it; you violate the agreement & you pay. There is no lurking. Everybody on the site is aware.

My lot on such sites is "Here's the tree doc!" and "The plan says we had to call you before we could do this."

The only animosity is usually from the subcontractor who did not read what he signed, violated the agreement, and now has to pay. Where I work, these fellows are becoming scarcer and scarcer.

This system has worked so far. It accomplishes what we set out to accomplish with the least fuss and muss. It saves trees. It pays Project Consulting Arborists for their expertise.

Some type of shock to trees to be preserved is common on construction sites. This shock often must be mitigated by therapeutic maintenance plans which must continue for 3-5 years.

The absence of such plans goes far to explain the extensive removal and replanting programs during the 5-6 years following construction(this is not limited to the West Coast!).

Reply to post by David Cory, on March 14, 1999 at 14:38:27:

"The only employer of an ethical/forward-looking consulting arborist on a wooded construction site can be the owner." I'm not sure I agree. 1) Does the employer's real or perceived conflict of interest necessarily translate into the arborist's conflict of interest? 2) Doesn't an owner have as much potential for conflict of interest as another employer, maybe more? Owner wants, perhaps, to maximize profit and considers trees secondary, approvals and conditions notwithstanding. 3) Couldn't the arborist work for the regulatory agency? That seems even less likely to involve conflict. 4) Is the ethical arborist's only possible participation to be a "tree advocate?" I take TA to mean preserving trees is the overriding concern and duty, development being a dirty word. Can't an ethical consultant act A) as an advocate for the developer's proposed or approved plan as long as there is no misrepresentation of fact and no attempt to circumvent applicable regulation or B) as an independent expert advocating nothing, just dealing with facts? 5) Can't an ethical arborist work for a construction manager, general contractor or other party who is neither owner or regulator to manage a tree preservation project A) according to appoved plan or B)where there is no approval or regulation but there is a desire to preserve trees (for whatever reason)?

"Some type of shock to trees to be preserved is common on construction sites. This shock often must be mitigated by therapeutic maintenance plans which must continue for 3-5 years." If the PCA is also a contractor who has a shot at this downstream work -- gee I now have this great relationship eith the owner -- isn't there a potential conflict of interest in drafting a plan which inludes such downstream work?

Scott

Reply to post by Ed Milhous, on March 11, 1999 at 17:06:06:

Technology can be a wonderful thing. Wouldn't your time be better managed if you just set up a video camera to tape the activity of the developer, or maybe even a fake video camera. Most people are much more conscience about thier action, or the action of others under thier supervision, if they think they are being video taped. I realize that a video camera can't acually go out and stop someone from cutting roots or compacting soils but they may fit into a clients budget much easier.

Reply to post by David Cory, on March 12, 1999 at 18:34:11:

Ten years ago it was unheard of to have an arborist do the things that are discussed within this topic.

I've been engaged by some large coroporations as well as homeowners. The goal is the same. The procedure and philoshpy is the same. If the trees are important to the owner then the contractor will pay more attention to the trees.

Acting as a policeman or watchdog seldom would be effective. An adversarial position is established & no one will win. Getting everyone to be part of the team is the key.

Try this. Let contractors place their office trailers under the trees within the fence lines. Area stays cleaner, no one will back into the bosses trailer & you gain an ally by getting them closer to the job site.