The VanishingCanopy
Six years of tree removals across Montclair, mapped ward by ward — the complete picture, built entirely from public records obtained under OPRA.
Montclair Is Losing Its Trees — and No One Is Counting
This page grew out of the letter below, published in the Montclair Local in June 2026. The findings that follow are the public record behind it.
For years, Montclair has been quietly shedding its tree canopy. I know this not because it was tracked by our town, but from painstakingly examining tree removal and planting records obtained by OPRA.
Between 2020 and 2025, at least 4,786 trees came down — a floor figure, given inadequate records and unpermitted removals. Townwide, every year was a loss. That’s a lot of shade and ecological benefits…gone. An alarming finding given our published goal is to steadily increase canopy.
The Township will point to its current replacement requirement: remove a tree, plant a tree. But a replacement tree doesn’t always replace canopy. On private property, more than 20% of replacements were privacy screens — arborvitae and similar evergreens — that satisfy the permit but function as fences, not canopy. They provide no shade and only a fraction of the stormwater and carbon sequestration benefits of a shade tree. Similarly, ornamental trees offer less shade. Trees are also being regularly removed on municipal property, up and down our streets. Combined, the six-year canopy deficit across private and public property is in the thousands. And that’s assuming every replacement was planted. But Montclair doesn’t inspect. The true deficit is almost certainly worse.
In 2025, with a $500,000 tree budget, the Township planted zero trees. ZERO. Any tree that went in the ground — all 106 — came from a one-time federal grant secured by the Dept. of Sustainability.
Required annual reports were filed only once in the last decade. Our NJ Urban & Community Forestry accreditation expired in 2024. Trees at Essex and Erie Parks and recently across the Fieldstone neighborhood have been damaged — many fatally. All of this under the direction of the Dept. of Community Services.
The system meant to protect and increase our tree canopy is broken.
It gets worse. Montclair’s 38% canopy coverage cited in our 2025 Sustainability Plan dates to 2016. It doesn’t reflect the roughly 2,000 ash trees lost to the Emerald Ash Borer, multitudes of trees downed in heavy storms, the microforest of heritage oaks cleared at Woodman Field for plastic carpet, and these many years of canopy loss, known and unknown.
Our existing tree ordinance is obsolete, aided by systemic failure in the foreground of rising temperatures.
Montclair is losing trees every day and no one is counting.
The fixes are simple: A shade tree ordinance grounded in climate science, a full-time arborist with a budget that reflects the significance of trees as infrastructure, and moving the Shade Tree Dept. to the Dept. of Sustainability. As climate infrastructure, trees should be under the care of the department dedicated to Montclair’s natural resources and climate resilience.
A robust, equitable tree ordinance is within reach. Soon we’ll find out if our elected leaders can deliver our town to a safer, healthier future — or if they produce only a blizzard of words from the dais that leave us, and following generations, increasingly vulnerable.
Anna Grossman
Sustainable Montclair. Read the letter as published in the Montclair Local →
What we found
Where the trees came down
Private-permit tree removals by year, broken out by ward. Nearly half of every year's removals come from Ward 1 alone.
Every ward lost canopy
Private property, all six years — the one dataset complete for the full period. No ward shows a gain.
One complete year, public and private
2025 is the only year both datasets align. Ward 4's lone +12 came from a one-time federal grant — the town's own budget planted nothing.
Every single year, a loss
Private-permit canopy net by year — genuine canopy replacements minus trees removed. The six-year total is −902.
A replacement isn't always canopy
Montclair's permit accepts privacy screens as replacements — plants that never give shade, hold stormwater, or cool a street.
A replacement requirement that isn’t checked
Chapter 324 limits replacement trees to native or urban-suited species from a list the Township Forester is required to publish and review every year. Across 1,464 private removal permits (2020–2025), the permits show that list is almost never enforced — and compliance is never verified.
The published list includes large shade trees — oaks, maples, elms, sweetgum, tulip poplar, linden — and medium shade trees such as hornbeam, yellowwood, and magnolia. It explicitly prohibits flowering pear (invasive), ash (Emerald Ash Borer), the red oak group (bacterial leaf scorch), and Norway maple (invasive). It contains no arborvitae, no Green Giant, no juniper, no cherry, no crabapple, and no redbud.
Of 3,035 replacement trees recorded on those permits:
And 20 replacement trees were explicitly prohibited species, including Norway maple and ash.
Every permit was signed off. There is no cross-check of replacement species against the published list at the time of application, and no post-permit inspection to verify what was actually planted. The ordinance also requires the species list to be reviewed annually; there is no evidence that review has occurred.
The replacement requirement exists on paper but is not enforced against the published list, and compliance is never verified. A homeowner who replaces a 36-inch oak with a row of arborvitae satisfies the current permit. A new ordinance without species enforcement at the point of application — and either post-permit inspection or a Certificate of Occupancy hold — will reproduce exactly this pattern.
Source: 1,464 Chapter 324 private tree removal permits, 2020–2025, obtained via OPRA; 3,035 replacement trees recorded. Species compared against the Township’s published list of species suitable for replacement on private property. Current ordinance text at ecode360.com/16149433. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding and uncategorized entries.
What is our canopy right now?
Nobody can say. The only official figure is nearly a decade old, and the town has never re-measured.
the canopy figure in the 2025 Master Plan
Measured once, by the state — and never checked again.
Everything since points down
~2,000 ash trees lost to the Emerald Ash Borer
~21 heritage oaks cleared at Woodman Field (2023)
−2,133 trees net, six years of documented removals
~20 mature trees root-damaged during sidewalk replacement in the Fieldstone neighborhood — some now coming down
Storm losses, uncounted
The honest estimate is a range — roughly 35–38% — and probably the lower end, once undercounted removals and the gap between a felled shade tree and a two-inch sapling are accounted for. But no one has verified it.
And even a confirmed number would not make the goal adequate. A single town-wide percentage applied to neighborhoods that start in wildly different places produces wildly different results: ten percent added to a block already at 60% coverage is roughly six points of canopy; the same ten percent on a block at 15% is barely more than one. The neighborhood that needs trees most gains the least, and the gap on the map widens. A uniform increase target is not a resilience goal — it is an average that hides the places heat will hit hardest. The goal should be set by what each part of town needs to stay livable as summers get hotter, not by a flat percentage layered on top of whatever exists today.
Policy without the data
The Sustainability & Resilience Amendment calls trees “vital green infrastructure” — but was written without the removal data.
It cites an expired plan as current. The 2014 Community Forestry Management Plan lapsed in 2024, yet is presented as active policy.
It contains no removal data at all. No mention of 1,763 public or 3,023 private trees removed, or of the $0 spent on planting in 2025.
It overlooks the Ward 3 heat corridor. Bloomfield Avenue spans Wards 3 and 4, yet Ward 3 received only 32 town plantings in six years.
It treats a one-time grant as a program — and builds on an unverified 2016 canopy baseline that net losses have almost certainly eroded.
A system that isn't keeping count
Documented failures across accountability, records, enforcement, and staffing — every one drawn from the town's own records and OPRA responses.
Accountability
- Only one NJDEP annual forestry report filed across 2016–2026 — for 2020.
- The Community Forestry Management Plan expired in 2024.
- Accreditation has lapsed: no certified arborist, no current plan.
- Stated planting totals shifted across three emails received by constituents from town employees.
Records & Data
- Crew logs capture only ~33% of removals; 2023's true total was 302, not 109.
- The 692-tree planting database has no year column — no claim can be verified.
- Three years of removals, 1,256 trees, exist only as aggregate counts.
- ~50% of private permits record no removed species.
- Trees residents plant voluntarily aren’t counted at all — a public, opt-in planting log could capture them.
Enforcement
- No post-permit inspection confirms a single required replacement was planted.
- No Certificate of Occupancy hold and no follow-up mechanism.
- Unpermitted removals go entirely untracked — the 3,023 figure is a floor.
- 625 privacy screens accepted as replacements; the ordinance permits it.
Budget & EAB
- $0 of the $500,000 capital budget went to planting in 2025.
- No protected planting line — pruning and removals consume the funds.
- The arborist position is vacant.
- ~2,000 ash trees lost to the Emerald Ash Borer.
Four things the data requires
Our recommendations.
- I.Verify the baselineFund and complete the tree inventory now underway, and pair it with a canopy assessment. You can't manage what you've never measured.
- II.A full-time arborist and a protected budgetA planting line that can't be drained by pruning and removals — and a person whose job is the canopy.
- III.Shade Trees under the Director of SustainabilityMove canopy management out of DCS, tied to the Climate Action Plan and Master Plan resilience goals.
- IV.Restore state accreditationA new five-year NJDEP forestry plan, a certified arborist, and annual urban-forestry reporting to Council.
Where other towns go further
An ordinance sets the floor — what you can’t do. Towns focused on growing their canopy offer programs that help residents plant and understand trees. Montclair gives out saplings on Earth Day and, through its USDA grant, offers residents free native-plant consultations. But other towns go considerably further. These are program ideas, not regulations.
Incentives to plant. Montclair’s Earth Day saplings are a start, but many towns help residents put real canopy trees in the ground. The NJ Tree Foundation delivers free street trees to residents who sign a two-year care agreement. Maryland gives every household a $25 nursery coupon toward a native tree, and Prince George’s County reimburses up to $150 per tree planted on private property; Washington, DC will plant a tree in a resident’s yard for free. Montgomery County, MD goes further still: its Tree Montgomery program delivers up to six free large shade trees per property, with a staff site visit to choose the right species and placement. Kirkland, WA reimburses up to $150 per tree (capped at $500 per property) — but only after the homeowner completes a short online tree-planting course.
Education and expert help. Montclair does not offer an arborist visit to advise where and what to plant. Portland, OR sends an Urban Forestry inspector to a resident’s property to assess tree health and arrange city-contracted care. On the education side, nearby Rye, NY plants native keystone oaks on Arbor Day and teaches residents why they feed the most wildlife — bees, butterflies, moths, and birds; Westchester County publishes plain-language native-tree guides; and volunteer “TreeKeeper” courses train residents in planting and young-tree care. Pairing the right species with real guidance is how a town turns required replacements into a canopy that thrives.
Sources: NJ Tree Foundation; Maryland DNR (Marylanders Plant Trees); Prince George’s County, MD; Tree Montgomery (Montgomery County, MD); Washington, DC (RiverSmart Homes); City of Kirkland, WA; City of Portland, OR (Tree Care Assistance); City of Rye, NY; Westchester County.
Why the Tree Fund must be guided by equity
Montclair’s tree canopy is not evenly shared. The Township’s own Sustainability and Resilience Master Plan Amendment maps it block by block — dense canopy along the western ridge and the northern end of town, and broad stretches of the central and southern core where coverage falls to 20% or less.
The neighborhoods with the least canopy are, in general, the same neighborhoods that carry the heaviest environmental burdens — more impervious surface, higher summer heat, and in places the State has formally designated as overburdened communities. Trees are not only scenery; they cool streets, soak up stormwater, filter air, and lower the health risks that come with extreme heat. Where the canopy is thinnest, residents go without those protections.
This is also why a single town-wide goal is the wrong tool. The adopted Master Plan Amendment sets a 10% canopy-increase target — but a uniform percentage applied to neighborhoods that begin in very different places is regressive by design. Ten percent added to a block already at 60% coverage is about six points of new canopy; the same ten percent on a block at 15% is barely more than one. The places that most need shade gain the least, and the town-wide average can climb while the hottest, barest neighborhoods stay dangerously exposed. An average that improves overall can still leave the people most at risk of extreme heat with no relief. A resilience goal asks a different question: not “how much more than before,” but “how much canopy does this block need to stay livable as summers get hotter” — with the lowest-canopy, highest-heat areas brought up to an adequate minimum first.
This is not a novel idea; it is the national standard. American Forests — the oldest national conservation organization in the United States — built its Tree Equity Score precisely to replace flat goals with need-based ones. The score runs 0 to 100, and a score of 100 means a neighborhood has enough trees for everyone there to receive the health, economic, and climate benefits trees provide; any score below 100 signals a need, and the lower the score, the greater the priority for investment. Critically, the target is not one number everywhere: the score combines tree canopy with surface temperature, income, employment, age, and health data, so that resources flow first to the neighborhoods that need them most. Montclair is already in the tool, divided into 42 Census block groups whose scores range from the mid-80s to 100. The lowest-ranked block group in town carries just 21% canopy cover against American Forests’ 40% goal for that neighborhood, with a heat disparity of +7.6°F — a concrete, block-level illustration of the gap a single town-wide average conceals.
One honest caveat: Tree Equity Score measures canopy from national remote-sensing imagery, not from Montclair’s own removal record — the very record this page is built on. It cannot see the 4,786 documented removals, the unverified replacements, or the losses since the 2016 baseline. So the tool likely overstates Montclair’s current canopy, which means the real need is, if anything, greater than its scores suggest. What the tool offers is not a canopy number to rely on but a method to borrow: a free, science-based, neighborhood-resolution way to set need-based targets. New Jersey’s own foresters make the same underlying point: the State Forest Service has cautioned that a single canopy percentage doesn’t capture what matters — how the canopy is distributed across a town, and whether its benefits reach all residents, matters more than the town-wide average. That is the case for setting the goal block by block, which is exactly what the map on this page begins to show.
This matters for how the Tree Fund is run. The Fund collects the fees paid when trees are removed and a replacement is not planted on site. As the November 10 draft is written, those payments go into a “Township Tree Fund” that the ordinance never defines: it does not say what the money can be spent on, or where. The draft’s own purpose clause names overburdened communities (§324-1A(6)), but nothing in the Tree Fund language follows through. With no rule, nothing stops fees generated in already well-treed neighborhoods from being spent back in those same neighborhoods, while the lowest-canopy areas — where new trees would do the most good — see the least benefit. A fund with no guiding rule can end up reinforcing the gap the map reveals.
Map reproduced from the Township of Montclair Sustainability and Resilience Master Plan Amendment, Assessment of Threats & Vulnerabilities (p. 49). Canopy data is town-wide and area-level; parcel-level measurement would further sharpen where Fund dollars are directed. Tree Equity Score is a project of American Forests (treeequityscore.org); a score of 100 indicates a neighborhood has enough trees for everyone to receive the benefits trees provide, and scores combine canopy with surface temperature, income, employment, age, and health factors. Montclair is divided into 42 block groups in the tool, scoring from the mid-80s to 100. The 40% figure is American Forests’ canopy goal for an individual Montclair block group — not the Township’s adopted town-wide target (a 10% increase in the Master Plan Amendment). Tree Equity Score canopy figures are remote-sensed and not reconciled with Montclair’s OPRA removal record, so they likely overstate current canopy. The caution that distribution matters more than a single town-wide percentage is from the NJ Forest Service (NJ Spotlight News / Philadelphia Tribune).
The picture could be even worse.
These figures are floors, not ceilings. Unpermitted removals go untracked, replacement plantings are never verified, healthy street trees are lost when sidewalk conflicts are resolved by removing or damaging the tree rather than the pavement, and Montclair has no baseline canopy measurement — no i-Tree or satellite assessment, and no measure of what it has already lost. The true canopy picture is almost certainly worse than this report can document.
Where We StandAmong Peer NJ Towns
The Council unanimously approved a new Chapter 324 on first reading on November 10, 2026. This page shows where Montclair's current ordinance and the November 10 draft place us — measured against neighboring towns whose ordinances have been verified from primary text.
Levels reflect the combination of scaled replacement ratios, species-quality requirements, enforcement mechanisms (bond, Certificate of Occupancy hold), extraordinary-tree protections, and commercial/developer differentiation.
Four levels, and where Montclair sits
Replacement ratios & key provisions
Several towns, including Montclair’s November 10 draft, sort replacement trees into tiers. “T1” in the table below means Tier 1.
| Municipality | Method | 6–12″ | 13–23″ | 24–35″ | 36″+ | Fee-in-lieu | Bond | CO hold | Big-tree protection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montclair — current | Flat 1:1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | $250 | No | No | None |
| Montclair — Nov. 10 draft | Count by tier | 1 | 2 (≥1 T1) | 3 (mix T1/T2) | 4 (≥2 T1) | $450 | No | Yes* | 36″+ can be denied; clear-and-convincing standard for construction |
| Highland Park | Differentiated | 1/2 | 2/4 | 2/4 | 3/6 | $600–850 | Yes 1yr | N/A | Council vote required |
| Verona | Count by tier | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4† | $400 | Yes 1yr | N/A | Council approval for 36″+ |
| Madison | Count (highest) | 2 | 4–5 | 5–10 | DBH-equiv. | $400 | ? | ? | Written STMB notice |
| Westfield | Caliper + count | 1 | 2–3 | 4 | 5 | At cost | Yes 2yr | YES ✓ | Permit for all 8″+ |
| Princeton | Count by tier | 1 | 1–2 | 2–3 | 4 | $550–2,200 | ? | ? | Enforcement review |
| Glen Ridge | Count by tier | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | $450 | $100 escrow 2yr | ? | No specific standard |
| Summit | Flat 1:1 (12″+) | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | Market | ? | ? | Forester may deny |
| West Caldwell | Differentiated | 0.5 | 1–2 | 2–3 | 3–5 | $200 | No | No | 60% canopy cap (dev.) |
*The November 10, 2026 draft holds both the construction permit (until a tree permit is issued) and the Certificate of Occupancy (until replacement trees are planted or paid for), though a temporary CO can be issued in the meantime (§324-5G, §324-5K). † Verona designates trees 36″+ as “extraordinary”: removal is not prohibited but requires the Zoning Official's written recommendation and Township Council approval, with a duty to preserve where feasible.
Replacement ratios by tree size
How many trees each town requires for one removed, by the diameter of the tree taken down. Fully verified towns only.
| DBH removed | Mont. current | Mont. Nov. 10 | Highland Pk (res.) | Highland Pk (comm.) | Verona | Glen Ridge | Madison | Summit | Westfield | Princeton |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6–8″ | — | 1 | — | — | 1 | 1 | 2 | — | — | — |
| 8–12″ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 |
| 13–16″ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 17–19″ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 20–23″ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 24–30″ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 4–5 | 2 |
| 31–35″ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| 36–38″ | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 10+ | 1† | 5 | 3 |
| 39″+ | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 | DBH-eq. | 1† | 5 | 4 |
The November 10 draft requires at least one Tier 1 (large-canopy) tree at 13–23″ and at least two at 36″+; the 24–35″ row calls only for a “mix of Tier 1/2,” with no minimum. Size is measured to the whole inch, fractions dropped. † Summit is 1:1 for all 12″+ trees regardless of size — but Summit's forester may deny removal of a healthy Landmark or Specimen tree entirely.
What the November 10 draft includes
The provisions in the November 10 draft, with the New Jersey towns that do the same.
In the November 10 draft
The Trees onYour Property
A plain-language guide to Chapter 324 — the rules now in force, and what the draft approved on first reading on November 10, 2026 would change.
| WHAT WE HAVE NOWOrdinance of 2012 | THE NOV. 10 DRAFTApproved on first reading Nov. 10, 2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| Do I need a permit to remove my tree? | Yes — any tree 8″+ or 25 ft tall. One flat rule for all. | Yes, for trees 6″+ DBH. Small & invasive trees are exempt. |
| What if my tree is dead, sick, or hazardous? | Still need a permit, but the permit application fee is waived for trees verified as dead, diseased, or hazardous. | Still a permit. A Licensed Tree Expert and/or ISA-certified arborist certifies it in writing (with dated photos for a dead tree). Replace 1:1 (a Tier 1 tree with a Tier 1) or pay $450. |
| What's the permit fee?The fee to apply. | $15 per tree. | $100 for up to 2 trees, then $100 for each additional tree; $300 per Extraordinary tree. |
| What's the fee in lieu of replanting?Paid only if you don't replant. | $250 per tree to the Tree Fund. | $450 per required replacement tree — so $450 to $1,800 depending on size. Can be waived for an unplanned removal, with a sworn hardship statement. |
| Do I have to replant? | One replacement tree, or pay into the fund. | Yes — 1 to 4 trees by size (see schedule below), with Tier 1 minimums at 13–23″ and 36″+. |
| Tree you remove (DBH) | Trees you must plant | Fee if not planted |
|---|---|---|
| 6″–12″ · small | 1 tree — Tier 1 preferred | $450 |
| 13″–23″ · medium (or conifer 20 ft+) | 2 trees — at least 1 Tier 1 | $900 |
| 24″–35″ · Significant (or conifer 30 ft+) | 3 trees — a mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 | $1,350 |
| 36″+ · Extraordinary (or conifer 50 ft+) | 4 trees — at least 2 Tier 1 | $1,800 |
| Dead or hazard · any size | 1 tree — a Tier 1 for a Tier 1 | $450 |
All replacement trees are 2.5″ caliper minimum, planted within 12 months of removal. The fee is $450 per required tree, charged only for the trees you don't plant — so if you owe 4 and plant 2, you pay $900 for the other 2 — and is due within 30 days of the permit. The amounts above are the total if you plant none.
| What trees count as a replacement? | Any native or urban-suited species, 2–2.5″ caliper, off the Forester's list. | Nursery-grown stock from the Township list, 2.5″ caliper min., sorted into Tier 1 / Tier 2. The list must favor climate-tolerant species. |
| Can I plant a tree that's not on the list? | Replacements must be native or urban-suited species. The Forester publishes a suggested species list as a guide — you aren't strictly limited to that list. | The Arborist can approve an off-list native of equal or greater value than a listed Tier 1 or Tier 2 tree. |
| Where does my Tree Fund money go? | The ordinance directs it to replanting on public, school, and county property — not back to private lots. But no separately named Tree Replanting Fund appears in the 2025 Annual Financial Statement’s trust-fund schedules. | Payments go to the “Township Tree Fund,” but the draft never defines it or says what it can be spent on. |
| Are my biggest trees protected? | No special status for large or historic trees. | Extraordinary (36″+) can be denied; for construction, removal needs “clear and convincing evidence” certified by the Township Engineer. Significant (24–35″) must be granted, but in development must be saved through site design first. |
| Who decides, and on what basis? | The Township Forester, against arboriculture guidelines. | The Township Arborist (the Director of Sustainability if vacant). For 36″+ trees, 14 factors including heat island. The Planning Board for more than 5 trees, or 10+ in two years. |
| Is anyone checking the new trees live? | Plan must be done within a year. No survival check after. | Nursery receipt, photos and location within 10 business days of planting; the Arborist checks species and size. The owner sends a survival photo at 2 years. |
| For a new building, when must the trees be in?The Certificate of Occupancy is the sign-off that lets a finished building be used. | No link between tree replacement and the Certificate of Occupancy. | No final Certificate of Occupancy until replacement trees are planted or paid for. A temporary CO can be issued in the meantime. |
| For developers & large lots Where Montclair's biggest canopy losses happen — and where the draft defers the most. | ||
| Do developers replant at a higher rate? | No — same flat rules for everyone. | No — same 1/2/3/4 ratios apply to homes and commercial sites alike. |
| Is canopy protected when a site is cleared? | No development-specific tree rules. | Trees cut in the 2 years before an application are reviewed as if still standing; average and significant trees must be saved through site design first. No canopy density standard. |
|
A few terms, defined |
||
| Tier 1 tree | A large-maturing shade tree — oak, tulip poplar, linden, hackberry — that grows a wide, tall canopy and delivers the most shade, stormwater, and climate benefit. |
| Tier 2 tree | A smaller or ornamental tree — dogwood, redbud, serviceberry — approved for planting but with less canopy and ecological value than a Tier 1. |
| Native tree | A species that occurs naturally in New Jersey's ecosystem — adapted to the local climate and soils, and best at supporting local birds, insects, and wildlife. |
| Invasive tree | A non-native species that spreads aggressively and harms the local ecosystem, economy, or health. On the Township's prohibited list — and exempt from permitting. |
Removing a TreeWhat Actually Happens
Follow the arrows. Two questions set your track — whether you need a permit at all, and whether the tree is dead or hazardous — and the size of the tree sets both how hard it is to get approved and how much you replant.
Two terms to know: DBH (diameter at breast height) is the trunk’s diameter measured 4.5 feet above the ground, on the downhill side, to the whole inch — how tree size is measured here. Caliper is the trunk diameter of a young nursery tree, measured near its base — how replacement-tree size is specified.