By Kelly Cornelius
February 9, 2024
The City of Aiken has proposed destroying nearly half of the tree canopy at Smith Hazel Park, and they appear to be using the same formula that would apply to developers on a private project. Shouldn’t a public project in a city park in “Tree City” be held to a higher standard?
Imagine having $506 in the bank and heading out on the town in Aiken and spending $230 of that and still having $494 left in the bank! That’s the math formula City officials have used for the destruction of the Smith-Hazel trees. Let’s break it down.
The above document and its curious tree match were included in the agenda package for the Sept 11th 2023 Workshop for the Smith-Hazel plan.
According to the “Existing Conditions and Tree Replacement Calculations” document, above, the trees in the park total 506 inches of DBH or Diameter at Breast Height (393 +113 =506). The city proposes to destroy 230 inches (nearly half) leaving 276 inches, and here is where the city’s math gets sketchy, as it appears that they give themselves double credit for 247 of the 276 remaining inches simply because those remaining inches come from an “approved list” (see line B above).
The bottom line is by replacing ZERO trees they still give themselves a 494 inch tree-save credit, when they actually would destroy 230 inches.
Who in the city thought this tree math was appropriate? I’ll take Developer Math for 500 Alex. Surprisingly, this formula is actually in one of the city’s tree ordinances:
The cumulative caliper of replacement trees shall at least equal the cumulative DBH of the Grand and Significant Trees removed except that the DBH of any Grand or Significant Trees on the Approved Tree List saved or approved trees newly planted may count as double replacement inches under this provision.
As the citizens of Aiken fight to protect one of her greatest assets, the trees, this formula certainly deserves questioning. I called Cara Specht, pictured below, who is listed as an Urban Forester with the South Carolina Forestry Commission to see if she could help shed light on this math formula. She returned my call and was extremely helpful. She was one of the few professionals I have spoken with about who was willing to go on the record. She was not, however, familiar with the current formula being used.
She was also kind enough to send the forestry document listing the benefits of urban trees, and this one in particular should be reviewed by officials regarding the current plan to pave a significant portion of Smith-Hazel and put in a retention pond.
You can see the full document here and a link to their website here.
I also contacted Aaron Campbell, who is listed as the city’s Arborist/Horticulturist, via this form on the city’s website for an explanation of this formula and to see if this double credit formula is a standard practice and if the formula even has a name. At the time of this writing, he has not responded. A FOIA request has been submitted for “Any and all reports on the trees at Smith-Hazel Park from December 2022 -present from city arborist Aaron Campbell.”
This is not the first time citizens have questioned the city’s tree standards in recent months. From the 10/23/2023 minutes:
“Don Moniak stated it was admirable that the City of Aiken has a Tree Preservation Ordinance which dates back to 2005. The Tree Preservation Ordinance focuses on grand trees and not forest canopy. That is an unsustainable approach because large trees do get old and decay. As a result, they are labeled as nuisance trees or hazard trees, and they get cut down. If you don’t replace them, you end up with no forest at all. He suggested that at some time that Council revisit that ordinance. He also noted that the formula for determining how many trees stay is very confusing, and it does not resemble anything that is taught in any forestry school in America. He pointed out that forest canopy is what is really important because that is essential to any stormwater management process.”
While Aiken tree math is sketchy, one thing is becoming very clear, and that is that Aiken officials have some work to do when it comes to Aiken’s biggest assets, her trees. Citizens are calling for a public hearing for Smith-Hazel project. Process is important because what happens to one city-owned tree can happen to any of them. There appears to be no established process or specific protections to city-owned trees on public parcels over privately-owned trees. Recent mistakes resulting in the absolute butchering of the Farmer’s Market trees, and now a proposed leveling of 68 trees, have many of us wondering what could Tree City officials be thinking?
The need for a Tree Advisory Board as recommended by Tree City standards is becoming more and more apparent, as is the need for separate ordinances regarding city-owned trees vs developer ordinances for a private project.
