[CANUFNET] Removal of trees for replacement of water lines

[Kevin Pettersen]

Hi Ian and Linda

I wish the City of Calgary had the same viewpoint. 

Here's quick synopsis of the first hand experience I had about 1 1/2 
years ago which is perhaps similar to the frustration that Linda 
experienced. 

Even though the City of Calgary has a tree bylaw which theoretically 
protects trees on city property, I fought tooth and nail with the city 
of Calgary to try to save a 40 year old maple tree on city property that 
bordered our backyard (the city wanted to "upgrade" ~ 40 ft of  sewer 
line).  I even researched and provided the water and sewer division of 
the city with alternative commercial solutions for trenchless sewer 
repair (of which they said they were aware of, but that they'd be 
putting their city crews out of work if they used it).  Though I didn't 
actually chain my self to the tree, it ultimately resulted in the bylaw 
officer coming out (with an army of city sewer workes and the contractor 
ready with the chainsaws).  I argued that the city was actually 
violating its own tree protection bylaw.  In the end, the bylaw officer 
said bylaws are written for the citizens to follow and not the city to 
follow, and gave the go ahead to take the tree down.  Obviously, not a 
happy ending to the story, but underscores the huge gap that exists 
between the intention of valuing city trees and the reality of changing 
the mindset of the "old guard" in the city bureaucracy (where currently 
sewer and water depts appear to rule above all else).  In my opinion 
(and given my unfortunate experience in dealing with the City of 
Calgary), I think the tree appraisal is a good start to a solution that 
could help change things.   The people in the city I was dealing with 
kept referring to budgets and costs (none of which included any 
reference to the cost of the tree itself).  If city depts actually had 
to factor in true appraised value of the trees when deciding what 
methods to use to deal with their issues of upgrading and repair of 
infrastructure, I am certain we'd see a lot more creative solutions 
(since their costs would go through the roof ). 

Best regards,

Kevin
--

Kevin Pettersen, M.Sc., MFC
Vice President, Finance and Planning
*Tesera Systems Inc.*
250.564.0392 tel (direct)
250.564.0393 fax (direct)
866.698.8789 toll free
www.tesera.com <http://www.tesera.com>

Cochrane 	Prince George
1.866.698.8789 tel (toll free) 	1.866.698.8789 tel (toll free)
403.932.9395 fax 	250.564.0393 fax
Box 1078, Cochrane, AB, T4C 1B1 	Box 2130, Prince George, BC, V2N 2J6


This e-mail message is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and is confidential, subject to copyright and may be 
legally privileged. Any unauthorized review, use or disclosure is 
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete all copies of the e-mail together with any attachments.


Ian Wilson wrote:
> Linda,
>  
> I've had some similar experiences with engineering staff, utilities, 
> etc.  Among some of these professionals there seems to be a belief 
> that the tree is expendable and that it's a lot easier and cheaper to 
> remove the tree than to try to accomodate the tree.  I try to work 
> with these folks and educate them about the value of the tree(s) 
> (monetary and social) and the fact that they (and us) could get 
> heavily criticised by the public and by the politicians.  If that 
> doesn't work we also have a tree bylaw that says if you damage or 
> remove a publilc tree you have to pay "equitable compensation" based 
> upon the ISA tree appraisal formulae which can be significant.  I also 
> like to explain that the tree is another piece of public 
> infrastructure and they wouldn't do something to damage or undermine a 
> street light, so why do this to a tree?
>  
> Using this approach we've been able to get utility lines re-routed, 
> utilities tunneled under trees rather than trenched, sidewalks moved, 
> and even entire road profiles and curbs moved over.  Road engineers in 
> particular tend to really like straight linear designs but you can get 
> them to start thinking outside the box.
>  
> Ian Wilson
> City of Kelowna
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
>     [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] *On Behalf Of *Moskalyk,
>     Linda (IS - Parks)
>     *Sent:* Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:07 AM
>     *To:* 'canufnet at list.web.net'
>     *Subject:* [CANUFNET] Removal of trees for replacement of water lines
>
>     We recently had a valuable American elm removed from our boulevard
>     because the engineers (management) made a decision to replace a
>     hydrant and insisted the tree beside it would have to come down.
>     Our urban forestry people were told that they needed to excavate 4
>     feet on each side of the hydrant to replace it.  The tree was only
>     2 feet away.  We reluctantly removed the tree, and now there is an
>     uproar from the community.  As the tree was coming down some of
>     the enginneers (field workers this time) came along and said they
>     probably could have worked within that 2 foot area.  Its hard to
>     know who to believe.  Alternately, could the hydrant have been
>     capped off and the line rerouted to a new location?  We are
>     arbortists and don't know the options when it comes to sewer and
>     water.  We want to have the knowledge and ability to argue for
>     alternative methods that could potentially save the trees.   Is
>     there any good information or advice on the subject?
>      
>     Linda Moskalyk
>     Certified Arborist
>     Urban Forestry Section
>     Parks Dept.
>     City of Saskatoon
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20081128/525de9a7/attachment.htm>