[CANUFNET] Tree By-law cash-in-lieu funds

[Astrid Nielsen]

Dear Debra,

I was at a meeting just yesterday with many stakeholders and City of Ottawa
staff regarding some upcoming changes to their existing tree by-laws. They
were looking for public input on many improvements they are planning to
make, compensating being one of them. They are in the process of exploring
the best approach to assessing compensation for lost trees, and I can
assure you that assessing trees for their "lumber value" is not one of
them. In fact, one of the stakeholders asked this question directly at the
meeting, and the response by City staff was an unequivocal no.

I have had the pleasure of meeting many municipal staff working in forestry
across Ontario, and Canada, and every single one understands very well the
numerous benefits that trees provide to us. In their jobs, they advocate
for trees tirelessly on a regular basis to other municipal staff,
councillors, public, developers, contractors, etc. They are not the ones
that need to be educated on how important trees are in our cities.

The question of how much compensation is not an easy one. Although we
believe that the monetary value of a tree may be quite high, it must be
balanced with the practical. If compensation is too high, infractions may
become a more tempting option. In the by-law world, an infraction is
considered a failure, not a success. The ideal compensation value for
private trees should be one that is: realistic for those that are removing
trees; sufficient to replace the lost canopy (over the long term); and high
enough to act as an incentive for tree retention.

Astrid
__________________________________________
*Astrid Nielsen, *MFC
Ontario Registered Professional Forester
ISA Certified Arborist®

astrid.nielsen at dendronforestry.ca
+1.613.805.WOOD (9663)

www.dendronforestry <http://www.dendronforestry.ca>


On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:33 PM Debra Huron via CANUFNET <
canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:

> Good afternoon,
>
> I feel that many of our cities may be shortchanging their coffers, and
> failing to fully capture the value of trees by focusing on the kinds of
> nuts and bolts things that Eric has mentioned, such as <<the cost of the
> tree and associated materials (staked, mulch etc..) on for installation on
> public lands.  I don’t believe the funds cover labour costs, or any
> maintenance of trees.>>
>
> In Ottawa, I learned that the city may be defining the value of a
> destroyed tree on private property based on its "lumber value." This is
> almost laughable since it is unlikely that anyone will be using the tree
> for lumber, and because, during a time of climate crisis, staff in urban
> centres across Canada surely must know that the value of trees must
> include some or all of the following factors. (The example below refers to
> "street trees" but provides a model that could be amended for trees on
> private property.) Source:
> https://treenet.org/resources/the-economic-value-of-trees-in-urban-areas-estimating-the-benefits-of-adelaides-street-trees/
>
> The core benefits street trees provide can be captured as follows:
>
> B = E+A+C+H+P+F
>
> Where
>
>    - B = street tree annual benefits
>    - E = annual price of energy savings (cooling and heating);
>    - Q = annual price of air quality improvement( pollutant uptake and
>    avoided power plant emissions);
>    - C = annual price of carbon dioxide reductions;
>    - H = annual price of stormwater runoff reductions;
>    - P = annual price of property value and related benefits;
>    - F = annual savings for reductions in repaving streets.
>    - A suggested formula for estimating annual costs is:
>    - C = M+T+R+D+I+S+L+A
>
> The article cited above describes in greater detail what "C" constitutes.
>
> May I urge staff in Canadian cities to develop "in lieu" policies that
> assess *costs *based on the *benefits* lost when trees, especially big
> trees, are taken out of the urban canopy?
>
> Every city in the country is facing infrastructure decline and a heavier
> load on infrastructure due to climate crisis. Those who choose  destroy
> trees (after duly gaining a permit to do so from their municipality) need
> to pay for MANY MORE of the costs involved in that destruction.
>
> May I share something I learned yesterday? In the ward where I live just
> west of downtown Ottawa, intensification has created many flat-roofed
> residences that allow NO rainwater to reach the ground.  Intensification
> mandates that two "shoebox" house can be built on a lot where previously
> only one house (often a bungalow) existed. Clearcutting of trees on the
> property is the first order of business when a builder acquires such a
> property.  The flat roofs on these houses are equipped with pipes that
> funnel all rainwater directly into the city's stormwater sewers.  Because
> the combined footprint of the buildings is so large, there is essentially
> no room for trees on the finished property. Ottawa as a municipality is
> gaining extra tax revenue thanks to the high sq. footage of each property
> and it's a good thing this is so, because the burden these shoeboxes put on
> the stormsewers is likely to cost the city tremendously over time.  Trees
> that were destroyed so the shoeboxes could be built, and the lack of space
> to plant new trees of any size (shrubs are the norm, as are rock
> gardens and astroturf), mean that the mitigating role they can play in
> sucking up rainwater no longer figures into the equation.  This is surely a
> cost that the municipality bears going forward. It's a cost that I urge
> municipalities to include when determining what it costs to do business
> after the clear cutting is over, and when permeable surfaces are destroyed
> due to planning policies such as intensification.
>
> best wishes, Debra
>
>
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
>
> *Debra Isabel Huron*
> *Here I am...*
> *living on unceded*
> *Algonquin territory *
> *living with the reality*
> *of climate crisis*
> *living with rivers & trees*
> *& sun & lakes & birds*
> *Phone: 613 859-8049 *
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
>
>
>
>
> -------------------
>
> City of Courtenay implements the same way (same $300 security (or
> deposit), same 1 year re-planting date requirement) with a provision in our
> Tre Bylaw that if no planting occurs by one year post permit issuance that
> the City can deposit the security funds into the reserve fund.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Wilde [mailto:eric.wilde at esquimalt.ca]
> *Sent:* June-25-19 10:16 AM
> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
> *Cc:* Gothard, Nancy; 'timea.filer at guelph.ca'
> *Subject:* RE: Tree By-law cash-in-lieu funds
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> When trees are removed from private property in Esquimalt we collect a
> $300 ‘deposit’ (per replacement tree) from the residents as a way to ensure
> replacement trees are put back onto private properties.
>
> If they plant an appropriate tree species back on their property, and have
> kept the tree alive for a period of 1 year, they get the deposit returned.
>
> If they elect not to plant on their property, then the Parks Dept. keeps
> their deposit(s) and uses that money to plant/replace boulevard trees in
> the public realm.
>
>
>
> For example, if the homeowner needs to replant 3 replacement trees at $300
> each, …….. but can only fit 1 replacement tree in their yard. Then out of a
> $900 deposit we would return $300 to the home owner, and keep $600 for use
> in the public realm.
>
>
>
> Generally, the funds collected are used primarily for the cost of the tree
> and associated materials (staked, mulch etc..) on for installation on
> public lands.
>
> I don’t believe the funds cover labour costs, or any maintenance of trees.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> *Eric Wilde*
> Arborist II
> Township of Esquimalt | Parks Services
> Tel: 1-250-412-8527 |  www.esquimalt.ca
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Esquimalt Website] <http://www.esquimalt.ca>
>
> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/TownshipofEsquimalt/>
>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/esquimaltbc>
>
> [image: YouTube] <https://www.youtube.com/user/TownshipofEsquimalt>
>
>
>
> This message is intended only for the designated recipients and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> acting on their behalf, please notify the sender immediately and delete
> this e-mail from your system. Please consider the environment before
> printing this email.
>
> *From:* CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] *On Behalf Of *Gothard,
> Nancy via CANUFNET
> *Sent:* June-21-19 3:34 PM
> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
> *Cc:* Gothard, Nancy
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] Tree By-law cash-in-lieu funds
>
>
>
> The City of Courtenay on Vancouver Island would also be very interested in
> this info! Our fund is relatively recent so it hasn’t grown yet and we have
> not yet created a program around it.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Nancy Gothard **MCIP, RPP*
>
> *Policy Planner, City of Courtenay*
>
>
>
> Tel. 250 703 4831, ngothard at courtenay.ca
>
> General planning inquiries may also be sent to: planning at courtenay.ca
>
>
>
> City Hall general number: 250 334 4441
>
> 830 Cliffe Ave | Courtenay, B.C. | V9N 2J7
>
> www.courtenay.ca
>
> P *Please consider the environment before printing this email*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>] *On Behalf Of *Timea Filer via CANUFNET
> *Sent:* June-21-19 11:20 AM
> *To:* 'canufnet at list.web.net'
> *Cc:* Timea Filer
> *Subject:* [CANUFNET] Tree By-law cash-in-lieu funds
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The City of Guelph is currently reviewing the options for the use of
> cash-in-lieu funds collected as compensation for tree removals under the
> Private Tree By-law. I would be interested to know how other municipalities
> use the funds. For example, are the funds used for both private and public
> land, are the funds restricted to purchase of trees only or for restoration
> / naturalization projects which include all types of vegetation, and are
> funds also used for the establishment and maintenance costs associated with
> planting trees and / or other vegetation (e.g., labour, material,
> equipment)?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Timea
>
>
>
> *Timea Filer, R.P.F. *| Urban Forestry Field Technologist
> Parks and Recreation, *Public Services*
>
>
>
> *City of Guelph*
> T 519-822-1260 x 3352 | F 519-821-0839
> E timea.filer at guelph.ca
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail communication may be confidential and legally privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by return e-mail and
> delete this communication and attachment, and any copy, immediately. Thank
> you.
>
>   ­­
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This e-mail communication may be confidential and legally privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by return e-mail and
> delete this communication and attachment, and any copy, immediately. Thank
> you.
>   ­­
>
> *Attachments:*
>
>    - image001.jpg
>    - image002.jpg
>    - image003.jpg
>    - image004.jpg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20190625/0c5070ab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20190625/0c5070ab/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20190625/0c5070ab/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11569 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20190625/0c5070ab/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11535 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20190625/0c5070ab/attachment-0007.jpg>