The current Tree Protection Bylaw specifically refers to “any Tree identified as a Significant Tree…” but “Significant Tree” is not defined anywhere.

The interim report on an Urban Forest Management Strategy notes that public and stakeholder workshops recommended that definitions of Protected Tree, Significant Tree and Heritage Tree be implemented.

Are there any trees in Port Moody currently included or specifically listed as Protected, Significant, or Heritage trees?,

The current Tree Protection Bylaw makes specific reference to “any Tree identified as a Significant Tree..” but

We need to continue to ensure and enshrine tree protections not just in the city, but around it as well. Too much development has been happening and is scheduled to happen, that will result in a further loss of our natural areas present in the city. I’d like to see harsher punishments for people tree-cutting, as well as an outright ban on new developments that would result in more trees being cut down for developments.

I would like to see the city follow its own rules, and evidence of that (the proposals should be made public including all the maps and data, eg the tree removal that is rampant along St John's - I would like to see the application that is supposed to have the details of the 2 for one replacement (and a time frame for that replacement - where are the trees replacing the ones cut months ago in front of the art centre for example?) , the map of the replacement trees, the map of environmentally sensitive areas and the trees within that. If there is no context given it means there is no thought given to the factor of trees and vegetation being part of a wildlife corridor, (as well as local ecosystem and habitats) which is a vital part of being an environmentally responsible city and studies in the early 1970's already brought this to light as important for sustainability of wildlife/ ecosystems.
Furthermore the city cuts indiscriminately a few times each summer along the verge on Ioco- and other areas- again important wildlife corridors, saplings grow here which can be harvested and replanted in more appropriate areas (at $0!) ; this vegetation keeps the noise and vehicular pollution down, absorbs the heavy rainfall, adds to the biodiversity and creates habitat and nesting materials for birds and small mammals that are also food for the raptors and other species. In addition, recent studies have shown that a whopping 40% of carbon sequestering is done by the humble vegetation of grasses, ground cover and small shrubs. So where is their protection?
In addition to tree protection, land should be covered with vegetation and this needs to be weighed against the invasive plant species removal- again there should be replacement steps put in place to prevent bare earth which leads to chronic top soil erosion- seen in many parks now (eg Bert Flynn) as more (and wider) trails are cut by cyclist groups. The soil is the basis for life , in addition to the trees being protected, the city needs to protect its soil.
The tree "thinning " and rampant chopping along a very wide corridor either side of the rail line simply weakened the supports that the trees provided for each other and resulted in more trees falling in storms after the chopping than if many had just been left, and also greater soil erosion. In a province famous around the world for its magnificent trees, their management is, and for many decades has, been shockingly fumbled- so please Port Moody, don't be part of that story .

As our planet comes closer to the point of no return, in those 9 different requirements for sustainable life identified eg. in Breaking Boundaries, so the urgency to increase biodiversity and support, sustain and protect what little we still have- becomes that much greater . The city should be doing everything it can to protect all its older trees on city land and putting legislation in place to protect the trees of significant age on private property especially in this trend of raze and rebuild. The architecture of new structures should be modified to accommodate the significant aged (or diameter) trees and they should have barriers placed around them to prevent damage from movement of vehicles during construction. That goes for big developers as well- these developments have a greater carbon foot print and therefore they have a greater responsibility to create a carbon -neutral effect. The 2: 1 ratio is a start but very short sighted as does not come close to the carbon sequestering equivalent of a large girth tree -The tree girth or diameter is the business end of the carbon sequestering capabilities in a tree.
In addition , the replacement trees ought to be endemic/ "native" with a view to the climate they will be weathering in 30-130 years or more, ie we should be considering the species endemic to Washington, Oregon and California, such as the carbon sequestering champion, the sequoia.

The city needs to create a multitude of micro forests in its parks and create new micro forested areas around development; become a Tree City of The World ; create vertical farms and stop taking its trees for granted. The city can take a lead role in making a stand for its trees . People love Port Moody for its topography, waters, and trees/ forests, so why are so many trees being cut?

As the mental health crisis goes unchecked, and people scramble for solutions, an obvious step to mitigate this (in addition to many other steps) is to increase the green spaces, plant more trees for a tree bathing experience and educate people, particularly the youth about nature, with a global view to help protect nature and increase its biodiversity (people protect what they care about) but also begin to address to what amounts to Nature Deficit Disorder in many of our youth and young adults.
Port Moody area is an important migration stopover for many birds and with fewer trees this amounts to the catastrophic habitat loss (although scattered) that the global north tends to highlight in the global south - eg palm oil vs /primates (which we see in concentrated areas) .. Many species require a mature or ancient tree as part of their life cycle, from the small hover flies, to the pileated woodpeckers and owl species, certain mycelia and others, so protecting these trees in our city should be paramount.
That should include splinting, staking, anchoring and guying vulnerable and wind blown trees rather than immediately going in to chop them.

And then the city just chips the wood? If the tree has to be removed, the wood needs to be harvested and either donated to tech ed at local schools or for programmes involving at risk youth, transition houses or for artists (we are the City of the Arts) . To just chip the wood is a devastating loss of natural resources and goes against the measures the province is taking to identify a hierarchy of value on the quality/ age of trees we have of all species.

What tree protection. The only protection is govt interfering in private property issues.

I resent interference with respect to private property We should have every right and without having to pay for a permit, to take down trees on our property. Developers come along and basically clear cut areas regardless of environmental issues.

Our bylaw needs to be updated for stronger protection for mature and large trees, especially conifers and evergreens where replanting 2 saplings for every 1 removed is not even close to equivalent. The 2:1 rule is not sufficient in the following areas: the carbon sink that was removed (now becoming a carbon output); production of healthy clean air: the root system that holds the soil together and prevents erosion; the shade coverage and albedo effect that reduces temperatures aka city island high effect that’s common in urban areas; wind and noise pollution blocks (especially important on busy streets like St. John’s); nesting and protection areas for birds; mature trees effect on hydrology and the water shed; emotional/mental health effects on humans when looking at a tree or greenery/being in nature that has now been proven to lower blood pressure and calm the nervous system… and probably a lot more that we have yet to study. Getting multiple opinions with arborists especially for trees on public land, would be more aligned with the scientific process. The bylaw could include special protection for significant trees, eg native or very large trees. As well, we need to better maintain the saplings that are being planted, especially along sidewalks where temperatures and water evaporation are higher, and soil quality is in poorer health because of the lack of leaf litter and other compost returning nutrients to the soil. Young trees are more sensitive and require more care, especially when they are planted alone, because most thrive in a forest setting with support of other plants/trees/mycelium. In urban settings and on boulevards, techniques like “planting guilds” that create mini urban forests could utilized as a way to recycle nutrients between the plants and they also mimic the layering of canopies that happens naturally in forests. I cannot stress enough that a 2:1 replanting is not equivalent for trees that were removed at Rocky point and on Glenayre for the new “Port Wood” development.
As well, for trees removed on private land, this shouldn’t be just the decision of the land owner, as these trees affect their neighbors and their community. I would want to be consulted if a tree was being taken down at my neighbors place because I also breath that air and find enjoyment with the birds that visit. Greater public & community input should be required for all the trees that are being taken down. Greater transparency in the plans so community members are not blind sided.

The existing bylaw appears pretty comprehensive, however, as Ms.Atkinson mentioned, some "slipping through the cracks" is evident. I suspect most damage is done during the construction of the new multi-family apartment blocks. The bylaw requires providing a map locating all trees proposed to be removed and a map identifying proposed replacement trees. Where those maps can be viewed by the public? Within what period of time? I would like to suggest posting such maps along the boards that announce proposed rezoning and announcing the new development.
Also, replacing a 50-year-old tree with 2 twigs seems to be completely inadequate. I would like to suggest the replacement of one tree with a number of trees that could within a year or two provide a comparable size canopy, one - two trees planted in the area where the old tree was removed, the remaining on nearby public land: a park or along the road.

I think the current requirements for the tree protection need to be strengthened as in your 30 plan. As some areas slip through the cracks as did the 56 80 foot mature conifers on Seaview Drive from the developers proposal and I worry about future soil dis-stabilization and future shifts in the water table . I am glad you are asking for public input on the Urbans forested areas of Port Moody and what we can do preserve as much these forests for the future. I wasn't able to access the survey and indicate which areas I feel are critical as the interactive component wasn't available and was time sensitive , and I would like an other opportunity to participate in that forum on the protection of the Urban Forest in Port Moody . Thank you.

If I have misread or misunderstood the bylaw and its application, I hope someone will be kind enough to explain my mistake.

From what I think I understand, the difficulty is not in the intent but in the implementation. Yes, we want to protect our green canopy... for all the reasons stated. However, when a wide range of areas are lumped under "environmentally sensitive areas" we end up imposing restrictions and requirements on situations that don't merit them. A number of single family residences back onto the many kilometers of trails in our city. (An example is Heritage Mountain). These homes back onto a forest...do we really intend that they have to keep trees in their back yards when there is a forest not 20 feet away? No permit is required to plant a tree on a residential lot (don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we do need a permit), but that means there is no sanity check on the number, species, placement, or mature size of the trees planted. How many people plant that smaill, cute tree in the corner of their yard where it grows to 30 feet and damages retaining walls, houses, sidewalks.... or becomes a hazard in winter storms. And if a homeowner removes such a tree from a portion of their backyard zoned "environmentally sensitive", the bylaw says this must be replace dit with *2*. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think we need to exempt single residential homes under a certain size which back onto forested areas from having to go through the tree removal process, even if a portion of the backyard is called "evironmentally sensitive".

From Peter (copied): Urban trees improve air quality, provide shade, and reduce heat island effects. Port moody should continue to preserve its urban forest, especially large, mature trees that provide the most benefit.

Absolutely. I'll add soil stabilization, soaking up excess water e.g. heavy rainfall, natural beauty, wildlife habitat.

Strive for native species. Don't allow a free-for-all ability to cut any amount or size of trees on private property. Current bylaw needs more teeth.

Replacing a large mature tree with two saplings is not a fair trade. Replacement trees should be in the same area as where removal took place.

We need our trees but some developments are necessary such as building more housing supply to meet the housing crisis in this region. We should only allow trees to be removed (and later replaced) if a development results in a definite social benefit. An example of this is replacing single family houses with multi-family housing. Inversely, if a development does not result in a net gain in housing (e.g. a renovation or a house rebuild), tree removal should be restricted.

If the removed tree is a non-native species, the replacement tree should be a native species.

Urban trees are essential to maintaining a healthy ecosystem for both animals and humans. We need more trees along Saint John's St, Murray St (particularly the north side that has been impacted by apartment building construction), as well as in main intersections and Suter Brook.
We need a stronger tree protection policy that prohibits anyone (private owner and city management), to remove trees regardless of the size.

I want to see the city help us protect our views. In my neighbourhood we neighbours have our trees pruned to protect the views of others, but the city has planted large cedars and oaks in their right of way and eventually these trees block sidewalks and views. At a minimum the city should do more pruning and windowing. Better still they should replace these trees with medium sized trees in this tight neighborhood. Remember, too, that views are now recognized in real estate value and the current approach is economically damaging. I would pay toward the cost of large trees in my sight lines being replaced with medium cultivars.

Urban trees improve air quality, provide shade, and reduce heat island effects. Port moody should continue to preserve its urban forest, especially large, mature trees that provide the most benefit.

In the British Columbia forest, the Pacific ocean and proximate US northwest, any undertaking by Port Moody has no significance.
The sun determines climate change on the whole.
Tax savings are the most significant thing that Port Moody can do