District 34 Council Candidate - Dr. Terry Jo Bichell - Speaks for the Trees!
Dr. Terry Jo Bichell
District 34 Council Candidate
Nashville Tree Conservation Corps asked candidates running for Nashville’s 2019 election how they would solve some of our city’s most challenging tree canopy issues. See how they responded in the question and answer below!
Dr. Terry Jo Bichell Speaks for the Trees…
QUESTION #1
The Fort Negley clear-cutting and the NFL cherry-tree incidents illustrated something obvious: When it comes to the urban canopy, there is a breakdown of communication between the segments of Metro Government responsible for trees. The problem is that trees fall under the jurisdiction of many different departments (codes, stormwater, electrical, parks). What internal operational changes need to be made to better protect the existing canopy?
When our family first moved here 13 years ago, after having lived in San Diego and Chicago for 8 years, the intense green of Nashville was one of the most inviting things about the city. The number of trees and the expanses of green grass were startlingly beautiful. But, greenery is more than just beautification. Trees improve the public health, increase walkability, decrease water wastage, decrease energy use and decrease the carbon footprint of a city. Urban forestry is an integral part of creating a biophilic environment and, as a community, we must find a way to thoughtfully encourage tree planting and preservation.
In 2016, when the Fort Negley site was cleared of underbrush and hackberry trees, all parties, including Mayor Barry, the Metro Parks Director, the local councilman, and the Tree Task Force agreed that there was a lack of communication about the tree removal. At the root of this issue was a general misunderstanding of the intent of the 2007 Ft. Negley Visitors Center Design Plan, which sought to recreate the Civil War era view-shed, but should not have removed all of the trees and underbrush simultaneously.
In 2019, when the NFL draft organizers planned their downtown stage, there was a similar lack of notification up the chain of command concerning the proposed removal of cherry trees in preparation for the event. In the end, there were only 10 trees moved, and at this time point, all of them have survived, but the outcry over their removal may have contributed to the attention to their care that has allowed them to survive. In both of these instances, project personnel on the ground did not perceive the removal of trees to be a matter of enough import to notify their managers or the general public.
To prevent the inadvertent removal of trees in the future, their value must be measured, quantified, and recorded, and specific personnel must be tasked with protecting this renewable asset. To do this, we need a detailed survey of trees in Davidson county, akin to a census, which should be repeated every 5 years If the outcry about trees is ever to amount to meaningful change, we need to raise and allocate funds to record an inventory of the trees living in our boundaries and then allocate funds to pay staff urban foresters to maintain the inventory, and be involved in decisions to move, remove, plant and cultivate Nashville’s tree crop. These foresters should also be tasked with producing a regular briefing about any changes in tree inventory which will be sent to every level of the chain of command.
The urban foresters should have interdepartmental reporting responsibilities, because so many different areas impact trees, and the foresters should also be tasked with communicating with neighborhood groups and tree preservation organizations, to identify specific areas of concern. This sort of communication will allow community input into decisions about moving or removing trees, as well as areas that specifically need to be targeted for forestation. The fact that 200 additional cherry trees will be planted as a result of the “Nashville Cherry Gate” is a fantastic outcome from a bad situation, and a great example of how our city’s tree crop can be cultivated and expanded, even when it is necessary to move or remove trees in specific circumstances. An inventory and a responsible urban forestry staff can insure the success of our municipal crop.
In addition to a tree study and an increase in urban foresters with reporting responsibilities, I believe we need to fundamentally change the way we look at trees as a valued asset. We need to pursue an innovative new idea and become a model for tree preservation by creating a new carbon credit exchange based on trees, the Nashville Tree Exchange Market. As a city, we should move towards valuing trees as part of the carbon market by adapting the international carbon credit system to work on a municipal scale. Trees have value sequestering carbon emissions, and that value should be recognized and increased as in a carbon credit market.
QUESTION #2
Do you support the city’s first tree bill in over a decade (BL2018-1416) in its current form? If not, what changes do you want to see? Or should it be stronger and broader in scope? BL1416 impacts only commercial and multi-family land use types. Do you support enacting tree laws for single-family residential?
I support the tree bill as amended, and other ordinances which will encourage the planting and preservation of trees but I think that there are problems with the bill that will need to be corrected as soon as possible. Positive reinforcement is more efficient than punitive enforcement strategies, and any tree ordinance should be carefully reviewed to prevent reverse incentives that might encourage owners or developers not to plant trees. The ordinance under review (BL2018-1416) carries punitive requirements which might provide perverse incentives that could cause fewer trees to be planted in the city over time.
The requirements on density of trees are reasonable and vary by type of development and size of frontage, but the requirements are punitive, rather than incentivizing. By instituting a novel carbon credit system instead, whereby trees are given a market value that adds to the value of the property under development, as well as a minimum tree density requirement, landowners may be incentivized to retain or add trees, to add value to their property. In the current ordinance, builders are allowed to petition to get credit for retaining existing trees, but the value of those trees may not outweigh the value of buildability.
For example, in the current ordinance, older larger trees of the most desirable species are protected, which is an admirable goal. But, on land which could be subdivided at a later date, astute owners may decide to avoid planting trees which would grow to a size that would put them in a protected category and prevent buildability. This could cause fewer large trees to be planted on open land.
Also, in the current ordinance, the requirements of the landscape buffer may have unforeseen consequences. For example, a sidewalk was built in District 34 on Bellevue Rd, but in complying with the prior ordinance, many mature trees were removed and subsequently replaced by much smaller trees, many of which have not survived. If these requirements also included incentives to retain larger trees, and maintain and support newly planted trees, owners and developers, including Metro itself, may be more inclined to protect them.
And finally, in the current ordinance, owners who are improving more than 25% of a property will be required to comply with the minimum tree requirements. As with the new sidewalk ordinance, the new tree ordinance may actually discourage owners from renovating! Rather than comply with requirements for sidewalks and tree density, owners may simply move to another area or refrain from improving their property. If the sidewalks were planned, paid and constructed by the city, this would not be an issue. And if the trees themselves added value to their property through a carbon credit system like the Nashville Tree Exchange Market, property owners might consider adding trees at any time, and in fact other owners may request to add trees to lots which are not under construction as part of their own carbon credit swaps.
QUESTION #3
Atlanta, Charlotte and Austin all have laws protecting a class of trees they consider to be “heritage trees; property owners must get approval for cutting them down and pay into a tree bank to offset the loss of a large trees in their communities. We feel this sets a tone that makes people more aware and respectful of the urban tree canopy. Do you approve of such legislation?
Yes, I approve of legislation to protect large old trees, and I approve of ideas such as a tree bank, but I think we must be careful not to cause reverse incentives. In the new tree ordinance, is the punishment for non-compliance enough? Are there appropriate fines and fees? Are there sufficient resources to collect and enforce those fines and fees? And, would these monies be directed directly toward efforts to plant and preserve trees?
The tree ordinance would be strengthened by an appropriate and enforceable fee structure, but we also need to encourage tree planting in a positive way. By assigning value to trees based on the amount of carbon they sequester, much as the international Carbon Offset Market has done, and by creating an exchange market, we can incentivize new tree plantings.
By punishing the removal of large trees, without incentivizing the planting of trees that will someday become heritage trees, we may cause owners to avoid planting trees that they may not be able to remove at a later date. For example, if I plant an oak tree on my side yard today, it may be large enough to be a protected tree by the time my grandchildren are old enough to inherit my property. But, my grandchildren would be prohibited from building their own homes in the very spot I had saved for them, if I planted trees there now!! On the other hand, in a system like the Nashville Tree Exchange Market, those future heritage trees would be an investment in future generations not only in terms of the intrinsic value of the property itself but also in the general quality of life of the community as a whole.
How could we do this as a city? By quantifying the carbon credit value of our trees, setting a starting value for an “average tree,” and serving as a public carbon offset company, we could set the local market in motion. One carbon credit is equal to one metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions and the international carbon market is based on this valuation, allowing market mechanisms to incentivize carbon capture and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Just as it is already done internationally to incentivize tree planting in developing nations, we can create a local carbon credit system to encourage tree planting and preservation, rather than simply punishing tree removal by withholding building permits.
QUESTION #4
TREES ATLANTA is considered by many to be the model for a public/private cooperative that works to protect urban tree canopy. TREES ATLANTA employees even help the city as on-site inspectors who follow up to make sure developers have complied with tree ordinances. What do you think of this model, or what would you do to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of Nashville’s tree code?
I think that TREES ATLANTA is impressive and a great model for Nashville. TREES ATLANTA saves money for the city and fast-tracks tree preservation and reforestation efforts. Because we haven’t done a tree study in a decade, we don’t know exactly how many trees we have lost, but the amount of development and obvious tree-free lots makes it seem likely that we have a lower percentage of tree canopy than we have had in the past. Whatever tree ordinance we pass in Nashville, we need all the help we can get to count existing trees, plant more trees, and encourage tree preservation. A public-private partnership like TREES ATLANTA would increase awareness and public buy-in into the tree preservation effort and would be a win-win all around.
QUESTION #5
How could we entice private property owners not to cut down mature trees? How can we encourage developers/builders to keep mature trees in the designing of the home and lot?
To encourage the retention of mature trees, we can set up a carbon credit system, the Nashville Tree Exchange Market. Each time land changes hands in Davidson county, the current new tree ordinance requires landowners to produce and record a tree survey identifying the numbers, sizes and types of trees. This same requirement would be necessary for the Nashville Tree Exchange Market. In addition, properties could voluntarily opt into the tree credit program by recording tree surveys at any time to establish the value of their trees. Existing trees would be assigned a carbon credit value based on their biomass and age. Older, larger trees have more biomass and store more carbon than younger smaller trees and so would have more value in a carbon credit system, incentivizing retention. Older, larger trees could even be given extra carbon credits, recognizing their importance and increasing their value in the eyes of developers.
An acre with large trees would have the value of the trees added as part of the purchase price of the property, and an acre without trees would be worth less in tree credits than a forested acre. Property owners who wish to offset their own carbon expenditures could plant trees on other acreage, or on public land. Tree credits could be therefore be bought, sold and recorded through this system, just as land itself is bought and sold on the open market.
It would be possible to administer the Nashville Tree Exchange Market as a private-public partnership, through collaboration with a non-profit agency that already works in the carbon offset values of trees, or an organization based on the model of TREES ATLANTA.
QUESTION #6
Metro Nashville has just 3 employees to oversee all of Davidson County trees, while other peer cities with less tree canopy coverage have 15 to 20 employees on staff for trees. As a result, the Nashville Tree Conservation Corps has cataloged countless incidents where developers eluded complying with tree codes, the city has hundreds of hazardous trees that need to be replaced, and staff have trouble keeping up with just their everyday responsibilities. Do you support spending the money to bring us up to a par with our peer cities? If not, how will you fix this issue?
There was a huge outcry over the cherry trees that were to be removed for the NFL draft. But, that outcry is meaningless unless the citizens of Nashville support the raising and allocating of funds to hire enough urban foresters to actually enforce our tree preservation codes and preserve our publicly and privately owned trees and forests. These foresters should also be tasked to work with the community to protect mature trees by maintaining their health, and by overseeing the authorization of permits to remove dangerous or damaged trees. Yes, I am absolutely supportive of efforts to increase the number of employees to increase the Nashville tree canopy, either directly in the city budget, or through public-private partnerships.
BONUS QUESTION FOR COUNCIL CANDIDATES
QUESTION #7
How will you work to bridge the divisions we often experience when talking about advancing tree legislation in Nashville between the community-builder dynamic? How can we advance Nashville’s livability standards while avoiding the risk of State preemption?
I have experience leading an alliance of competing firms, academics and patients seeking to find treatments for a rare neurological disorder. By identifying the goals that all parties agree on, we were able to find ways to work together to achieve them. My skill as a collaborator and consensus-builder will help me guide the stakeholders to mutually beneficial agreements which will protect and advance tree legislation.
All the good ideas in the world are useless unless they are implemented. A carbon exchange market for trees would create a relationship between conservation and development that balances out goals of both groups of stakeholders, but the Nashville Tree Exchange Market may be an idea ahead of its time. I am a scientist, and I believe that objectivity, facts and evidence-based policy are the routes to success. But, more importantly, I am a listener. I know that it is often better to take a consensus-building route to a goal than to force an idea through without support from all stakeholders.