City Responds to Public Outcry–Won’t Cut Trees–for Now
I just spoke with Cora Wright, and she confirmed that PARD will be meeting with Don Gardner next week. In addition, Ms. Wright will also make the recommendation that a public hearing be held prior to removal. It is my understanding that these trees have been monitored for months, with significant deterioration being identified with one of the trees that constitutes a hazard. The other tree will undergo canopy reduction, and will continue to be monitored.
We appreciate the concern for these trees, and we also appreciate the diligent work of our city arborist department and urban foresters, as well as Ms. Wright at PARD for their thoughtful attention to this matter. I will follow up as additional information on the hearing becomes available.
Best,
Shannon
Shannon Halley
Policy Aide
Office of City Council Member Kathie Tovo
512-974-2236 fax: 512-974-1888
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/tovo.htm
The two trees are tagged for cutting by the City of Austin.
Download the 98-page 2009 Davey Report on Trees at Barton Springs Pool. The deaths of many of the trees reported on by this out-of-state tree removal company were greatly exaggerated.
Two Heritage Trees Slated for Cutting!!
PARD has obtained a permit to remove the large pecan #18 by the SW corner of the BSP bath house, approved 9.2.11 , and a second permit to prune 40% of the canopy of the tree next to it, #19. Both of these permits, approved by the City Arborist office, are to address safety issues to the public that according to PARD can’t be addressed in any other manner. (See permits pasted below.)
Please, email Mayor Leffingwell, city council, Sara Hensley, other PARD upper management, the BSP Joint Committee and other boards (see email addresses below) as soon as possible and ask that these 2 trees not be removed, or pruned significantly, until an independent tree inspection is done by Don Gardner. Please, ask that this issue be discussed at the next BSP Joint committee. These trees may be removed as soon as tomorrow, or on Thursday when the pool is closed!
lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us, Kathie.Tovo@ci.austin.tx.us, mike.martinez@ci.austin.tx.us, sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us, bill.spelman@ci.austin.tx.us, chris.riley@ci.austin.tx.us, Laura.morrison@ci.austin.tx.us, Sara.Hensley@ci.austin.tx.us, kelly.snook@ci.austin.tx.us, Kimberly.McNeeley@ci.austin.tx.us, Cora.Wright@ci.austin.tx.us, Charles.Vaclavik@ci.austin.tx.us, Tom.Nelson@ci.austin.tx.us, Gary.Gregson@ci.austin.tx.us, Walter.Passmore@ci.austin.tx.us, Michael.Embesi@ci.austin.tx.us, shannon.halley@austintexas.gov, barbara.rush@ci.austin.tx.us, andrew.moore@ci.austin.tx.us, Robert.Levinski@austintexas.gov, heidi.gerbracht@ci.austin.tx.us, marc.ott@ci.austin.tx.us, Bert.lumbreras@ci.austin.tx.us, marygaymaxwell@sbcglobal.net, jennifermwalker@earthlink.net, lhg@grandecom.net, clee.parks@gmail.com, jerry.perales@gmail.com, maryannneely@me.com, pbrewer@bartlett.com, tdhayes3@gmail.com, wildewoode@yahoo.com, maceostudios@aol.com, nclassen@austin.rr.com, whabell@gmail.com, janehrivera@austin.rr.com, jfrancell@tnc.org, lynn.osgood@mail.utexas.edu,
Pasted below is what Don Gardner, consulting arborist, said about these 2 trees in 2009. I’m attaching his report (tree #18 included there) and his 06.16.09 letter after doing some root excavations (tree #19 included there):
- “#18 Pecan, NW bathhouse, risk rating not high enough for removal, no obvious structural flaws. Monitor. (provide) Tree health care.”
- “#19 Pecan, no evidence of decay in the lower trunk, root crown or roots. Needs care but not removing.”
These 2 trees were part of the 28 trees targeted for removal in 2009. Tree #18 is the large pecan that lost a large branch in July (see picture attached). When the branch fell down, AHTF obtained permission from PARD-Tom Nelson to water the trees by the bath house, following city water conservation guidelines. Since we started watering, no branches have fallen off and the trees look fine. As a side note, a large branch fell off a pecan by the Tree Court entrance to the pool in September, and that was because we hadn’t been watering the tree court due to the high traffic in that area. Once that occurred, AHTF watered the tree court every 3 weeks, and again, not a single branch has fallen since then.
These branches fell off because the trees were not getting any water in a time of severe drought. How can mature trees do well without any water in a time of severe drought that has lasted several years? Even established native trees need a little supplemental water in times of severe drought. In addition, the soil where these trees are is very compacted. A team that met on site in January agreed to soil aerate these trees. This team included Walter Passmore, forestry Manager (Tom Nelson, Gary Gregson, APF Charlie McCabe, and Zoila also attended). However, it took several weeks for APF to get permission from Forestry to do the soil aerations, and finally the aerations were delayed until fall due to the need to water the dripline for a year after this process. However, now due to the lack of water, all soil aerations have been put on hold by PARD.
Regardless of not having received the soil aerations, these trees have been doing well with regular watering. They have responded well and the canopies look fine. We (AHTF) are observant of the leaves, branches and canopy, and we water the trees when we see the need for water, about every 3 weeks now. We have spent many volunteer hours watering and caring for these trees.
The tree removal permit was obtained with a letter from Sara Hensley to the mayor and city council dated 08.02.11, based on the branch failure “compromising the tree’s structural integrity and balance”. It also asks for a permit to remove, or prune significantly, the tree next to #18, because based on the Davey’s Tree Report of 2009, removing tree #18 would necessitate removal or significant pruning of tree #19. The letter states that “both trees are a public safety hazard, and that no other treatment option is available to mitigate the public danger”.
I, [Zoila Marchena Vega, director of the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation] strongly disagree with this. This is the same situation we went through in 2009. The large branch fell off from tree #18 due to lack of watering and lack of maintenance that was promised 2 years ago by Forestry and never happened. These BSP heritage trees, even though they are irreplaceable, never get supplemental watering, except for the ones that AHTF has been providing. These trees also never get any care, not even adding compost or mulch. The extent of the care they received from Forestry is minor pruning in 2010. The AHTF has been mulching the BSP trees, a few at a time, trying to raise money, or find ways to get mulch and compost, without any support from Forestry, other than allowing us to do it.
Back in 2009, it became very evident to the community that the Davey’s report was faulty and highly inaccurate. Many certified arborists with good reputations stated that the Davey’s report was wrong. The scans shown are from an unreliable technology. The conclusions are not based on data, but are subjective. The city spent $57,000 on a faulty report to justify the removal of the 28 trees. Now, the same report is being used to justify the removal of these 2 trees that were in the list!
The City’s arborist office approved the removal of tree #18 based on the report submitted by Forestry. I hope that they did their own inspection. But I’m surprised and disappointed that the City Arborist did not tell the community. The permit for tree #19 is for 40% green canopy removal. The maximum canopy removal per year is 30%. Not much will be left of this tree when 40% of the canopy is removed.
A year ago, the Joint Committee asked PARD and Forestry to notify them before any BSP tree removal due to the controversy of 2009, where the community was outraged at the proposal to remove the 28 trees based on the Davey’s report. I’m assuming that the Joint Committee didn’t know since this tree removal was not discussed at the last Joint Committee meeting. AHTF adopted these BSP trees in 2010 and we have been watering them regularly since July, but we didn’t get notified of this removal. This is highly unacceptable and very disrespectful of volunteers, partners, and the community!
I was just looking at tree #18, and I don’t see the safety issue. This tree is not even showing signs of stress from the drought (since we have been watering it). Remember the way to calculate safety risk depends on 3 factors, one of them being the target. The risk can be reduced by removing the target, or pruning the tree so that if the branch falls down, it doesn’t hit anyone. The branches left of this tree are mostly over the soil island where the trees are. The long term plan is to soil aerate these trees and enclose the area with a fence, so people won’t be under the tree. This eliminates the safety issue. In addition, the traffic can be rerouted to the outer path, further eliminating any safety issue. There are other ways to reduce the safety risk of these trees than removing them or pruning them drastically! First of all, it should be recognized that the branches fell off due to lack of water, since no branches have fallen since the trees have been watered.
It’s almost like going back in time. Being a partner with PARD since 2010 for caring of these very same trees, I can’t believe that PARD would remove these 2 trees that mean so much to the community without letting us know, without letting us ask an independent arborist, all based on the opinion of the same Forestry department that wanted to remove these trees 2 years ago, and that has not provided any care for them since then (other than minor pruning).
This issue also seems to ignore the heritage tree ordinance, where if a 30 inch tree is to be pruned more than 30%, then the permit has to go through a public process. We discussed another instance of a case like this, a BSP tree, where in 2010 Forestry obtained an approved administrative permit to prune a 32 inch cottonwood by Eliza Springs more than 30%. The Urban Forestry board asked the City Arborist to correct this situation. I recall that it was agreed that cases like this have to go to the public process.
In addition, another tree, also among the list of the 28 trees list, was removed with a tree permit approved by the City Arborist last January. This was the 18 inch pecan tree in the south hill, behind the cottonwoods by the diving board. It was called the co-dependent tree, that was leaning on another pecan. This tree had “heaved”, meaning that the roots have given up on one side and allowed the tree to lean due to lack of support on the opposite side. This was reviewed by Don Gardner, during an on site visit for other reasons, who agreed that the tree was leaning more and needed to be removed. The removal of this tree is OK. However there are two problems. First, again the community and Joint Committee were NOT notified (to the extent of my knowledge), and second, the 18-20 inch pecan tree that this tree was leaning on was also removed. I have pictures of the other tree showing that it was in good health and of good shape. I didn’t notice that both trees were missing until the on site visit in August. Forestry said that the second tree was removed because “the tree had fallen”. I’m having a hard time believing this because the second tree was a healthy tree. I think that the wrong tree was removed. The permit was only for the leaning tree, not the healthy one that the tree was leaning on. The result is that the area is now bare of trees. Two young trees were planted in the area, again without consulting the community or Joint Committee (who has requested that nothing be planted in BSP without public review), but both young trees died in summer due to the drought and lack of watering. In addition, the invasives (ligustrums) were removed by the fence, so the entire area is a bare desert now, bare soil, no trees, other than the cotton woods, which are most likely next in the target list.
The proposed Forestry BSP Tree maintenance plan does NOT include applying compost or mulch to the 2 cottonwoods, or the elm up in the south hill because these trees are considered to be beyond saving by Forestry. The Forestry tree maintenance plan also does NOT include 3 large pecans in the north hill because they are in a slope that is “too steep” to hold mulch. However, this slope is not as steep as the south hill’s, and the Forestry plan is to mulch most of the south hill trees, regardless of the steeper slope.
The trees outside the north fence need care, they need commitment, and they need water. It is NOT OK to deprive heritage trees of water in a time of severe drought, to NOT give the trees outside the fence yearly compost and mulch, and then remove them when branches fall off. These are the trees that have extreme soil compaction. It’s because of this lack of care that the trees become safety issues! These are majestic trees that are very important to the entire community, these are the trees that motivated the BSP Master Plan, these are the trees that have a large amount of money allotted for their care. Why are they being removed? Why is the community not being notified of their impending removal? This is NOT acceptable. I thought we had worked painfully through these issues in 2009. Isn’t PARD supposed to be working with the community?
Is this Forestry’s idea of tree care, to deprive mature trees of water and mulch when they need it the most, while concentrating all efforts into mulching the trees inside the pool fence where the trees are doing well, except for the 2 cotton woods and the other few that will not get any mulch because they are not that well? But, that is exactly when trees need mulch the most, when they are not doing well.
Friday, Last Day for Public Comments on BSP Tree Care Plan
This is from Zoila Vega-Marchena of the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation.
Please, support the recommendation from AHTF for the Forestry BSP Tree Maintenance Plan, pasted below, by emailing Gary.Gregson@austintexas.gov and bspmasterplan@austintexas.gov. The deadline is today Friday 21st .
Don Garner and Patrick Brewer (Bartlett trees) agree with us that the trees in the south hill don’t need to be mulched, compost will do. Compost will allow people to lay down, sit down, use the area, while mulch won’t. I know that we ask people to mulch their trees all the time, and this request sounds strange. Mulch is good, but it is not the right thing for the south hill. Mulch as medium size pieces of wood that make it hard to lay down or sit on it. It will get spread out all over the south hill, washed out down the hill. It will be a mess, and it’s not needed by the trees.
Please, support us with this. The trees will get compacted by the 150 volunteers entering the south hill to do this work in 4 hrs. The south hill’s grass and soil will get eroded, unless done very carefully. Forestry staff needs to do this work instead of volunteers, to spread compost on these trees. There is no need to mulch and no need to have 150 volunteers entering the south hill area. The 150 volunteers could mulch the many heritage trees outside the fence by the playground, theater, etc.
The work planned outside the fence for Arbor Day is OK, except that it would be better if 1 inch of compost (not 0.5 inch) was applied and the mulch was spread 3 inches deep (not 4 inches deep). The work planned for the north hill is OK with some recommendations listed below.
Thanks!
Joint Committe Rolls Back Plans to Move Gate
At the Oct 17 meeting on site at Barton Springs Pool the Joint Committee (Parks, Forestry, Environmental boards) responded to public input and reversed their previous decision to move the South entry to the East side and to expand the parking lot to the south, paving it (with pervious or impervious material TBD) and increasing the size by about 40 spaces. This brings the plans for renovations of the south side back to 30% approval. Public input proposed alternatives to those drawn by landscape architect Brian Larson for the path leading from the existing entry to the pool that will be considered.
Open House – Salamander Conservation Measures
[ October 18, 2011; 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. ] The first draft of the new conservation measures to be included in the new City of Austin Habitat Conservation Plan for the Barton Springs Salamander and the Austin Blind Salamander have just been posted on the City’s webpage:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/salamander_guidelines.htm
You can review the draft measures on our website, which describe how the City will manage salamander habitat and mitigate for harm to the salamander. Please send us your feedback or questions to salamander@austintexas.gov. It’s critical that we have the first draft of the Habitat Conservation Plan completed and ready to submit to the US Fish and Wildlife Service by January 2012 to have the permit renewed in time and keep Barton Springs open for swimming.
Please visit our website to learn more about the process for renewing the City’s federal endangered species permit.
Also please mark your calendars and join us at Barton Springs in the Splash Exhibit from 5-8 pm on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, for a free open house. Interact with City staff and learn about the conservation activities the City is planning for the next 20 years.
If you have any questions or comments, please email us at salamander@austintexas.gov
Sincerely,
Chris Herrington, PE
City of Austin
Watershed Protection Department
__._,_.___
Austin Heritage Tree Foundation – Twice Snubbed by City of Austin
It’s politics as usual, with PARD giving preferential treatment to TreeFolks, The Austin Parks Foundation and FBSP, which are taking the glory and excluding the rest of us who really care about the pool. The Austin Heritage Tree Foundation has adopted and is caring for all the trees at the pool and they are being unfairly ignored by the City of Austin. See these two notes from the founder of AHTF.
Sara,
Please, help me out with this issue. My foundation, the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation, partnered with PARD in 2010, adopting all of the trees at Zilker and BSP since then, to apply compost, mulch and water them. My adopt-a-park agreement was renewed this year. I feel like in spite of us being the main stakeholders for these trees, and us having worked very hard to mulch and water these trees, we are being pushed aside by PARD and other partners, with no courtesy, and this needs to be corrected.
Please, hear me out. A proposed Forestry BSP maintenance plan (by Emily King) was released today, proposing applying compost and mulch to many of these trees. There is a proposal to hold 3 large volunteer events to do this starting with Arbor Day in October. This is exactly what the AHTF task is (except that AHTF still needs to mulch many other trees around BSP that aren’t included in the Forestry plan). In addition, I’m the volunteer who nominated the Heritage Tree of the Year that won the award this year, and around which the activities of Arbor Day center.
I’m very glad that the trees will get the additional help, and that PARD has finally put a plan to help these trees, but I’m wondering, since I’m supposed to be a partner with PARD on this specific issue, how come I was not part of the development of the plan, or even asked to review the plan before it was released to the rest of the public, or even told that the program was going to be expanded to include more volunteers and asked to help recruiting volunteers. I know that PARD, TreeFolks and other groups and volunteers can’t plant for now due to water restrictions, and so they have turned their attention to maintaining older trees, an activity that some of them normally don’t do. I welcome their assistance with these trees, but I wish that AHTF would have been at least told of these plans as a courtesy because of all of the hard work, planning and donated professional work that we have done and given to these trees for 3 years.
I know that PARD can’t have preferential treatment, but I’m a partner on this specific task, and all I ‘m asking is that I would have been told about it, or even allowed to participate. I was told that there was a set of activities and festivities planned for Arbor Day only, combined with the Heritage Tree of the Year award, that the tree I nominated had won, and that some trees were going to be mulched. I wasn’t told that this included a plan for 3 large volunteer events to execute the BSP maintenance plan.
I would like to continue to adopt these trees, continue to provide care for them, and continue to be PARD’s partner on this. And I recognize that PARD has many partners, and that PARD has to be inclusive of all. I encourage inclusiveness. In fact, I asked you for it 2 years ago. I welcome the assistance and I will provide volunteers as well as recruit some more because I care for these trees. However, I think that the main tree stakeholder that is the adopter of all of these trees, the AHTF, should have been given more participation and more warning about these plans.
I would like to encourage a little more courtesy from PARD as a partner when developing plans like these, to inform the main stakeholder of the developments, to ask the main stakeholder for help first, to at least let the main tree stakeholder know. I feel like we are being pushed aside by other partners that haven’t contributed as much for these trees as we have. New partners are welcomed, but existing partners shouldn’t be ignored.
The AHTF has a deep knowledge of these trees since we worked constantly with them for the last 3 years. This knowledge can be helpful. For instance, the winner of the Heritage Tree Of the Year award, a large pecan tree on the south hill shows in the Forestry plan as one of the trees that will be mulched in Arbor day, but we already correctly mulched this tree with the help of 200 children and young adults, which is part of why this tree won Community Heritage Tree Of the Year. I explained this to Walter but I guess the Forestry plan didn’t get corrected.
I know that the public can provide feedback on the proposed plan, but I think that asking the main tree stakeholder would help getting a much better plan in a much more efficient manner, or at least coordinating with the main tree stakeholder would yield a much better result. I know these trees by heart. And I know that these trees belong to everybody, and that also includes me.
Why is my foundation, that has worked very hard for these trees, being ignored and pushed aside in all of this?
Thanks,
Zoila Vega
Austin Heritage Tree Foundation
Sara,
Please, help me out with this issue. My foundation, the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation, partnered with PARD in 2010, adopting all of the trees at Zilker and BSP since then, to apply compost, mulch and water them. My adopt-a-park agreement was renewed this year. I feel like in spite of us being the main stakeholders for these trees, and us having worked very hard to mulch and water these trees, we are being pushed aside by PARD and other partners, with no courtesy, and this needs to be corrected.Please, hear me out. A proposed Forestry BSP maintenance plan (by Emily King) was released today, proposing applying compost and mulch to many of these trees. There is a proposal to hold 3 large volunteer events to do this starting with Arbor Day in October. This is exactly what the AHTF task is (except that AHTF still needs to mulch many other trees around BSP that aren’t included in the Forestry plan). In addition, I’m the volunteer who nominated the Heritage Tree of the Year that won the award this year, and around which the activities of Arbor Day center.
I’m very glad that the trees will get the additional help, and that PARD has finally put a plan to help these trees, but I’m wondering, since I’m supposed to be a partner with PARD on this specific issue, how come I was not part of the development of the plan, or even asked to review the plan before it was released to the rest of the public, or even told that the program was going to be expanded to include more volunteers and asked to help recruiting volunteers. I know that PARD, TreeFolks and other groups and volunteers can’t plant for now due to water restrictions, and so they have turned their attention to maintaining older trees, an activity that some of them normally don’t do. I welcome their assistance with these trees, but I wish that AHTF would have been at least told of these plans as a courtesy because of all of the hard work, planning and donated professional work that we have done and given to these trees for 3 years.
I know that PARD can’t have preferential treatment, but I’m a partner on this specific task, and all I ‘m asking is that I would have been told about it, or even allowed to participate. I was told that there was a set of activities and festivities planned for Arbor Day only, combined with the Heritage Tree of the Year award, that the tree I nominated had won, and that some trees were going to be mulched. I wasn’t told that this included a plan for 3 large volunteer events to execute the BSP maintenance plan.
I would like to continue to adopt these trees, continue to provide care for them, and continue to be PARD’s partner on this. And I recognize that PARD has many partners, and that PARD has to be inclusive of all. I encourage inclusiveness. In fact, I asked you for it 2 years ago. I welcome the assistance and I will provide volunteers as well as recruit some more because I care for these trees. However, I think that the main tree stakeholder that is the adopter of all of these trees, the AHTF, should have been given more participation and more warning about these plans.
I would like to encourage a little more courtesy from PARD as a partner when developing plans like these, to inform the main stakeholder of the developments, to ask the main stakeholder for help first, to at least let the main tree stakeholder know. I feel like we are being pushed aside by other partners that haven’t contributed as much for these trees as we have. New partners are welcomed, but existing partners shouldn’t be ignored.
The AHTF has a deep knowledge of these trees since we worked constantly with them for the last 3 years. This knowledge can be helpful. For instance, the winner of the Heritage Tree Of the Year award, a large pecan tree on the south hill shows in the Forestry plan as one of the trees that will be mulched in Arbor day, but we already correctly mulched this tree with the help of 200 children and young adults, which is part of why this tree won Community Heritage Tree Of the Year. I explained this to Walter but I guess the Forestry plan didn’t get corrected.
I know that the public can provide feedback on the proposed plan, but I think that asking the main tree stakeholder would help getting a much better plan in a much more efficient manner, or at least coordinating with the main tree stakeholder would yield a much better result. I know these trees by heart. And I know that these trees belong to everybody, and that also includes me.
Why is my foundation, that has worked very hard for these trees, being ignored and pushed aside in all of this?
Thanks,
Zoila Vega
Austin Heritage Tree Foundation
On October 7, Zoila got this response from the director of PARD:
Dear Zoila,
You and The Austin Heritage Tree Foundation (AHTF) are to be commended for your tirelessly work to restore, protect, and promote Austin’s urban forest and in particular, the trees in Zilker Park and around Barton Springs Pool. The Department apologizes, it was not our intent to exclude any group or individual from volunteering or partnering for the Arbor Day Celebration.
The Arbor Day Celebration was originally scheduled to be at Emma Long Park and was going to feature planting over 300+ trees. However, as the drought set in and water conservation measures heightened, PARD decided to cancel all tree plantings for the Emma Long Arbor Day Celebration. To keep The Arbor Day Celebration alive, PARD Foresters came up with the idea to combine the Arbor Day Celebration with the Austin Tree of The Year awards. PARD is collaborating with the Office of Sustainability to combine events on October 29th for Arbor Day. The event has be moved to Zilker Park, site of the tree that is going to receive the award.
The Austin Tree of The Year awards ceremony program will feature various speakers culminating in the dedication of the Tree of the Year winner, the ‘Mother Pecan’ nominated by you. Traditionally, the individual who nominated the winning tree is allowed to speak at the ceremony; Zoila our intent has always been to include you as part of the ceremony.
In conclusion, the combining of events, with sponsors already in place, may have given the impression that the AHTF was being excluded. Plans have not been finalized and every effort will be made to include you in all discussions of tree care at Zilker Park, as well as Barton Springs Pool.
Sara L. Hensley, CPRP, Director
Austin Parks and Recreation Dept.
200 S. Lamar Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78704
Phone: 512-974-6717 Fax: 512-974-6703
sara.hensley@ci.austin.tx.us
Her response:
Dear Sara,
I thank you for your kind words. I’m understanding from your email that APF and TreeFolks were already the set sponsors of the Arbor Day event set up to occur at Emma Log Park (planting trees), and due to the drought, it was decided to change this event to mulch the BSP trees instead, and combine the event with the Tree of the Year award. So, most of the activities that were already planned for Arbor Day were transferred as is to the new location. I understand this. However, once the Arbor Day event got moved and changed, the AHTF should have been included in the planning of the BSP HT mulching, the Tree of the Year award ceremony activities, and the festivities following that, because we adopted those trees and we wrote the winning application, but more importantly, because these trees are important to our BSP community and we want to be involved with their care.
The AHTF would welcome the opportunity to participate in all of these activities, help recruit volunteers, mulch, and have a presence as a PARD partner organization, along with APF and TreeFolks. The AHTF welcomes the assistance from any organizations, groups, and individuals to mulch these heritage trees that we adopted and have been helping for years, as these trees are loved by the entire community. Please, include AHTF in all future announcements of this event, and update the web sites where this event is featured to include our participation.
The AHTF respectfully requests that we are allowed by PARD to be involved in the planning of the Arbor Day mulching event, the Heritage Tree of the Year ceremony, and the remaining activities. In particular, on behalf of the BSP community of which I’m part of, I would like that a few minutes be allowed during the Tree of the Year ceremony for the poem written for this tree by Susan Bright to be recited by the president of the Austin Poets society, and for the 1000-year-old-tree song to be sung by folksinger Bill Oliver. I think that these two activities, though not traditional, will reflect the community character represented by this special tree that even has a name, Mother Pecan. The audience will enjoy this and it will make the ceremony more meaningful for the entire BSP community.
Regarding other activities, please, could very large numbers of people remain away from the critical root zone of this tree to reduce compression of the soil and tree roots? People can enjoy this tree, as they always have. I’m only concerned about very large numbers of people standing on the root zone. I’m also concerned about children climbing this tree with ropes. I hope that the planned tree climbing activity will be done on a younger tree. We must protect and care for this special tree.
I appreciate that the AHTF will be included in all tree care discussions concerning BSP and Zilker. We will continue to provide PARD with any assistance needed. As always, we’ll do anything that we can to help these trees and the urban forest.
On behalf of the BSP community for which this tree is so special, I thank you sincerely for correcting this situation. Let us all come together to celebrate the honor that this magnificent community tree will be receiving, and let us all come together to continue maintaining and preserving the BSP heritage trees and the urban forest.
Thanks so much!
Zoila
Zoila Vega, Ph.D.
Austin Heritage Tree Foundation
Citizens Speak to Grounds Improvement Plans
[ October 17, 2011; 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. ] At the Monday, Sept 19th meeting in City Hall of the Joint Committee (PARD, Forestry and Environmental Board), the citizen communication portion was attended by about 20 people, more than 10 of whom spoke or gave their time to others. All spoke to the “grounds improvement” presentations.
Some of the key points made were:
- Continue with projects that everyone agrees on but put a hold on others, especially the south lawn area: moving the south gate; the 6ft wide sidewalk across the south lawn; the ADA path as is currently designed.
- The back gate area parking lot plan is not functional or practical.
- Even though there have been many public process meetings the general feel of the speakers was that there was not enough outreach and available information to the public in the process so far. Including Eliza Springs and snack bar in the scope of the front gate project. No one could answer how, who or where the “scope” originated.
- The Joint Committee was reminded of the successes we had over the past few years, when the public process lead to collaboration on the trees and bypass tunnel issues by stakeholders . The committee recognized that public input yielded good results before and so, they requested an onsite meeting on October 17, 5 pm to review not moving the gate to the east, the distance of the ADA path, and the dirt parking lot. (Date/time to be confirmed)
- 27 trees were saved from the plan to remove them that was proposed in the Barton Springs Pool Master plan and supported by the Friends of Barton Springs Pool
- Repairs for the bypass tunnel were estimated at $4 million before redesign, $2.4M after redesign–that’s $1.6 Million less, saved to the tax payers, because of public input. The $2.6 million that the bypass tunnel will cost now does NOT include the engineering costs paid to the first contractor, whose design will not be used. The redesign involved the Watershed Director hiring a second contractor to re-do the plan done by the first contractor, all initiated by public input and an independent review by Wateshed engineers. The result is a much improved plan that will not damage the pool. Many citizens continued to address the boards and the BSP Joint Committee to the point of bringing the issue to the attention of Watershed Director, who formed a special group with her engineers, based on the citizens input, to review the bypass tunnel project. This independent review caused the hiring of a second contractor who designed a plan that will cost $2.4M. Those citizens did that in spite of the continuous opposition from FBSP, which all the while, kept on trying to push the $4M plan forward. These numbers are construction costs estimates. The total cost of the bypass tunnel will probably be higher once you include that the original design was not used, but the first contractor was paid for his design. But, no matter what, the total cost comparison remains the same: The total cost will be $2.4M + X, vs. $4M + X before.
- South lawn area is a passive recreation area and it is important to keep it that way – all great parks have great lawn.
The Joint Committee recognized that public input yielded good results before and so, they requested an onsite meeting to review moving the gate to the east, the length of the ADA path and the dirt parking lot.
The committee talked about having an on-site meeting on the same day as the regular mtg – Oct 17th at 5pm – - but that is not yet confirmed. It will most likely be at the back gate on Oct. 17th at 5pm.
The Introduction of Arts in Public Places Artist portion was postponed.
POOL TO CLOSE 2 1/2 MONTHS in 2012
A presentation was given on Bypass Culvert Repair and Inlet Grate Projects by Johnnie Price. Construction will begin in 2012 and will be in 3 phases. Inlet Grate Construction will begin Feb 2012 and the Bypass Repair will begin Oct. 2012 assuming Fish allows them to do that because of the drought (since the original start up date was put back because if the drought). Pool will be closed during phases 2 and 3 for 2 ½ months of the 5 month project.
There was a short update on Urban Forestry Program’s Tree Treatment Plan.
Mary Gay Maxwell suggested everyone read the short term projects document that will address some of the speakers concerns view it here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/downloads/shorttrm.pdf. It was also made available at the meeting.
Open House – New Habitat Conservation Plan
[ October 18, 2011; 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. ] The City of Austin is in the process of renewing our 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow for “incidental take” of the endangered Barton Springs Salamander. The current permit expires in 2013. The City must complete a new Habitat Conservation Plan by the end of 2011 to stay on schedule with the permit renewal and ensure continuous operation of Barton Springs.
The City is hosting an open house event at Barton Springs in the Splash Exhibit on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, from 5 to 8 pm. This free, come-and-go public event is an opportunity for anyone to learn more about the new Habitat Conservation Plan and provide feedback directly to City staff. Please share this informational flyer, which will be posted at multiple locations at Barton Springs, with anyone else who might be interested in attending: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/downloads/bss_meeting_flyer.pdf
You may email any questions about the permit renewal process to salamander@austintexas.gov. You may also visit our website for more information on the renewal process, http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/salamander_guidelines.htm. A draft of the conservation measures to be included in the new Habitat Conservation Plan will be available from this website in early October.
Sincerely,
Chris Herrington, PE
City of Austin
Watershed Protection Department
Joint Committee Meets at City Hall on High-impact Plans
Barton Springs Pool Ground Improvements
Parks & Recreation Board/Environmental Board Joint Committee to Meet Monday at City Hall, 301 West Second St, Austin TX
The Joint Committee will meet Monday, September 19 at 6:15 at City Hall, Room 1029.
There will be no presentation or scheduled discussion regarding the 60% grounds improvement project.. The plan was presented twice last month, and public input was received during both meetings. The Joint Committee approved the 60% plans. A concerned citizen could address the Joint Committee with a 3 minute citizen communication, but there will not be presentations on the subject.
Please, read the presentations. The 60% plans can be found at:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/downloads/ggi0901l.pdf — in low resolution
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/downloads/ggi0901h.pdf — in high resolution
Many of the presentations, short term projects status, etc. are posted at the following link:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/bartonspringsmp.htm
The agenda for the meeting is http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/downloads/jcagenda20110919.pdf
PARD’s policy is that feedback can be provided any time, but the later in the design cycle it is given, the fewer the chances that it will be incorporated.
60% design stage was Monday August 15th 2011
60% had to be repeated because we didn’t attend, Sept 1, 2011
Feedback accepted for the next 2 weeks after last presentation. This is not official policy from PARD but more or less a good logical assumption. This means that feedback can be provided until Friday Sept 16th, 2011. Since next joint committee is Monday, Sept 19, feedback may be accepted next week.
90% October 17th, 2011 = After this time it will be very difficult to make changes unless they can be easily accommodated within existing plans. At this point, plan is almost finalized. Permits are missing. Not USFW permits that take a long time, but various city permits.
The 90% plan will most likely not change much from the 60% plan UNLESS
citizens ask for changes soon. This BSP Grounds Improvement plan was
discussed from the conceptual phase, to the 30% to the current 60% stage
with public input, so we are pretty much getting the last chances to make
changes. PARD receives public input all through the cycle, but it gets
harder to incorporate as the plans progress.
There is no terracing of the south lawn. There is terracing at the North lawn.
ADA entrance to the water on the south side will be possible via a lift that
has already been purchased by Aquatics.
Tree mulching and fencing is part of the tree maintenance plan that Forestry
is developing, as part of the Master Plan Short Term improvement projects. (See below.)
Brian Larson is designing the 60% grounds improvement plan including
proposed renovations and the planting plan. Forestry is developing the tree
maintenance plan. They are supposed to be working together to integrate all
plans.
Public input can be submitted via email to PARD, Gary Gregson, Masterplan Project Manager – and/ or to the members of the joint committee.
BSP Joint Committee members:
- Linda Guerrero, chair, (Parks board)
- Carol Lee (Parks board)
- Jerry Perales (parks board)
- Mary Ann Neely, (e board)
- Dr. Mary Gay Maxwell (e board)
You may also wish to cc the Director of PARD. Sara Hensley as well as the public mailing list .
Hurry. The closer to the 90% stage (October 17), the fewer chances of incorporating feedback. There will be no more discussion unless there are many who email PARD cc Joint Committee about a certain issue, like not moving the entrance to the east, or not building the path on top of the hill, but that is an ADA issue and there are few chances of changing it.
Moving the entrance to the east side creates a paved parking lot close to the creek and reduces parking space, while it lengthens the way to the pool that some disabled or mobility impaired people who may not be able to walk, all while the dirt parking lot remains unpaved creating dust and health problems. It may be possible to change this issue with sufficient public support. The alternative is to pave the dirt parking lot and keep the existing entrance on the south side.
Placing the path on the south hill closer to the trees or on the other side of the trees, as was proposed by a citizen at the last meeting, will damage the trees. The path needs to be at the edge of the dripline of the trees as was shown in Brian’s plans, and where it was placed Brian is optimum for the trees. Another idea proposed by the same party at the last meeting was to enlarge the paved parking lot, close to the restrooms, but this is not okay because there are trees by both sides of the parking lot, and they would get damaged if the parking was enlarged.
PARD Forestry’s plan to maintain the trees within the fence at BSP
You should attend this meeting because of this other important presentation. There will be a presentation on PARD Forestry’s plan to maintain the trees within the fence at BSP. This includes potentially mulching some large shade areas, but only for 1 year, to enrich the soil for the trees, and possibly soil aerating some trees which involves fencing their critical root zone and watering for 1 year. Both of these proposals will reduce the space available to lay down by the hills, and there are simpler ways to provide the nutrients to the majority of the trees, like applying a thin layer of organic compost (not Dillo dirt), that will work itself into the soil in 3-6 months, eliminating the need to fence or water the trees for a year. The soil aeration process is very hard on trees even though it’s the most benign, and should be used only when absolutely necessary. And mulching trees is beneficial but if the plan is to mulch only for 1 year, then the benefit is not as good. Mulch will not improve the soil by much if only applied for 1 year. A good tree maintenance program should include applying organic compost and mulching yearly.
There are 14 trees that need soil aeration due to excessive soil compaction and for which PARD had already permitted the soil aerations that will occur this fall. In addition to that, the 1-2 cottonwoods by the diving board may need soil aeration. Many certified arborists doubt that soil aerations are need for any other tree inside the BSP fence.
A Planting Plan
In addition, a planting plan for both hills inside the fence and South Woods, designed by Forestry may be presented. However, since we have the unique opportunity of having an experienced landscape architect such as Brian Larson, the planting plan should be designed by him. Brian will indeed design the landscape plan and Forestry, as well as the public, will review. That would yield a much better plan. The South Woods in particular needs a planting plan because most (?) invasives were removed, and there are small areas that are bare. But the planting plans need to be reviewed by the public before planting, and the public needs to be given sufficient time to review these plans, as was agreed by PARD and Joint Committee last year. And we shouldn’t plant unless there is a way to water the plantings during next year’s heat and drought.
An important issue to discuss is the need to install irrigation for the grass and trees in both hills. The system can be the same, but different controls are needed so that the Heritage trees can get a deep watering during the drought months only. The new trees that will be planted will need irrigation for 3 years, and that irrigation should be installed very carefully around the established trees, avoiding encroaching into their dripline (CRZ) to not damage their roots.
Please attend this meeting to see if you are OK with the amount of space that will be lost for tree treatments that may not be necessary, effective or practical. Please, help the trees by asking for gentler treatments (like applying compost) when soil aerations aren’t necessary. The heritage trees at the pool are already stressed by the drought, they don’t need additional stress from harsh treatments. Please, notice the new location of the meeting, it’s at city hall, room 1029.
Please attend future SP Joint Committee meetings held the third Monday of each month to stay informed of these and future construction that is intended as part of the BS Pool Master Plan.
Sidewalk on South Lawn & Construction Everywhere
Plans are underway to spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on controversial “grounds improvements” that will make major changes to the appearance of the areas surrounding the pool as part of the Masterplan.
The Joint Committee (charged with reviewing and approving everything related to the BSP Masterplan) had failed to announce to the public an invitation to attend the August 15 meeting when they approved 6o% of the plans. So the public was invited to attend a repeat of the presentation by the landscape architect Tom Larsen on Sept 1 (at time that conflicted with other meetings of the Austin City Counci–about the budget–and Austin Energy).
What he presented was a newer version of the info which is currently on the City’s website. See the older presentation: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/downloads/ggi60a.pdf.
The newer version was provided on Sept 2. General Grounds Improvements-September 1, 2011 (Warning: this is a link to a 27.4 MB PowerPoint presentation)
Representing the Parks and Recreation Dept were Manager of the Aquatics division at PARD Tom Nelson and PARD Assistant Director Kimberly McNeeley.
Whereas the plans got enthusiastic support from a small group of representatives of the Friends of Barton Springs Pool (who had been privy to the Aug 15 meeting), the meeting last night was rife with disagreement. Karen Kreps, Robert Corbin, Peter Steinhardt, Bill Bunch, Roy Whaley and others expressed concern over and objections to the plans.
The plans involve:
On the northside: Digging up 12 inches of compacted soil in the tree court and replacing it with a raised pavement, adding a scenic overlook next to the steps which could be accessed from outside the pool, adding large planters that will provide seating on stones but keep pedestrians from walking under the trees in the tree court and possibly changing the location of the main entrance. Eliminating ~12 parking spaces to move the bike racks (without increasing bike parking capacity) away from the planters. Replacing the existing fence with a modern metal/cable fence.
On the southside: Relocating the gate to the southeast corner (leaving the current gate area for an as-yet-to-be-approved second bath house), moving the fence out 40 feet to include the row of pecan trees) adding a six-foot wide sidewalk from the new gate, across the lawn, down the steps and into the woods with many switchbacks, adding a lot of new lighting on the trees, overhead and underfoot, and eliminating 12 parking spaces. Much was said about the benefits of these plans for the handicapped community, but the new trails on the south side provide nothing more than a longer more difficult passage to the pool. The existing chicken wire fence will be replaced by a wrought iron fence (that doesn’t match the new fence on the north side overlook), and a decorative gate (the contract for which has somehow already been awareded to Hawkeye Glen through Art in Public Places). And Tom Nelson has already ordered a $2000 unit to be installed near the diving board so wheelchair-bound swimmers can be lifted into and out of the pool in addition to using the ramp on the south side.
The estimates for the project are as follows (these figures were not presented at the meeting but in private email from Sara L. Hensley, CPRP, Director):
Electrical and Plumbing – $428,500
Tree Court – $322,712
North Lawn – $399,765
South Lawn – $793,709
South Parking Lot – $247,420
Fence – $169,750
We will be looking at these projects from a value engineering point of view. Please remember that these are just estimates and true costs will be determined once finalized.
Promises that were made during the meeting:
1) That announcements of all upcoming meeting about the pool would be clearly posted at the pool on the bulletin board
2) That staff parking would be moved from the nearest parking spots to a more remote area, freeing the preferred spaces for pool clientele.
The proposed plans have received 60% approval. 90% approval is planned for the next meeting of the Joint Committee. Comments from the public are welcome for the next two weeks. Though it was never made clear at the Sept 1 meeting how or where those comments may be submitted. See
http://bartonspringspublicprocess.com/city-contacts-for-bsp/
This is the contact info for the consultants who devised the plan:
Larson Burns & SmithLandscape Architects / Planners. 1108 West AvenueAustin, Texas 78701; PH: (512)476-1559 FAX:(512)476-8128z
Barton Springs Weather
