Update on Short-term Projects at Monday Feb 6 Meeting
[ February 6, 2012; 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm. ]
- Click on image to see larger diagram of revised south path for Barton Springs Pool
Barton Springs Pool Short Term Improvement Projects
The Austin Parks and Recreation Aquatic Division will present an update on the Barton Springs Pool Short Term Improvement Projects. This meeting will cover updates on the following items: Water Line Backflow Preventers, Bypass Culvert Repair and Inlet Grate Project, Interpretive Plan, Hydrodynamic Flow Modeling Study, Pilot Study for Creek Flow, Sunken Gardens Improvements, Tree Care, Assessment and Grounds Improvements, Habitat Conservation Plan and Short-term Improvement Projects Report at the Parks and Recreation Board / Environmental Board Joint Committee meeting, Monday, February 6, 2011, 6:15 p.m., Zilker Botanical Gardens – Auditorium 2220 Barton Springs Road.
The public is encouraged to attend and provide input.
Proposed Revision to South Path
There is a new rendering of the proposed access path from the south gate to the pool deck as part of the General Grounds Improvements project for Barton Springs. Previous designs steered clear of the area behind the diving board to avoid the critical root zone of a tree in that area. The tree has since been removed, so the trail has been realigned and the ADA accessible trail and the trail with steps were combined as much as feasible.
This new trail layout will be presented at the February 6th Joint Committee (Environmental Board / Parks and Recreation Board) meeting. The meeting will be at the Zilker Botanical Gardens Auditorium (2220 Barton Springs Rd.) and will begin at 6:00 p.m.
-Gary
Gary Gregson, Project Coordinator
Austin Parks and Recreation
919 West 28½ St.
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 974-9475
Heritage Tree #18 Remove
I’m saddened that tree #18 was removed. However, removal of this tree was
expected, approved by the city arborist, the BSP Joint Committee and the
Urban Forestry board. This tree’s removal was also reviewed by the public
and by two independent certified arborists that were recruited by the public
in December. None of this make it easier to let this tree go. I understood
that this tree was to be removed on the 20th, and I was preparing a flyer
ready to let the public know, but the tree was removed last Thursday.
Significant pruning of the tree next to it, tree #19, hasn’t occurred yet,
but will occur soon. This work has also been reviewed by boards, and the
consensus from many arborists (city and independent) is that it’s necessary
because the canopy is unbalanced, and with tree #18 gone, tree #19 may see
stronger winds and the long branches may break. Forestry Manager Walter
Passmore has stated that he will be present during the pruning of this tree,
and that the work will be done by Forestry’s crew top leader, not by a
contractor. Walter has also committed to remove as little live green wood
as possible, whatever is needed to make the tree safe, but no more than
necessary.
There is a big open area now where tree #18 stood tall for more than a
century. Before there was a beautiful historical heritage tree that
provided shade and shelter to all, now there is a stump. This tree was 32
inches in diameter, a native pecan tree, and probably 125-150 years old.
This means that this tree started growing in 1,862 (ish). This tree was
witness to things that we didn’t. This tree was there when the first bath
house was built, when the bath house burned, and when the second bath house
was built. Humans usually talk of time by referring to the many major
events and wars they saw, the many technology changes. This tree was there
through all of these events and wars, through a large part of history,
quietly providing shade and shelter, cleaning the air, reducing stormwater
runoff, cooling the streets, and providing beauty to BSP.
This is the tree for which Forestry Walter Passmore obtained a removal
permit in August/September 2011 without letting the public know, and last
November, this brought back bad memories from the threatened 28 BSP heritage
trees in 2009. But, public support and a prompt response from PARD resolved
that issue. PARD didn’t remove the tree until its removal was discussed at
the BSP Joint Committee and the Urban Forestry board. The Joint Committee
asked Walter Passmore to discuss any future tree removals with the committee
before getting tree permits, and Walter made this his personal
responsibility and told the crowd that this lack of notification will not
occur again. Supposedly, a new process of BSP tree removal notification has
been established by PARD, and Walter will be briefing the UFB on this at
tonight’s meeting.
It was discussed at the last BSP Joint Committee meeting that tree #18 had
two cavities up high, that had fungus and a crack that went to the last
remaining branch, so there was a high possibility of this last branch
falling down and hurting someone. I asked at the Joint Committee meeting
and at the UFB meeting that this tree be kept as a tall snag, without any
branches, so that it could continue to provide shelter to wildlife.
Standing tall snags are a natural role for old dying trees. However, even
though tall snags are very beneficial, they do pose the danger of
potentially falling down. PARD decided to remove this tree and not leave it
as a tall snag because of the proximity to the bath house and 2 paths used
frequently by many people, because the tree would most likely had
re-sprouted causing a need to maintain it every 6 months, and because of the
aesthetics. The tree was in a prominent place in an important tourist
attraction. With all honesty, if I were in charge of BSP, I would have made
the same management decision. As a member of the public, I see a tall snag
as an asset for wildlife, but unfortunately, the location was too close to
the bath house, which is a prominent historical place.
In spite of removing the tree, PARD accommodated the needs of wildlife and
the natural cycle of dying trees, per the UFB’s recommendations, and also
satisfied the request from the BSP Joint committee to do comparison studies.
The UFB recommended that if the tree was removed, that the trunk be cut in
large sections and be left near the site to 1) provide shelter for wildlife,
2) give the carbon back to the soil once the trunk decomposes. The BSP
Joint Committee recommended that if the tree was removed, that there be a
comparison study done to determine the accuracy of the Davey Tree’s sonar
scans done in 2009. All of these were accomplished by PARD working with us,
the AHTF. We mutually agreed that the trunk be cut in 3 large pieces, and
these pieces be placed by the entrance to the greenbelt (by the trail).
These 3 pieces are to the west side of the trail, as you pass the bulletin
board. This tree will continue to provide shelter for wildlife and will
eventually decompose, enriching the soil. Patrick Brewer, UFB chair,
donated Bartlett Trees’ comparison evaluation. Bartlett took a sound wave
scan of the one section left at the stump, and resistometer readings of the
other 2 sections, to compare to the 3 sonar scans from the Davey Trees
report. They will write a report for the BSP Joint committee.
The AHTF will work with PARD on interpretative signage for the stump and the
remaining trunk sections by the greenbelt, to tell the story of this tree.
Children and adults could count the rings on the stump, and read about the
story of this tree. And another sign by the trail could show visitors where
those trunks came from and what role they are playing now. I find that this
makes loosing this tree a bit less painful, to know that this tree left
something important, that it is still benefiting wildlife and the soil, as
it should be, that people will read its story and remember that life is a
natural cycle, and we humans are better off imitating it. A historical tree
deserves a significant role when gone, and tree #18 has this.
The AHTF needs your support for the remaining trees to get the work that
they need, so that PARD doesn’t have to remove another historical heritage
tree at BSP. More on that later. And we need your help to mulch and water
these trees. Please, volunteer to help the trees.
Best,
Zoila
AHTF= Austin Heritage Tree Foundation
FOIA Requests Yield Info about “Grounds Improvement” Process
Art In Public Places Application for Barton Springs Pool, 2012
Payments to Design Firm Larsen, Burns & Smith, Inc
Recommendation for Design Firm Larson, Burns & Smith, LLC
These three hefty documents were provided in response to a public information request that was filed by Bill Bunch of the Save Our Springs Alliance seeking background information on the “Grounds Improvements” portion of the Barton Springs Pool upgrades included within the “short term” elements of the Barton Springs Pool Master Plan.
The requests were filed, based on concerns that the grounds improvements plans and contract for the consultant were developed without adequate inclusion of the Barton Springs Pool community and without opportunity for other consultants/landscape architects to bid on the work.
The scope set for this project completely ignores and does not mention the straight forward recommendation of the master plan that the south side should not have its simple and natural felling compromised.
It also does not guide the vendors to retain the natural beauty and functions nor does it represent the strong feelings of many to protect the springs and surrounds from development and pollution
The leadership of this effort seems to have misplaced the many requests and admonitions to not make the enhancements more important than the grounds themselves
There is no mention of maintenance in any of this.
January and February Meetings Announced
[ January 31, 2012; 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm. 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm. February 6, 2012; 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm. 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm. ] Due to City holidays on the third Mondays of January and February (MLK Day and Presidents’ Day, respectively), both Joint Committee meetings have been combined and rescheduled to take place on February 6th. Please know that the February 6th meeting will take place at 6:00 p.m. and it will be held at the Zilker Botanical Gardens Auditorium located at 2220 Barton Springs Rd. In the next few weeks I will be sending out the agenda and backup materials for this meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thank you,
Sharon Knotts
Austin Parks and Recreation Department
Office of Assistant Director, Kimberly McNeeley
(512) 974-9491
sharon.knotts@austintexas.gov
Gary Gregson, Project Coordinator, Austin Parks and Recreation says:
At this point, the 90% submittal for the General Grounds project and some proposed tree work by PARD Forestry are all I’m aware that will be on the agenda.
We are also working to get the General Grounds project on the January agenda for the Design Commission. I believe that meeting is scheduled for January 31.
We have also spoken with Alyson Magee about getting on the City’s Historic Landmark Commission agenda in February, but that has not been confirmed. We will be requesting a certificate of appropriateness from them.
Briefings on Barton Springs Pool General Grounds Improvements Project
[ December 6, 2011; 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. December 7, 2011; 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. ] Courtesy briefings on the 60% design submittal of the Barton Springs Pool General Grounds Improvements project are scheduled for the full Parks and Recreation Board on Tuesday, December 6th, at the Mexican American Cultural Center, and the full Environmental Board on Wednesday, December 7th, at City Hall.
The Parks and Recreation Board agenda can be downloaded here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cityclerk/boards_commissions/meetings/39_1.htm; and the Environmental Board agenda can be downloaded here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cityclerk/boards_commissions/meetings/28_1.htm.
After the project has been submitted for permitting (likely January or February), the project will go back to each board with a request for a recommendation to Council.
Also, please be aware that the City of Austin is in the process of transitioning to a new website format. Because of this, we are currently unable to post information to the Barton Springs Pool Master Plan website. We anticipate being able to post to the new system by the end of December.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Gary
Gary Gregson
Project Coordinator
Austin Parks and Recreation
919 West 28½ St.
Austin, TX 78705
Office (512) 974-9475
Mobile (512) 426-8252
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!
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
Joint Committee to Consider Cancelling Proposed Move of Back Gate
[ October 17, 2011; 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm. ] The members of the Joint Subcommittee will meet at the south entrance of Barton Springs Pool to consider cancelling the proposed move of that back gate from its present location a distance appx 450 feet to the east toward the down stream dam. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend the meeting at the South gate, Monday October 17, 2011, 5 pm.
The agenda and full-sized backup material for the October 17th Joint Committee Meeting is available at the following link:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/bartonspringsmp.htm
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact Gary Gregson (974-9475 / Gary.Gregson@austintexas.gov).
This is the agenda:
PARKS & RECREATION BOARD & ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD JOINT COMMITTEE OCTOBER 17, 2011 – 5:30 PM BARTON SPRINGS POOL BEGINNING AT SOUTH GATE/ENDING AT SPLASH! EXHIBIT 2101 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD (located in Zilker Park) AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704
CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Linda H. Guerrero, Chair Jerome Perales, Co-Chair Jennifer Walker Carol Lee
A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mary Gay Maxwell Mary Ann Neely Thomas Wilcox (Resource)
AGENDA
1. Approve the minutes of the Joint Committee regular meeting of September 19, 2011.
C. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION
The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda.
D. BRIEFS (Briefs are informational items only, no public comment will be taken) 1. None
E. BUSINESS(DiscussionandPossibleAction)
1. Grounds Improvements (South Gate Options) …… Brian Larson, Larson, Burns and Smith
Here are images of the proposed plans for an Eastern entry, Southern Entry and the parking lot:
Click on an image to see a larger version.
2. Tree Treatment Plan …………………………………………………………………… Emily King, PARDF.
Download the PDF to see full-sized plans
Tree Treatment Plan Proposed for Barton Springs Pool Oct 2011
FUTURE ITEMS FROM JOINT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
G. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 4 days before the meeting date. Please call Tom Nelson at the Parks and Recreation Department, at 974-9337, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
For more information on the Joint Committee, please contact Tom Nelson at tom.nelson@ci.austin.tx.us or by phone at 974-9337.
Agenda Items:
1) Consideration/discussion of the following options for improving access to the south side of Barton Springs:
_______
Proposed Tree Treatment Project
Proposed Tree Treatment Project for Barton Springs PoolObjective
Improve tree health by improving soil health. Improve soil health by decreasing soil compaction, increasing organic matter, buffering soil from traffic, and all the many other benefits provided by composting and mulch. Balance site uses with both recreational needs and tree needs.
Scope of Work
Apply half an inch of organic compost followed by 4 inches of mulch to designated areas within the critical root zones of approximately 30 trees in the Barton Springs area of Zilker Park. See map for treatment area.
Implementation
Scope of work to be implemented over the course of 3 work days with the assistance of volunteers and staff.
Work Day 1: Saturday October 29th
City of Austin Arbor Day event to be held in vicinity, work day to accompany celebration.
Approximately 35 cubic yards of compost Approximately 290 cubic yards of mulch
Work Day 2: TBD (dates to be posted to Austin Parks and Recreation events calendar) Approximately 25 cubic yards of compost
Approximately 190 cubic yards of mulch
Work Day 3: TBD (dates to be posted to Austin Parks and Recreation events calendar) Approximately 55 cubic yards of compost
Approximately 420 cubic yards of mulch
The Parks and Recreation Department will purchase compost and mulch, and schedule deliveries of materials to the site.
Staff will additionally install materials on sloped areas prior to work days 2 & 3 to prevent compost and mulch runoff.
Volunteer recruitment and volunteer team leaders are needed. 2 Proposed Tree Treatment Project for Barton Springs Pool
Volunteer Information
For more details about the workdays and to register to participate volunteers may visit: https://www.volgistics.com/ex/portal.dll/ap?AP=749764290
For more information about volunteering please email pardpartnerships@austintexas.gov or call the Volunteer Program Office at 974-6770
Public Comment / Input
Email comments, suggestions, or questions regarding this plan to bspmasterplan@austintexas.gov
This plan is to be posted at Barton Springs Pool for review.
Staff to be present at the pool for discussion of plan on: o October 12th Pool Maintenance meeting from 10:00am – 11:00am o October 13th Pool Cleaning Day from 10:00am – 12:00pm o October 20th Pool Cleaning Day from 10:00am – 12:00pm
This plan will be presented to the: o Parks and Recreation Board / Environmental Board Joint Committee at the October
17th meeting located at Barton Springs Pool beginning at 5:30pm o Urban Forestry Board at the October 26th meeting located at City Hall beginning at
6:30pm
Comments received by Friday October 21st will be reviewed and considered for incorporation.
3
Proposed Tree Treatment Project for Barton Springs Pool
Barton Springs Weather
