·         Joint Committee (Environmental / Parks and Recreation Boards)
May 09, 5:30 p.m.
Barton Springs Pool south gate
(A.I.P.P. artwork and south gate columns, only)

·         Historic Landmark Commission
Webpage: http://www.austintexas.gov/hlc
May 21, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall (301 West 2nd Street) – Council Chambers

·         Parks and Recreation Board
Webpage: http://www.austintexas.gov/parb
May 22, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall (301 West 2nd Street) – Boards and Commissions Room (Room 1101)

·         Environmental Board*
TBD

·         Waterfront Planning Advisory Board*
TBD

·         Planning Commission*

·         Land and Facilities Committee (Parks and Recreation Board)
TBD

·         Urban Forestry Board
TBD

·         City Council**
TBD

*To be scheduled by Site Plan Permit Case Manager
**To be scheduled after final board or commission
(Once these dates are confirmed, notice will be given)

Gary Gregson
Project Coordinator
Austin Parks and Recreation
919 West 28½ St.
Austin, TX  78705
Office (512) 974-9475

Sign from FBSP on pool bulletin board calls for bath house from Bond election

Please help stop the proposed construction of a new bath house on the bucolic south side of the pool!

The City of Austin’s Bond Election Advisory Task Force is deciding on projects and programs which will receive potential bond funding. Community feedback is appreciated in order to make their final recommendations in late May to the City Council. Interested community member can review the projects that have been recommended on the bond development website.

Please, attend this last meeting:

COA Bond Election Advisory Task Force meetings/community forum

05/03/2012 06:30 pm – 08:30 pm

Lanier High School
1201 Payton Gin R
Austin, TX 78758

For those interested in providing comments but unable to attend the special-called task force meetings/forums, you have several options:

• Email your comments to bonddevelopment@austintexas.gov
• Call or send a text message to our hotline, 512-539-0060
• Visit SpeakUpAustin.org and join the online discussion on the committee recommendations (details coming soon)
• Post your comments on the City of Austin Facebook page
• Post your comments via Twitter using #atxbd

Please advocate against the proposal of funds for construction of a new bathhouse on the south side of the pool being included in bond package. We don’t need more construction or man-made structures on the southside. The Masterplan and City Council specified that the south side should be designed in as natural a way as possible. Other priorites are more important, BSP already spent $6M in master plan projects, other parks need funding, large majority of BSP community opposed the south bathhouse, it’s a small group’s pet project not a real need, and it will bring destruction to the pool.

A few weeks ago PARD was asked if there is funding included in the bonds for a BPS south bathhouse, extending the pool and renovation of the north bathhouse (moving the entrance to the rotunda and reshuffling a few rooms).  PARD explained that included in the bond package is a line item for $30M for all metropolitan parks, including Zilker.  For Zilker, there are many projects but NOT a south bathhouse or any other master plan long term projects.

However, citizens were allowed to add new items during the last weeks by proposing projects to the citizens advisory task force.  FBSP advocated to the Bond citizens task force to add the south bathhouse.  At the end, the priority will be decided by the bond advisory task force.  Public input is allowed via many ways, including the last meeting this evening.  The public will be able to weigh in on priorities once the money is awarded, but if a line item is added now for the south bathhouse, it will hard to undo by the citizens later on.

We can undo this by advocating against it right now.  Please, advocate for irrigation for the Polo Fields trees and the Rock Gardens.  Don’t advocate for tree maintenance because other tree maintenance can’t be paid with bonds.

The BSP north bathhouse remodeling is included as a separate line item in the PARD bond package, listed as a long term need for $2.25 M.  Please, advocate against this one as well.  There are other priorities and PARD already remodeled the bathhouse to comply with code and ADA regulations, the remaining proposed work is fluff.

Please, advocate against this large amount for the total bond package. Ask for $100-200 M max.  The minimum urgent needs total was $400M but many of the “urgent” needs were not that urgent, so the package could be easily be narrowed down to a smaller amount.  Propose that the bond package be small, and more bond packages be proposed yearly, so that the city can keep up with the projects. City staff would not be able to manage all of these proposed projects if they got the bond funding.  They will need to hire more people (lots more people) but the bond money doesn’t pay for that. New staff is included in the budget that comes from the city fund.

Please see the attached agenda and backup materials for reference.

Agenda items will include the proposed Arts in Public Places artwork for the General Grounds Improvements project, and the proposed redesign of the columns for the south gate for the same.

Download a PDF with diagrams of proposed wrought-iron gate, stone columns and more,  SouthGateDesigns and download diagrams about the public artwork to be placed on the promontory of the south lawn, South-lawn proposed art.

The Art In Public Places (AIPP) $26.5 K art piece commissioned from artist Hawkeye Glenn will be displayed near the monument in the Barton Springs Pool South Hill.  Per city ordinance, when there is a construction (Capital Improvement Project) of over $1M, there has to be some money for an art project.  However, city ordinance does NOT require that the art be displayed in the most prominent part of our historical and traditional Barton Springs Pool south hill, while damaging a healthy 150 years old heritage live oak!

A wooden model of the art piece was presented at last evening’s Barton Springs Pool Joint Committee. See picture below. The art piece will be blocks of various types of stone, one block would be a red granite stone, some mounted on some strips of metal. The statue will be 9 ft. in length at the longest diagonal and 3 ft. high. The artist envisions people sitting on the blocks. Since it’s been proposed that the art be placed over an overlook near the historical monument at the Barton Springs Pool South hill, where an ADA path will be build, the artist envisions disabled people in wheelchairs being able to climb onto the blocks.

There is however the problem that the blocks will be made of stone and the art piece will be placed on the sunny part of the south hill, so the blocks will be so hot that no one will be able to touch them barefoot, much less sit on them, or climb onto them.  There is also the safety issue that a disabled person could slip from the blocks and fall down the hill. And a person in a wheelchair may not be able to go climbing on blocks of hot stone and would most likely stay in the wheelchair and admire the view of the pool from there.  The artist said last evening that there was shade all year long at this location, but he is incorrect.  The location chosen is the sunniest part of the south hill.

But, the most fundamental issue with this large art piece being displayed in the MOST PROMINENT place of the BSP South hill is why display artificial art there, where the pool itself is the art?  The view of the pool from that spot is the best art that we could ever hope to have.  And instead of celebrating this gift that we have, the pool, we are allowing an art piece to be displayed there and hide the view.  This art piece will RUIN the view of the pool from the south side, and it will probably ruin the view from the north side due to distracting from the trees and serene hill, in addition to the reflection from the sun on the stone and metal.  Instead of looking at the south hill from the north side and admiring the beauty of the trees, now we will see a large piece of shinny stone blocks right in the middle of the south hill! And in the south hill, instead of admiring the pool and beautiful emerald color shades of the water, we will see large shinny stone blocks in the way!

If we, the citizens, wanted art to be displayed at the most prominent place of one of the most touristic places in Austin, why then wasn’t a more experienced and known artist commissioned?  Why is this art not in tune with the pool?  What do rectangular blocks of stone have to do with our beloved Barton Springs?  If anything at all, the stone should be like the karst porous stone that is in the aquifer, the art should represent the spirit of Barton Springs, the salamander, the old trees, the cold water that heals, the friends, the generations of swimmers, the traditions, the years of swimming at Barton Springs.  Why are we allowing this art to be put on our pool’s hill?

Our beloved Barton Spring spool is a historical place.  We all want to keep the south hill in a more natural form.  Why is this artificial modern art piece being displayed in this part of the pool where we, the citizens, want the natural look to remain?  This piece is so out of touch with the pool that it degrades the historical look, the traditional laid-back look that we all want to preserve.  Any art piece would because the pool itself is the most perfect art piece.

It will  cause the public the loss of valuable lawn space on which to to lay down. Even without this artwork significant space is being lost with ADA path from south gate to south deck and ADA path from south gate to monument and overlook.

To make matters worse, this art project will significantly impact a healthy 150 years old heritage live oak.  This art piece is to be displayed on a large stone overlook to be build at the end of an ADA path, by the monument.  Both the ADA path and the overlook will be built impacting significantly a healthy 150 year old heritage live oak.  The decomposed granite path will trench and kill the roots across the critical root zone by the soil having to be dug and compacted to build the path, while the overlook will require significant digging and compaction, in addition to the impervious cover, all of this occurring right inside the critical root zone of this healthy tree.

This ADA path was proposed to connect from the south gate to the monument.  The only purpose of this path was to allow disabled people to be able to view the monument, and be able to admire the best view of the pool.  It was not explained at all during the 60% and 90% grounds improvements plan reviews that there was a large stone overlook at the end of this path.  Actually, the path goes to the overlook and not the monument.  With the current plans, a person in wheelchair will have to get out of the ADA path to see the monument.  This path is not for disabled to reach the monument, it’s for disabled to reach the overlook and climb on the art piece, but that was never explained to the public.  The public was told that the overlook was for disabled people to admire the pool, but it is not.

The overlook is a large stone circle, 18 ft. in diameter, 4 inch thick.  The stone will be at grade level.  Under this 4 inch stone, there will be a 4 inch concrete slab that has to be built over 6-10 inches of foundation.  Due to the weight of the art and overlook, and the slope of the location, there will have to be many footings that would be 6 inches deep minimum below grade.  This means that significant digging will be done inside the critical root zone of this healthy 150 years old heritage live oak.  The area where the digging will occur happens to be the area where the feeder roots are.  Feeder roots are the most important roots for the tree because these are the roots that the tree needs to survive the drought.  Digging in this area will impact this tree significantly.  For comparison, similar digging is planned in the Tree Court, but that work will be done with specialized techniques to avoid cutting roots and compressing the soil, but that process is expensive.  In any case, even if a similar specialized process was done, the many footings required for this overlook will impact the tree.  The entire area under the overlook will be compacted to have a good foundation for the overlook.  The compaction will kill the roots because they will not be able to get oxygen or grow in the hard soil.  .  In addition, the 18 ft. wide stone overlook is a large area of impervious cover and will not allow water to reach the roots of this tree.  And even if the stone had a few openings at the grout marks, the little water that could percolate through won’t make a difference because of the soil compaction.  The feeder roots will die under the entire overlook.

This tree will be impacted significantly with this digging.  This is totally unnecessary as there are plenty of other places to display the art piece  The tree would be impacted even if the overlook was moved outside the critical root zone of the tree because the roots of these trees extend beyond the critical root zone.  This overlook needs to be eliminated from the south hill near trees because it impacts them significantly.  It should only be placed in the middle area of the south hill where there are no trees near by.

The path that connects from the south gate to the overlook will also impact this tree significantly.  It will be built of decomposed granite, that is somewhat pervious, but the location was changed from the 60% to the 90% plans without considering the needs of the tree, due to the artist’s desires that the path approaches the overlook with a better angle.  I went to the site, and I find that any angle gives a superb view of the pool, there is no need to impact the tree for this.  The problem with the path is that instead of being built above grade as all other work around trees planned for BSP will be built, this path is to be at grade level therefore requiring the digging of 8-10 inches to build a foundation and the path.  With this digging and compaction to make the foundation, this path basically trenches the tree’s roots all across half of the dripline.  Please, see sketch below.  The compaction will kill the feeder roots under the path, and it won’t mater that water can go through the decomposed granite, the feeder roots won’t be able to absorb it and will die.  To preserve this tree, this path should be build above grade and away from the tree’s dripline as show with the red mark.  Notice that the path that I’m proposing with the red mark takes disabled people to the monument, which was the desired goal.

PARD had committed form the beginning of these short term projects to go beyond city code and protect the critical root zone of these heritage trees because they are extremely important to the community.  PARD had demonstrated through out the previous projects that they would keep their promise.  I’m extremely disappointed to see that they are allowing this tree to be impacted so negatively for an art piece that would be best displayed somewhere else for many other reasons in addition to preserve the health of this tree and the integrity of our historical and beloved south hill and pool!

A more appropriate location:   Many citizens commented at the meeting last evening that the art should not be placed in the south hill because the pool is the art that we need to preserve.  I would like to add to that that we all made a commitment to preserve all of the heritage trees and we shouldn’t allow this art to significantly impact these irreplaceable trees as it would occur with the current proposal.  This art piece should be displayed outside the fence by the south gate.  That area is devoid of interest, and the grounds improvement project is revamping it.  The art piece could be prominently displayed near the entrance to add interest to that side.  This way, BSP could have Philosopher’s Rock at the north entrance and this art at the south entrance.  It would have to be installed away form the critical root zone of any existing tree.

Background on the Project and the AIPP Process

See posting currently on the web although the artist has been selected:

http://www.arthash.com/2011/04/call-to-artists-art-in-public-places-austin-texas.html

1)       Hawkeye presented 3 alternatives to the AIPP in December, and yet when he presented at the BSP Joint committee meeting back then, he only introduced himself, and gave the impression that he was just starting to think about the design, that nothing had been done.  He is supposed to be working with the community, but he is working in a vacuum instead. The public was supposed to know the goal of the artwork.  Per AIPP guidelines, the artist is supposed to make something that represents the site.  See minutes below:

“REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

The Art in Public Places Panel convened in a regular meeting on Monday, December 5, 2011 at City Hall, Room 2016, 301 W. Second Street in Austin, Texas.   Chair Ryan Thompson called the Panel Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

Panel Members in Attendance: Ryan Thompson (Chair), Jaime Castillo (Vice Chair), Scott Daigle (Arts Commission Liaison), Hollis Hammonds, Murray Legge, Lynn Osgood.  Panel Members Absent: Jennifer Chenoweth.

Staff in Attendance: Meghan Turner, Jean Graham, Carrie Brown, Sue Lambe. Cindy Jordan (Public Works) and Gary Gregson (PARD), Clark Hancock (PARD).

Mid-Design Presentation for Barton Springs Pool AIPP Project, Hawkeye Glenn, Artist

Sue Lambe presented the background for the project, the site and the artist’s charge to develop sculptural seating strategies for at least 6 people. The artist has been working with the stakeholders and two possible locations for seating have been identified – one in an area closer to the diving board and another off the south lawn area. Hawkeye presented three possible design approaches: a cantilevered stone platform with a band of bronze; a series of stacked blocks (like an abacus) which is integrated into a historic monument at the site located 20’ above the pool level; and a natural contour seating area. He wants to plant trees in coordination with any of these three options. There was discussion about the comfort of the seating, the scope of work in relationship to the budget, and concern about handicap access to the seating concepts as proposed.  Hawkeye will continue work through security issues, handicap access, siting, and work with the project team to explore the possibility of another site along the north side.

No action was taken.”

2)       Some rules of AIPP pasted below:

www.austintexas.gov/department/art-public-places

-          “In order to be considered eligible for the Art in Public Places Program, a remodeling project must provide a new use for or an addition to an existing space by making structural changes. This shall be understood to include rehabilitation projects which extend the useful life of a structure as well as restoration projects which return a structure to a previous condition.  Examples of such projects would include the construction of office space from existing storage space, the addition of a wing to an existing structure, and the restoration of a structure such as that of the Old Main Library. Because of the administrative costs associated with the transfer of funds and the selection of an artist, a project must have an original estimated construction cost of $100,000 or more in order to be considered eligible”… All CIP projects contribute 2% for an AIPP project.

-          “Purely decorative remodeling projects such as new carpeting, painting, or the installation of portable partitions shall not be considered eligible projects. Normal maintenance and repair to an existing structure such as the replacement of a roof, broken windows, or our-dated heating/cooling systems shall not be considered eligible projects. If, however, these costs are part of a larger eligible project, then they shall be included in the total construction cost on which the 2% is assessed.”

-          “Once an Art in Public Places project is developed, information will be disseminated, as appropriate through the media and mailings, well in advance of the selection process to provide artists adequate time to prepare any necessary submissions.”

-          “Once a project is developed, the Art in Public Places Panel with the Administrator shall recommend to the Arts Commission, in the form of a written prospectus, the overall approach and selection process for each artwork project. This prospectus will strive for a solution that will allow for the artwork, whether purchased or commissioned, to be appropriate to the particular project site.  This prospectus can provide for the direct purchase of an existing work(s) of art, the selection of an artist(s) to complete a specific work(s) of art, or the selection of an artist(s) to participate in a design team approach with project consultants.”

-          “The Art in Public Places Administrator shall research the background of each eligible project, consulting with the user department, project consultant, project manager, and community representatives. This information shall be recommended to the Art in Public Places Panel for finalization in the form of parameters regarding: …

-          Recommended location(s) within the site. Siting of the artwork may be determined prior to the selection of an artist or proposed by the artist selected for the project. In the case of sites under development, it is preferable to allow the artist and the project consultant to coordinate the location of the artwork within the construction project. In the case of existing sites where construction is complete, the final location shall be determined by agreement between the City departments involved and the Art in Public Places Panel, with the appropriate approval of any Boards or Commissions. In either case, whenever possible, the artist selected should be given the opportunity to recommend siting of the artwork.

-          As provided in the Ordinance, in the event that an eligible project is deemed inappropriate for the siting of public art by the Art in Public Places Panel, the 2% monies shall be appropriated to the proper Public Art Fund, for use at other more appropriate public sites, unless prohibited by any legal restrictions associated with the source of funds.”

3)       Example of an AIPP artwork project below, where the art was installed at the entrance of the facility, and honored some of the work of the facility.  It also had a defined goal.  In contrast, Sue Lamb and Hawkeye never told us the goal for the BSP’s artwork.  Per AIPP meeting minutes in item 1 above, it is “to develop sculptural seating strategies for at least 6 people”  Why would artwork at BSP, a top touristic attraction, have this ridiculous goal?

“Arboreal Passage: The City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department presents a new public sculpture at the Austin Nature & Science Center, a 15-acre campus located just west of Zilker Park dedicated to Austin’s natural heritage and fostering stewards of the natural world. Artist Colin McIntyre was commissioned by the City of Austin’s Art in Public Places program to create artwork as a pedestrian entryway to the park.

… The sculpture, entitled Arboreal Passage, consists of two archways, three benches and a double-faced sign at the entrance to the facility. At the top of the main archway, centered among the branches, is a forged bronze plaque with an owl face; an homage to the rescued owls that are a prominent feature of the Center. Next to the main entry path is the artwork plaque with a quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupery that reads, “The tree is more than first a seed, then a stem, then a living trunk, and then dead timber. The tree is a slow, enduring force straining to win the sky.”

…The goal of the project was to define the park’s entryway, increase the facility’s visibility, and signal a transition into the center’s environment of exploration and discovery. The artwork was required to relate with and call attention to the surrounding community of rock, soil, plants and animals, reflecting the mission of ANSC and the center’s context within the historic parkland.”

4)  Current AIPP Panel Members

-                                  Ryan Thompson, Designer, Panel Chair

-                                  Jaime Salvador Castillo, Artist and Writer

-                                  Jennifer Chenoweth, Artist

-                                  Hollis Hammonds, Artist

-                                  Murray Legge, Architect and Artist

-                                  Lynn Osgood, Landscape Designer and Planner

-                                  Scott Daigle, Liaison to the Arts Commission

-

AIPP BSP project staff liason (who also attended th BSP Joint Committee):

-                                 Sue Lambe, ASLA, RLA

Art In Public Places Coordinator :: City of Austin
512.974.7852

-

Arts Commission

-                                  Brett Barnes, Chair  brettdivotx@austin.rr.com Nominated by: Council Member Laura Morrison  03/02/06

-                                  Hal Katz, Vice Chair, no email, Nominated by: Council Member Sheryl Cole  08/20/09

-                                  Scott Daigle, scottmichaeldaigle@gmail.com Nominated by: Council Member Bill Spelman  03/10/11

-                                  Gloria Mata Pennington Twopenns@aol.com Nominated by: Council Member Mike Martinez  06/27/02

-                                  Amy Mok amy@amywongmok.net  Nominated by: Council Member Kathie Tovo  09/22/11

-                                  Samuel Tinnon, tinnons@yahoo.com Nominated by: Council Member Chris Riley  02/04/10

-                                  Bruce Willenzik, bwillenzik@gmail.com Nominated by: Mayor Lee Leffingwell 02/14/89

It’s incredible that AIPP, PARD and the Joint Committee will all go along allowing this to be done to the pool!

Eliza Stream Daylighting Project

http://bartonspringspublicprocess.com/PBEB_meeting_19March2012.htm.

The long-term projects of the Masterplan are not yet funded and have yet to be vetted.

Monday, March 19, 2012, at 6:15 p.m.

Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center

In the Rehearsal Lab

600 River St.
The committee will receive briefings on a project by the Watershed Protection Department to expose the spring run from Eliza Springs to the Barton Springs bypass culvert, consider proposed locations for a public art piece, consider a proposed communications plan regarding tree issues at Barton Springs, consider approval of a drought plan for tree care, and consider relocating a pecan tree from another site to Barton Springs.

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

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 1862 (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