Environmental Criteria Manual - Section 3 (Tree and Natural Area Preservation)- 2021 2nd Quarter Rule Changes

1. 3.3.1 C. Hill Country Roadway Corridor Areas. In addition to the standard eight (8) inch tree survey, all Hill Country roadway projects require a survey of certain species of trees down to six (6) inches in diameter for individual trees and down to two (2) inches in diameter for tree clusters (see specific requirements in Section 3.3.4 below).

TMS SUGGESTS: cluster requirements can be confusing. If the size requirement was dropped from 6 to 4", that would meet the intent of the rule and cluster measuring requirements could be dropped.

Thank you for your response. Changes to Hill Country Roadway Corridor regulations are beyond the scope of this update, but we have noted this suggestion for future updates.

2. 3.3.2 Trunk Diameter. Generally, tree diameters are measured at 4-½ feet above grade (diameter at breast height). The measurement provides the most accurate dimension of the tree's cross-sectional diameter. If the tree is on a slope, measure from the high side of the slope. Measure below unusual swells in the trunk (see Figure 3-1 in Appendix V of this manual) to avoid inaccurate measurements. The diameter of a multi-trunk tree shall be determined by the total of the diameter of the largest trunk plus ½ the diameter of each additional trunk.

TMS SUGGESTS: List either a maximum number of stems that need to be counted, a minimum stem DBH requirement (4"?), and/or include information about the difference between a branch/offshoot (ex. - growing low to ground less than 45 degree angle) vs. a stem (ex. above 45 degree angle, upright/major structural component of tree canopy).

Based on this and other feedback we have added clarifying language about the minimum size of stems to be measured.

3. Identify this situation within the tree inventory by listing the cumulative diameter with an M (multi-trunk). Identify each of the stem sizes when heritage trees are listed. A multi-trunked tree is differentiated from individual trees growing from a common root stock if there is a visible connection between the trunks above ground.

TMS SUGGESTS: clearly define "connection". Is that a pith union? Is that if the trunks press on one another up high? At/near grade?

After consideration we have opted to leave “visible connection” as the Rule. More technical distinctions would increase the complexity of the Rule. A more complex Rule would be more difficult for homeowners and non-experts to apply.

4. The Texas A&M Forest Service assists with further clarification by stating that trunks that have clear separation or included bark at or near the ground line should be considered separate trees. Trunks of different species should also be considered separate trees, no matter how closely aligned.

TMS SUGGESTS: we strongly recommend NOT deleting the sentence about Texas Forest service clarification. While it creates some nuance to measurement that staff wants to clarify, that line prevents separately originating trees from being regulated as large, multi-stem trees once they grow together decades later (ex. - 4, 12" hackberry stems that started a foot apart on a fence line could grow in girth together over 10-15 years. If they touch at all above grade, the deletion of the last line would cause these to be regulated as a 30" multi-stem hackberry of protected size that would cost someone $6,000 to mitigate - in reality, it is 4 separate trees that present less area to design around (as is appropriate), or if mitigating, would only be $4,800. If an oak tree, that would be $18,000 vs. $4,800. 4 separate 12" trees adjacent to one another do not present the canopy benefit nor majesty of a single-stemmed 30" tree. They should not be regulated the same way. This can greatly affect affordability on projects and contribute of adding upwards of $2,000 per residential unit in tree mitigation fees.

The current text is out-of-date and lacks citation. DSD staff has been unable to determine where the reference to the Texas Forestry Service language came from. The purpose of this Rule is to establish an unambiguous standard for which trees to include on surveys. The unsourced Texas Forestry Service language works against this purpose. The Texas Forestry Service language introduces a subjective judgment into the standard. This increases the complexity of the Rule. It also makes application more difficult for homeowners and non-experts. For that reason we propose to eliminate it.

5. For Ash Juniper (cedar) trees (Juniperus ashei), Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei), often referred to as cedar trees, only single-trunk trees with diameters eight (8) inches and greater or multi-trunk specimens with at least one such sized trunk need be surveyed. The intent of this provision is to encourage the preservation of those mature cedars which provide valuable habitat for various species, while lessening the overall cost of the survey.

TMS SUGGESTS: At a minimum, invasive species (especially ligustrums) and non-appendix F species (crape myrtle, Arizona ash, etc.) should also fall in to this variance to acknowledge wildlife benefits while reducing the costs of surveys/tree mitigation for our lesser-desirable species (as perceived by many). It may be simpler to allow this requirement for all non-heritage tree species to minimize confusion/costs, while clearly preserving multi-stem oaks, elms, pecans, etc. that have individual stems less than 8".

Adding more species to this special criteria is beyond the scope of this update, but is something that we will consider for future rules updates. We have noted this suggestion for future discussion.

6. Diameter measurements should be accurate to the nearest ½ inch. This data is used in the determination of tree significance and replacement value (if necessary).

TMS SUGGESTS: as discussed in a stakeholder call, this should be clarified to add that measurements should not be rounded up to a larger size class (ex. - round 14.9 to 15" but not 7.9, 18.9, 23.9, or 29.9" trees up to a more strict regulatory standard until they truly meet the minimum size).

Based on this and other feedback we have added clarifying language to the original document we posted on SpeakUp Austin. This language specifies measurements falling between half inch increments should be rounded down. Rounding-down measurements will avoid situations where rounding-up might result in a tree being placed in the wrong regulatory category.

7. 3.5.2 A Fencing is required to be chain-link mesh at a minimum height of five feet.

TMS SUGGESTS: require a minimum installed t-post height of five feet as well. Often, shorter, weak t-posts are installed and fencing does not stay erect/protective.

This change is beyond the scope of the current update but has been noted for future consideration.

8. 3.5.2 B This standard states that not more than 25 percent of the foliage should be removed within an annual growing season, and that the percentage and distribution of foliage to be removed shall be adjusted according to the plant's species, age, health, and site.

TMS SUGGESTS: clarify expectations of typical annual growing season. This is not always applied evenly. TMS recommends applicants only prune once from mid-February through late October typically during the normal growing season. Some times applicants can gradually prune back a tree for slightly more than 25% impact carefully over a couple growing season with proper inputs into health, but TMS recommends that be limited to no more than 2 consecutive growing seasons.

This change is beyond the scope of the current update but has been noted for future consideration.

9. 3.5.4. C • A signed service contract for review and approval by the City arborist; and, • Fiscal security in an amount equal to the going rate for the approved service plus 15 percent to cover administrative costs. These measures are necessary because the remedial care program must typically extend over a minimum 18 month period after completion of the project.

TMS SUGGESTS: Make the fiscal security stipulation only a requirement if a proposed tree maintenance plan extends post-construction on a site. This is not always evenly applied or clear what the requirement is as written.

This change is beyond the scope of the current update but has been noted for future consideration.

10. 3.5.4. E Transplanting:

TMS SUGGESTS: rules should clarify whether the cost of the transplant and its subsequent care plan can offset mitigation fees or whether only the subsequent care plan investments offset mitigation.

This change is beyond the scope of the current update but has been noted for future consideration.

11. Other TMS Suggestions: Clarify in rules vs. simply in SDP comments what quantifies as an "Imminent Hazard" as that language does not align with industry standard risk assessments. Clarify in rules what common tree diseases typically quantify to merit a DDI approval and what the burden of proof is to demonstrate the diseased state (ex. - infected leaves confirmed in canopy, on ground below canopy with other likely symptoms present, and/or requires tissue culture confirmation from pathology lab). That does not always get applied evenly - especially w/ regards to oak wilt and Hypoxylon canker.

The Imminent Hazard language is included in City Code and is not a Rules designation. We cannot change the Imminent Hazard language through this process. Aligning Imminent Hazard language with industry terminology is a change that will be considered in the future. Providing better guidance around specific diseases and conditions will also be considered in future updates as well. We have noted this comment for future discussion.

Appendix F has more trees species than shown in this document, and it's a chart not a list. Will the chart still be included, and the only change is to correct some tree species names? I recommend current appendix f be included, that tree species not be removed without more analysis and community participation.

The listed species from Appendix F are only those whose names or mitigation status are being updated. The rest of the list remains unchanged. No species is being removed.

Second comment: please don't delete section 3.4.0 tree physiology. That section is very helpful to pinpoint what and why it's important for trees to survive. It is not common knowdlege among citizens and it helps certified arborist to highlight their train of thought on how to protect trees during construction.

Section 3.4.0 does not further implementation of code and does not necessarily represent the most up-to-date science regarding trees. There are updated, easily accessible, online resources for this sort of general arboricultural information that were not available when this section was first drafted.

Third comment: please add that fence can"t be removed to allow foot or machinery traffic at any time.

Fence requirements are not being addressed in this update, but we have noted this comment for consideration in future updates.

Fourth comment: please add to remove some of the mulch where it was applied 8 inches deep to get a final depth of only 4 inches. Too thick a layer of mulch prevents rain from reaching the roots and it's detrimental to the tree in the long term.

There is currently language in section 3.5.4.D that requires protective mulch be reduced to a depth of 3” prior to the end of a project.

3.5.1 Delete Tree Evaluation Method factor number 7 (adjacent trees) which minimized a tree's value based on the proximity of other trees. Reason: This minimizes value of trees based solely on confusing and subjective factor and conflicts with 3.3.4 B., which take tree clusters of specified native species into account.

Thank you for your input. This change is beyond the scope of this update but will be considered for future updates.

3.3.3 Environmental Assessment entire deleted section. Make Environmental Resource Inventory in the ECM-Water Quality section available for review in a side-by-side document. Reason: entire environmental quality section scheduled for removal cannot be assessed without comparing it to section that is proposed to replace it.

The Environmental Assessment was replaced by the Environmental Resource Inventory in 2013. The deletion of 3.3.3 is not a proposed replacement but a deletion of now-extraneous material.

Thank you for your response. The Environmental Assessment in 3.3.3 was replaced by the Environmental Resource Inventory in a 2013 Rules change. We are not proposing a replacement; we are proposing to remove extraneous material that is no longer relevant due to the previous update.

Thank you for your response. This change goes beyond the scope of the current update, but we have noted your suggestion for consideration in future rules updates.

Thank you for your response. Given the age of the current text and the lack of citation staff has been unable to determine where the reference to the Texas Forestry Service language came from. The purpose of this Rule is to establish an unambiguous standard for which trees should be included on surveys. The unsourced Texas Forestry Service language works against this purpose by introducing a subjective judgment into the standard. This increases the complexity of the rule and makes its application more difficult for homeowners and non-experts. For that reason we propose to eliminate it.

Thank you for your response. Removing tree protection requirements would require action by the City Council. A change of this magnitude cannot be addressed through a Rules update. We encourage you to contact your City Council member with any concerns about the City’s policy on tree protection.

Thank you for your response. These changes go beyond the scope of the current update but we have noted your suggestions for consideration in future Rules updates.