Environmental Criteria Manual – 2022 3rd Quarter Rule Changes

Share Environmental Criteria Manual – 2022 3rd Quarter Rule Changes on Facebook Share Environmental Criteria Manual – 2022 3rd Quarter Rule Changes on Twitter Share Environmental Criteria Manual – 2022 3rd Quarter Rule Changes on Linkedin Email Environmental Criteria Manual – 2022 3rd Quarter Rule Changes link

This consultation has concluded. You may contact the project team for more information. Thank you.

The Development Services Department (DSD) is proposing adoption of several amendments to the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM).

These proposed rules reflect the community feedback we received earlier this year in our initial engagement regarding the proposed amendment adoption. Highlights include:

  • Eliminating mitigation requirements for Arizona ash;
  • Allowing preservation of trees less than regulation size to count as mitigation;
  • Creating new alternative compliance options;
  • Removing the unused section on tree condition assessments; and,
  • Eliminating fertilization requirements in some situations where they were previously required.

The proposed changes have now been posted online by the Office of the City Clerk. The Development Services Department (DSD) is once again asking for your input.

To help you better understand the proposed amendments, we have provided several files in the Documents section on the right side of the page. More detailed information about these changes is available in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Important Links, and Key Dates sections.

There are two ways to participate in this engagement. Please choose the format that works best for you.

  1. Use the Question box below to send us your comments.
  2. Email DSDCommunications@austintexas.gov.

We welcome all feedback about these proposed changes, how they may impact you, and how we can best design them to suit your needs. Your input will help DSD develop the final rule proposal.

The Development Services Department (DSD) is proposing adoption of several amendments to the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM).

These proposed rules reflect the community feedback we received earlier this year in our initial engagement regarding the proposed amendment adoption. Highlights include:

  • Eliminating mitigation requirements for Arizona ash;
  • Allowing preservation of trees less than regulation size to count as mitigation;
  • Creating new alternative compliance options;
  • Removing the unused section on tree condition assessments; and,
  • Eliminating fertilization requirements in some situations where they were previously required.

The proposed changes have now been posted online by the Office of the City Clerk. The Development Services Department (DSD) is once again asking for your input.

To help you better understand the proposed amendments, we have provided several files in the Documents section on the right side of the page. More detailed information about these changes is available in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Important Links, and Key Dates sections.

There are two ways to participate in this engagement. Please choose the format that works best for you.

  1. Use the Question box below to send us your comments.
  2. Email DSDCommunications@austintexas.gov.

We welcome all feedback about these proposed changes, how they may impact you, and how we can best design them to suit your needs. Your input will help DSD develop the final rule proposal.

This consultation has concluded. You may contact the project team for more information. Thank you.

  • Share Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already? btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. on Facebook Share Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already? btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. on Twitter Share Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already? btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. on Linkedin Email Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already? btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years. link

    Why not remove all mitigation requirements for existing residential properties of less than 1/2 acre? Trees grow and no longer desired in existing neighborhoods. I suggested this to Ms Fuentes, councilmember district 2, except for 1 acre properties. This is just an added expense, $2,000-$4,000 in my case, of removing undesired trees at the front of my .18 acre property. I have trees that shade the entire back and side yard - approximately 8 trees 8-40 feet tall. Why should I be required to place a large(3") tree in my front yard, a $500+ expense, when I have so much shade around my home already? btw: several people in the neighborhood have topped their trees, apparently without any repercussions, over the years.

    Quietman asked about 2 years ago

    Thank you for your comment. Exempting residential properties from mitigation requirements would require action by City Council and is beyond the scope of this update. 

  • Share Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. on Facebook Share Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. on Twitter Share Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. on Linkedin Email Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus. link

    Crape Myrtles (Lagerstroemia) should also be listed in the 3.5.4 A.2.b Mitigation Exempt species. While Crape Myrtles can be pretty, they are not a native species. Vitex is listed under the mitigation exempt list. Vitex is pretty as well. Vitex is not a native tree species. We should write rules to foster native plants. a 19" Crape Myrtle is not anywhere close to the size or ecological importance as a 19" pecan, oak, or elm tree. A 19" hackberry is more ecologically important than a crape myrtle. Just because it has pretty pink flowers doesn't mean it needs to be officially protected. Many individuals will preserve Crape Myrtles for appearances anyway. It just shouldn't be a preservation target or focus.

    Hatch Works asked about 2 years ago

    Thank you for your comment. Mitigation for non-native species such as crape myrtle is assessed at a lower rate than for native species per Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM) 3.5.4. Native species are listed in ECM Appendix F. Species listed as Mitigation Exempt in the proposed update are generally species that are invasive in character, or in the case of Arizona ash whose removal is advantageous for public safety reasons. 

  • Share Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. on Facebook Share Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. on Twitter Share Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. on Linkedin Email Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible. link

    Eliminating mitagation for Arizona Ash? What does that mean exactly? I want to cut down a our Arizona Ash in our front yard and replant with an Shumard Oak Tree. The Arizona Ash tree was planted in 1984. The roots are pretty horrible.

    Lynne asked about 2 years ago

    Thank you for your comment. When regulated trees are removed the Land Development Code (LDC) requires that some form of mitigation be provided unless the tree in question meets the criteria of Dead, Diseased, or Imminent Hazard (LDC 25-8-624). Mitigation is usually addressed through tree planting. Certain species, however, are exempt from mitigation requirements. The proposed rule adds Arizona ash to that list. If your Arizona ash is of regulated size you may remove it with a permit, but  it would not include any mitigation requirements under the new rule.