Loading...
2020-043 Constituent Questions on Urban Forest Master PlanDate: May 1, 2020 Report No. 2020-043       INFORMAL STAFF REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Constituent comments and questions on the Urban Forest plan. BACKGROUND: On April 14, staff received a request from Council Member Meltzer via the City Manager's office to review and provide comments on the attached constituent's comments and questions on the Urban Forest Master Plan. The attached file, "UFMP Questions and Answers" is the original document from the constituent in black text with the staff's comments in blue text. CONCLUSION: The Urban Forest Master Plan lays the groundwork for a more holistic approach to managing Denton’s urban forest. It is intended to serve as a guide for managing, enhancing, and growing Denton’s urban forest and the community tree resource over the next 20 years. STAFF CONTACT: Haywood Morgan Urban Forester, Parks and Recreation Haywood.Morgan@cityofdenton.com REQUESTOR: Council Member Meltzer PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS: Parks and Recreation STAFF TIME TO COMPLETE REPORT: Parks and Recreation 28 hours Written by Jon Hohman: April 13, 2020 Provided to staff by CM Meltzer: April 14, 2020 Response provided by Haywood Morgan, Urban Forester: April 29, 2020 Good bits first: Tree Committee?! Count me in! Educating developers instead of just citizens?! Rock n Roll!! I also love that “healthy soil” and “habitat” are finally mentioned! Definitely some great stuff in here, no doubt! Worst bits: I’m glad the section on climate change was added even though the Davey group said it was unnecessary to add. However, while reducing emissions and sequestering pollutants is totally desirable, the climate change section perpetuates the false narrative that reducing emissions will cool the planet. Emissions reductions will not even register for hundreds of years. I am constantly pushing the more recent and much more helpful (and hope giving!) narrative and science, namely that restoring the hydrological cycle by preserving forests, extending green growth, greening degraded land and increasing evapotranspiration is what will cool the planet (the water plants give off takes heat to space). Most trees take 20 years to produce most of their benefits hence the preservation over planting priority. Prairie restoration is essential, was brought up at our meetings, and is necessary too, but is not included in the UFMP Plant Health Care policies laid out. False metric of tree canopy still being used (cannot distinguish between saplings and established trees). 90% of our trees are not covered in this plan and we need more methods to address that 90%. Our neighborhood action is measured as moderate: “Some active groups are engaged in advancing urban forestry activity, but with no unified set of goals or priorities.” The Urban Forestry Master Plan leaves me wondering how, apart from our tree ordinance, it will preserve trees and actually effect change- i.e. does the plan have teeth and if so in what form? It seems to me that the plan’s main teeth are the tree fund yet the tree fund remains undefined and without direction/effectiveness until page 108 where it has apparently been decided that over half of tree fund money will be spent on new plantings. I would like this to be discussed publicly. I know many of us have agreed that we want land purchased to preserve the old growth trees and forests but in 17 years only one piece of land has been purchased by the tree fund (while 1 million dollars awarded to Parks through the 2014 bond has still not been spent and the 5 million recently awarded will not all be spent for years more either). This leaves one to ask if there will be any land left to buy before the developers get it all and why this delay in land purchasing has continued since 2014 (if not for developers benefit much like the recent utterly unsustainable Hunter Cole decisions that even discouraged solar panel use). As of January 2020 there was $747,402.99 in the tree fund. What do we want it to be spent on? Right now it’s mostly spent on Keep Denton Beautiful who gives trees away in various initiatives however KDB does not look after them or even know if any of them survived. All kinds of tree maintenance and watering costs and needs of trees are discussed in the plan yet none of these are insured by tree fund initiatives or in any KDB initiative or Tree Fund. Rather, trees are given away to survive or perish- hands off. (Excepting Park trees which are the great minority) I feel too that there should be a designation between simply “planting trees” vs “restoring forests” or “ecosystem restoration” i.e. most forests in urban areas function as “edge forest” while trees in nature are not only edge forest and all spaced out- but are dense. Compare green belt habitat to north lakes park for example. This can be established with the Miyawaki method. I like that habitat is included, maybe we can make distinctions though because all trees are not created equal, i.e. an Oak can provide 534 species of math and butterfly species habitat and food but a Crepe Myrtle, so often promoted, provides essentially zero. Thus promoting Crepe Myrtle and other non-natives and “adapted” trees are actually decreasing habitat and cutting into habitat potential. I’d love to see such designations made. When trees are discussed doing things like reducing heat island effect what must be understood and is not mentioned that I can find is that only old growth trees do this in any meaningful sense. Sure we need trees in the future but how long will it take for all the 2-3” trees being planted to catch up to even one lost old growth tree? Again- there is too much equating saplings and old growth trees throughout this entire ongoing discussion- to our detriment. Here’s my list, now I’m off to write about how city hall attempted to silence me at the last council meeting ;) 1) Our Urban Forestry Master Plan starts out with a statement biased towards not conserving trees, but planting trees possibly because Davey group we hired told us “ tree planting was most important thing you wanted” while I keep hearing us emphasizing preservation: “The planting of a tree…is a gift which you can make to posterity at almost no cost and with almost no trouble”. San Fransisco’s Urban Forester Jon Swae who Diana recommended we consult stated that trees cost around $1500 each and take at least 3 years to care for, that’s not including water once a week in summer. Keep Denton Beautiful cites that a tree costs $50 but they did not justify that number to me. Love Ladybird’s quote at the end- maybe replace it with that ?! Tree planting and tree preservation are both key components of a healthy urban forest. The practice of both is essential to building age diversity and species diversity of the urban forest. The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) by no means attempts to weigh one more important than the other. Keep Denton Beautiful’s tree cost is not addressed in the UFMP. However, it is based on their average tree cost which consists largely of smaller trees (3 gallons) that are distributed or sold at a reduced price, as opposed to what is planted along in center medians and park. The trees planted by Parks and Recreation contractor cost $400 to $470 depending on species. KDB has launched a survey to get the status of trees given away. 2) The next sentence in the plan does not mention “conservation” or “preservation” and you’ve got to wonder why not- “serves as a guide for managing, enhancing, and growing Denton’s urban forest and the community tree resource over the next 20 years.” The first sentence of the “Scope & Purpose” is an overarching statement of the purpose of the UFMP, which lays the groundwork for a comprehensive urban forestry program. The “managing, enhancing, and growing Denton’s urban forest and community tree resources” naturally includes existing trees. Conservation and preservation are mentioned multiple time in the UFMP. 3) Plan at first only mentions wanting to preserve “benefits” of trees, not “preserve trees” continuing to justify tree planting as surrogate for tree preservation. Further on tree preservation is measured by the canopy metric which cannot account for sapling vs established trees. The word benefits is mentioned numerous times in the UFMP and with no occurrences in conjunction with preserve. The first bullet point under the Scope & Purpose states, “Recognize best management practices that promote tree health, maximum benefits, and community safety.” One of the ways to promote maximum benefits is to preserve trees, which is a requirement in the Denton Development Code (DDC). As listed on page 10, one of the three primary focus areas of the UFMP is to “Sustain environmental benefit.” Again, one of the ways we do this is to “Promote tree preservation and protection,” as stated in goal five of this focus area. The objective is expanded upon in pages 48 & 49. Per the DDC, tree preservation is based on the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of all the trees on the property to be developed; this is not impacted by the UFMP. From an Urban Forest Management perspective, the tree canopy is used internationally as a measure of urban forest health. When measuring Denton’s tree canopy, LIDAR was used to pick up trees that are greater than 15 feet in height, which does not count most of what we would consider saplings. 4) Stakeholders named in the Plan do not have a stake in preserving old growth trees, only in tree planting and developing i.e. Texas Tree Foundation does not preserve, only encourages planting, Denton Community Developers Alliance wants to develop while the Dallas Builders Association wants to build, yes? Why is there no environmental group included in the named list of stakeholders and can we include one before this plan is finalized? Representatives from the following were identified by staff and interviewed by Davey; Keep Denton Beautiful, Inc. (KDB) Board, Dallas Home Builders Association, Denton Community Developers Alliance, Texas Trees Foundation, Preservation Tree Services, and community participants. Also, the UFMP was reviewed by a representative from the Texas A&M Forest Service. Staff also reached out to but did not receive a response from the Denton County Master Gardner Association, the Texas Master Naturalist Elm Fork Chapter, UNT, and TWU. KDB, the Texas Trees Foundation, and Preservation Tree are groups whose focus is environmental. 5) The fact that the whole “structure” and “framework” of the Plan is based off 32 year old science does not build confidence. The work referred to “(Miller, 1988)” has since had 2 revisions; 2007, and 2015 while “adaptive management” the Plan cites actually calls for the opposite: “Iterative decision-making (evaluating results and adjusting actions on the basis of what has been learned)” The new revisions include “vegetation” yet we’re stuck with only “forestry” while much of Denton was prairie- Denton lies at the juncture of three ecoregions: the Blackland Prairie, Cross Timbers, and Grand Prairie land resource areas, characterized by a mix of prairie grasslands and woodland. Each boasts a rich, diverse wildlife population seen only in North Texas. The statement referenced is “The Plan’s structure is based on the understanding of what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This structure is known as adaptive management, which is commonly used for resource planning and management (Miller, 1988) and provides a good conceptual framework for the process of improving urban forest management.” As stated, the structure of the plan is based on “what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing,” which is known as adaptive management. Adaptive management is more of a resource management technique, not a science. It has actually been in use since the late ’70s. By comparison, the scientific method has been around over 300 years, and it is still taught and used today. Per the Environmental Protection Agency, Denton is located in the Cross Timbers Ecoregion, sub-regions Eastern Cross Timbers and Grand Prairie. The Blackland Prairie Ecoregions begins east of Oak Point, Texas. This map is online at: https://www.epa.gov/eco- research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-6 6) As I have noted numerous times, without contest, and with verification from Jon Swae- the “tree canopy” metric used to define Denton’s “existing forest resource” (table 1) cannot determine it because the metric is a 2 dimensional measurement of a 4 dimensional phenomenon. Tree canopy is used internationally as an urban forest metric. The data in table 1 came from the “State of Denton Urban Forest report.” This report consists of an i-Tree Eco assessment. Data collected during the sample tree survey included tree species, DBH, tree height, crown size (height to live top, height to crown base, crown width, and percentage crown missing). The crown size data allows for a calculation of canopy volume and is utilized in the calculation of the tree benefits. 7) Plan cites many integrated plans like mobility plan and trails plan that are being updated but doesn’t include the “Simply Sustainable Plan” in the same category- that plan is currently being revised and is unavailable to review. As stated in the Executive Summary on page eight, “The process explored community values and vision, including those expressed in guiding documents, including the Denton Plan 2030, Denton Mobility Plan, Simply Sustainable Plan, City Ordinance, state law, and other regulatory and policy documents.” This plan is also covered on page 31 of the UFMP. 8) Page 70 Primary Objectives lists “Promote species diversity” yes, age diversity should be included but may not be included because Forester can only mitigate with 2” or 3” trees. The UFMP covers age distribution on page 23 and includes Denton’s current age distribution based on the 2016 sample tree inventory, the ideal age distribution. Age diversity is accomplished over time through the preservation of trees and planting of trees. 9) Plan indicates that majority of tree planting is done by Keep Denton Beautiful however KDB does no follow up to determine if trees survived or not prompting the question: how many of these trees are looked out for and even still surviving- does giving trees away without follow-up allow for wasted tree funds if half the trees given away die but we’ve no idea? Under the heading “Tree Planting” on page 26 of the UFMP it is stated that “Between 2016 and 2018, Parks and KDB planted and distributed 9,629 trees.” The plan does not give a breakdown of trees planted and distributed by KDB and the Parks Department. It has been my professional experience that when residents are involved in tree plantings, they are successful projects and programs. All trees distributed were by KDB, and the majority of trees planted were by Parks and Recreation. KDB is sending out a survey to past participants to attempt to identify the survival rate of trees given away at community events over the last few years. Friday Report: April 24, 2020 KDB Tree Health Assessment Survey – To capture the success rate of trees planted through Keep Denton Beautiful urban forestry programs over the last five years, KDB is asking residents to complete a short survey that is open to all Denton residents who received a free tree from 2014 to 2019. This includes free trees given away at Arbor Day Campus plantings, Community Tree Giveaway, Free Tree Class at the Redbud Festival, Trees Mean Business, Tree Rebate Program, or Tree Your Block. Survey feedback is requested by June 1. The survey is available at www.kdb.org. 10) Deceptive statement in the extreme alert: “the Denton Development Code established the Tree Fund which has contributed to the purchase of land to preserve existing stands of trees” Ok- but only one piece of land in 17 years and Plan only allocates 35% of tree fund to land acquisition. The 70 acres of property purchased primarily using the Tree Fund can be considered to consist of multiple tree stands. Per the US Forest Service Northern Research Station, a stand is “a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit.” It took ten years to grow the tree fund to a leave that allowed for a significant property purchase. 11) www.itreetools.org/design is cited as a way to calculate tree benefits but many benefits are in fact not included i.e. habitat, heat island mitigation, etc. The i-Tree tools give quantifiable benefit values, usually as a unit of measure and monetarily. There is not such measurement for habitat and heat island mitigation in the version of i-Tree used for our assessment. 12) In descriptions of community meetings that same most crucial question is mentioned and yet only answered at the end near the appendix (35%): “Finally, residents were asked their preferences on the use of the Tree Fund, whether funds should be used to purchase land to preserve existing trees or to fund additional tree plantings.” It’s a simple question so why does the plan leave it unanswered in the beginning given its humungous priority? Community input on the Tree Fund is included under the heading “Community Meetings” on page 35 of the UFMP. It reads, “Urban Forestry Staff also wanted to understand the community member’s opinion on how the Tree Fund should be used in Denton. Community members had numerous ideas such as tree giveaways, street median and sidewalk improvements, grants for local nurseries to cultivate appropriate tree species, mapping of the Cross Timber Region, tree spades for moving valuable species for preservation, saving big trees, and funding for tree removal assistance. There was no clear consensus on how funds should be allocated as maintenance on conservation easements had the most support (only 12% of respondents).” The use of the tree fund is “Goal 5: Promote tree preservation and protection” on page 48 of the plan. 13) Tree Fund is continually cited as being used to inventory trees yet no tree inventory has taken place while it’s been planned for years. Tree inventory is cited as an approved use of the tree fund in the DDC. The State of Denton Urban Forestry Report 2016 included a sample tree inventory with 250 sites sampled. The UFMP states the importance of and recommends an inventory of trees in “Goal 1: Effectively manage the community tree resource” on page 39 of the UFMP. 14) Page 88 recommends adapted species, adapted are not native and thus do not support other native species- I vote for only native, why not? The UFMP does not make a recommendation of what types of trees (native or adopted) to plant. The full statement referenced on page 28 of the UFMP reads, “the Tree Fund also supports Denton Tree Initiative programs such as the Tree Rebate Program, Trees Mean Business, and Tree Your Block, which are programs designed to provide or plant native and adapted tree species on private property.” This lists the types of trees provided and planted through the Denton Tree Initiative. Currently, Denton’s urban forest consists of about 96 percent native species. As our internal policy, we plant and recommend the planting of native and adapted trees. Including adapted trees in the mix increases species diversity, which is important to guard against large portions of the tree population being lost to disease and insect infestations such as Emerald Ash Borer and Spotted Lantern fly. 15) DME suggests planting invasive species like Chinese Pistache while it is not in list of invasive in Plan or mentioned in Goal 7 Chinese Pistache is not listed as invasive by the Texas Department of Agriculture. Staff has not seen evidence of invasiveness by Chinese Pistache. 16) The Landmark tree designation that is not listed in Plan but is listed in staff report is not sufficient to me and did not take public opinion into account. Calculations for preserving classifying Post Oak and Blackjack trees are based on 45% of state champion averages yet another other tree attempting to gain the Landmark designation must be 60%- why the higher standard for other native trees? Landmark tree designation was a part of the update to the Tree Code and was not included in the UFMP. Recognizing the importance of Post Oaks and Blackjack Oaks, along with the difficulty of propagation to the area, the DBH threshold was lowered to qualify more trees as Landmark trees. If other trees fall into this category, staff can make the appropriate adjustment to the minimum DBH. 17) Page 68: Heat Island Mitigation is not listed up front in tree benefits, along with hydrological cycle restoration, soil health, etc. I understand maybe they don't name them all here but "benefits to air quality, carbon dioxide reductions" seems redundant when it could be more informative - like "pollutant" reduction- they absorb methane which we've got way too much of with gas wells, etc. (otherwise "air quality" sounds like more of a luxury and less of a necessity). The UFMP uses nomenclature standard to the industry that is more easily understood by the average person. Benefits to air quality is a broad term that encompasses pollutant reduction. While carbon dioxide can contribute to pollution, it is not considered a pollutant and is necessary for all life to exist. 18) two community meetings are listed but community input is only noted from the first one, thus squelching the public voice. Nothing about our desire to include habitat was registered thus the stakeholders, i.e. builders, were again given more input into the plan. Given the compressed timeline and budget two meetings were scheduled for community input. The first meeting was to gather input from the community. The second meeting was to report the status of the plan and show how input was incorporated into the first draft of the plan. The statement "nothing about our desire to include habitat was registered" conflicts with the first statement of this document, which states, "I also love that "healthy soil" and "habitat" are finally mentioned!" The introduction of the UFMP includes tree benefits and has sections on Wildlife and Soil Health that discuss wildlife habitat and creating habitat for beneficial soil microbes. This information has been in the plan since the first draft in early November. During the second community meeting, the desire to include habitat as a quantitative value was discussed. This information is not given by the i-Tree application and is not available elsewhere. 19) under "Soil Health" I would include that not only do trees produce healthy soil but need it to survive- you cannot plant them in unhealthy soil like compacted soil and expect them to live but this point isn't made when it should be part of the soil health discussion. The section on soil health is discussing the benefits trees have on soil health, not what contributes to healthy soils. 20) Page 92 "Currently utilities compete for space within the public right-of-way (water, electric, sewer, etc.). Utility easements can restrict the amount of space available for planting a tree, making it challenging to meet Design Standards intended to promote tree canopy cover, as well as, provide the necessary soil volume to support a tree throughout its lifetime." Can we plant a pocket prairie in these locations or at least employ healthy soil guidelines there if not plant a tree? Pocket prairies in public right-of-ways that are not able to have street trees may be possible. The main limiting factor would be visibility at intersections and driveways due to the height of the vegetation. Parks has planted wildflowers and buffalo grass, as a "reduced mowing pollinator habitat" in the center median of Windsor west of Bonnie Brae and is planning to plant more in the future. 21) Page 91 "The Integrated Pest Management Program applies multi-faceted strategies that minimize economic, health and environmental risks." False. The IPM poisons the air, water, soil and community with pesticides proven toxic to children, animals and expectant mothers- and is still on the playgrounds. I understand this is a separate issue but in cannot be overstated as a false premise being pushed on our community from an unjustified position. Not applicable to the UFMP. 22) I'd like a quote on the tree inventory while it may be helpful to remember that this master plan only applies to 10% of Denton's trees. There is no city that I am aware of that inventories 100% of their trees. Cities inventory trees located along street right-of-ways, parks, and other City properties, not private properties. A tree inventory is used as a tool to manage better and keep a record of tree service requests and maintenance. Trees that are not maintained, such as in natural forested and riparian areas, are not inventoried. The records in a tree inventory are updated as work such as mulching, pruning, and removal is completed. 23) Page 101 "use planting funds successfully" yet this only includes initial planting, not maintenance or watering for 3 years, soil preparation, etc. All trees planted in parks include centrally controlled and managed irrigation for at least the first three years. While some soil prep has been done in the past, it is not a recommended practice unless amending soil beyond the planting hole. Parks and Recreation staff and volunteers handle tree maintenance. 24) Page 104 "Mitigate and reduce risk of wildfire" healthy soils are not mentioned but contribute nearly immeasurably. There is much more potential to decrease wildfires that could be mentioned on this page- things that would give us even more benefits while saving money. This is one of the goals of the UFMP under "Focus Area: A safe and healthy urban forest." Creating a community wildfire protection plan is an action item of the plan, not a deliverable. Staff is not sure what is meant by "healthy soils are not mentioned but contribute nearly immeasurably." Consequently, staff reached out to Dr. Morris C. Johnson, Research Fire Ecologist with the US Forest Service. Dr. Johnson has a B.S. in Urban Forestry, an M.S. in Silviculture and Forest Protection, and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecology. Dr. Johnson was asked if healthy soils contribute to mitigating and reducing fire risk and read the above statement for context. His response was, "Heathy soil and fire are, not related," as stated above. He also stated, "High frequent low intensity fire breaks down organic materials and adds nutrients back to the soil... Heathy soils will contribute to forest health." Both points that Parks and Recreation staff agree with. However, it is beyond the request for proposal and scope of the UFMP. 25) Why are "Tree Protection Zones" and signage like we've asked for only mentioned for Post Oaks? Tree protection, in general, is covered in the Denton Development Code (DDC), as stated on page 48 of the UFMP, "Enforce conservation standards laid out in the Denton Development Code." The objective referenced above and on page 49 of the UFMP is specifically to "Mitigate the impacts of development on native post oak stands." 26) We need to get more on page 134 to the "high" column! I agree. As stated in my response to question five, "The UFMP's structure is based on the understanding of "what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing." This is one of the places that identifies what we have and what we want. 27) Page 132 and 134 cells do not match up, for instance there is a "developer" question on section on 132 but not a developer answer on 134. Noted, this has been corrected. 28) Page 136 brownfield mitigation has come a long way and is much more affordable, including mycelium abatement, let's check it- I'd love a section of brownfield to decontaminate! This is beyond the request for proposal and scope of the UFMP.