Dallas Trees

On Corporations

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:30:00 +0000

I thought it would be worth sharing two informative writings with you on the subject of 'corporate personhood'. In the end, the question of personhood comes down to the People of the United States standing up for our heritage and our legacy. It begins locally. It begins with the small battles. It continues as we separate corporations from control of our government and the people entrusted by us to protect and serve us. It ends when corporations no longer decide our futures for us based on what is profitable for a few shareholders, and when they are no longer masters of our fate. We start with a little education....

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

by Stephen D. Foster, Jr., Addicting Info

"Citizens United. This is the 2010 Supreme Court case that shocked America, influenced an election, and reversed over 100 years of campaign finance laws. In this case, corporations were declared as people and as such declared to have the same rights as people do. It also opened the doors for corporations to pour unprecedented amounts of campaign donations into elections, and what’s more, these donations can be totally secret. Corporations can now literally and legally buy elections and shape the government like never before in our nation’s history.

The economic world we live in today is dominated by corporations. Huge corporations that boast massive profits and span continents. But corporations also wield political power and are lobbying heavily to be free from any and all government regulations that would make them responsible and liable. Republicans have been defending corporations since the late 1800′s and have literally gone on a history revising crusade to show that even the founding fathers supported corporations. But is this the case? What did the founders really think about corporations?..."

Read More

________

End Corporate Personhood

by Thom Hartmann, Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Book Excerpt , Truthout

Making Change Happen

"...Taking on the conventional wisdom and a hierarchical power structure is no small or easy task. The Civil Rights and Women’s Rights movements tell us how true social change happens: from the bottom up. The Supreme Court, for example, doesn’t just go out and right social or legal wrongs. Instead legislatures pass laws, and people challenge those laws. When the challenges have worked their way up through the courts, they end up before the Supreme Court, which then has an opportunity to rule on the laws in the context of their relationship to the Constitution.

For humans to take back control of our governments by undoing corporate personhood, we’ll have to begin with the governments that are the closest and most accessible to us. It’s almost impossible for you or me to go to Washington, D.C., and have a meeting with our senator or representative—most of us usually can’t even get them on the phone unless we’re a big contributor. But most of us can meet with our city council members or show up at their meetings. Lobbying within the local community is both easy and effective. Local politicians are the closest to—and generally the most responsive—to the people they represent.

When enough local communities have passed ordinances that directly challenge corporate personhood, state legislatures will begin to notice. As with the issues of slavery, women’s suffrage, and Prohibition (among others), when local communities take actions that are followed by states, eventually the federal government will get on board. ..."

Read More

_________

“Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays.”

― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

Article X Update: November 16, 2011

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:06:00 +0000

This item is posted here for informational purposes for the general public and I purposefully avoid making an opinion on any subject. My intent is to provide basic information for consideration.

The Urban Forest Advisory Committee made a presentation before the Dallas City Council's Quality of Life Committee on Monday, November 14. As a follow up to the January 8 discussion, Chairman Bob Curry updated the committee on the current UFAC position on ordinance amendment proposals. In the past month, the QOL Committee came out of their retreat planning session with one of their goals being to address the tree preservation ordinance. Since the committee has been formed out of a new council, the UFAC was called on to bring the ordinance topic forward one more time. This time, there was a particular emphasis raised on three specific issues that had drawn the interest of some members of the committee. These primary issues are:

Eliminate (or amend) the 2-acre residential exemption. - This pertains to Section 51A-10.131 regarding the application of the 'tree preservation' ordinance. In Dallas, lots smaller than two acres in size that contain single family and duplex uses are exempt from the tree ordinance.

Restrict 'clearcutting' of development sites. - Clearcutting may refer to the mass grading and complete removal of all trees on a development. This is done when the grading for a development is designed to cover an entire building site in order to address drainage and zoning requirements. The tree removal is a product of grading. The Article X tree ordinance specifies how and when removed trees are to be mitigated but does not restrict the removal of any species. This process may also be subject to review under other ordinance governing the scale of development, and grading, on any property.

Amend Section 51A-4.702 to limit the exemption of Article X from planned development districts. - Planned development districts 'provide flexibility in the planning and construction of development projects by allowing a combination of land uses developed under a uniform plan that protects contiguous land uses and preserves significant natural features.'

The UFAC has requested the city to begin drafting language for ordinance review. However, these matters may be continued for discussion and review through the committee in the short term. Any future public hearings will be posted on the Dallas Trees Calendar and through this blog.

Further reading on Article X and UFAC ordinance recommendations may also be found here.

Defining The 'Clearcutting' Debate

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:57:00 +0000

As an arborist, I can get a bit uncomfortable with some of the forestry terminology that is tossed about in the media and, even more so, in public meetings. I thought I should try to address some of these word selections we hear from time to time and possibly help us achieve some understanding. Using the correct words also help to discover more than what is on the surface of a debate, but search for what is involved in the concept. In this post, I am speaking only about the appropriate technical terms for what we are discussing in UFAC for debate. I'll talk about the merits of the debate of economic development versus environmental sustainability in a moment.

CLEARCUTTING. This is generally a forestry term that dates back to the 19th century when sawmill operators were ripping down every tree on the land because it was valuable. It is still one of many methods of tree removal on some tracts of land to produce a timber crop. It also usually involves new regeneration of trees that will be grown for another harvest of trees in the future. I won't go into more technical terms like 'even-aged management' since timber operations are not prevalent in our urban forest surroundings. Clearly, 'clearcutting' is a commonly known word among the general public and easily touches on the emotions of those who see examples of it. I'm not looking to disarm the term, but merely to let us consider more direct terminology.

Since we are not discussing timber harvesting practices, I prefer to use a more technically appropriate term like DEFORESTATION. This is essentially the removal of a forest on a tract of land with no intention of replacing it with a new forest. Unfortunately, this term may still not be completely appropriate since it doesn't discuss the complete removal of the biotic (living) environment that is associated with the trees when the tract is made 'excessively' impervious. We might then consider the term DENUDE, which means to make bare. This would still not account for, or give proper respect to, the soil organisms, bacteria, worms, and other living species of flora and fauna that populate the forest, or are impacted in the increased sedimentation of waterways that carry storm water from the denuded forest. This also doesn't take into account that some people in Texas aren't comfortable with saying the word 'nude'.

It might be argued that mechanical denudation doesn't account for the LANDSCAPING that will be placed back onto a property after the deforestation. In any stretch of the imagination, the land development only re-invents a living environment for plants to a human standard. For any plant introduced to the site, it is only as successful as the design, soil replacement, and spatial growing environment placed into that landscaping during the DESIGN PHASE. The art and science of landscape architecture is focused on this human reinvention of what Nature does best. We're never really all that good at it but we give it our best shot. Landscaping on a property that is DEFORESTED and, in the process, DENUDED of its biotic (living) components, cannot be considered REFORESTATION as FOREST replacement; though it is technically TREE replacement.

DEFORESTATION may begin at the CONCEPTUAL PHASE before an engineer - or perhaps even the owner - ever sets foot on the property. Coincidentally, this is also when PRESERVATION, or more likely, CONSERVATION, must begin. Conservation is not an ordinance action. It is a philosophy, a plan, and a mission. If it is not in the heart and mind from conception, it will fail.

If the land acquisition by the owner/speculator does not take into account the value the Community has placed on the trees and Forest through ordinance protection, then it is possible the land that is seen as a low-cost financial COMMODITY - something useful that can be turned to commercial advantage - is not recognized by the speculator as anything more than a piece of dirt for economic growth. Then, from the very beginning, the DEFORESTATION cost is not taken into account with all of the other DEVELOPMENT costs - increased infrastructure, roadways, grading, retaining walls, zoning, permits, etc. All of a sudden, from the eye of the speculator, the trees may become an 'unreasonable burden' to development. They might not even recognize an applied value to the other living elements (flora, fauna, microorganisms, etc.) of the land since there is no monetary measurement for them. The forest, and the ordinance that 'protects' the trees within it, becomes the 'detriment to development'. Any significant effort for CONSERVATION cannot be successful if it is not conceived of at the very beginning of the imagined uses for the property. A successful conservation effort cannot be concluded from an afterthought to preserve small remnants on the property not slated for a loading dock or a trash dumpster.

In Dallas, the Article X ordinance, derived four years after a Council resolution in 1990 to preserve large trees, speaks of maintaining (stabilizing) an 'ECOLOGICAL BALANCE'. We may then look at PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AFFORESTATION, and FORESTATION as topics for further consideration in how we attempt to balance growth through DEVELOPMENT, RE-DEVELOPMENT, and SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT while maintaining our other LIVING INFRASTRUCTURE. The challenge for the community, and the Urban Forest Advisory Committee, is to determine how to create a balance while there are still large mature trees in the community with which to create the balance. We will look at these terms in the next post.

The Balance Of The Forest

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:58:00 +0000

I noted in my previous post the concept of stabilizing the 'ECOLOGICAL BALANCE' that was enacted in the Purpose section of the current City of Dallas Article X landscape and tree preservation ordinances. This is a critical, but often under-analyzed, section of the code even though it really doesn't give city staff direction on the technical aspects of enforcing it. The 'Purpose' section is the goals directed by City Council that drives everything else within the document. In that light, it may be the most critical element of the discussion of any future ordinance amendments.

Achieving a balance is infinitely difficult when there is no definition of where the balance lies and there is no clear guide to indicate what is most worthy of conservation, and what is most desired for development. Establishing an ordinance to regulate the community's interest is important, but establishing the ground network to make it function appropriately is just as essential. Should there be an advocacy group that markets, supports, and administers conservation easements in cooperation with new development? Should there be an established master plan of areas desired for preservation so these areas can be pursued for protection while we help development build more sustain-ably? How do we marshal together LAND CONSERVATION to balance with LAND DEVELOPMENT? How do you achieve a balance if you merely state you want this to be done but there is no interactive network to fulfill it? It has been the point of the Urban Forest Advisory Committee to ask questions like these and to seek answers for them. Fixing the technical questions like landscaping under power lines have been easier to confront than addressing concepts and questions not yet vetted through current ordinance.

Even Yoda couldn't foresee the future outcomes to achieve a balance.

In the end, we need to understand the definitions and support those goals, in not just action, but in philosophy as well. The technical answers to achieve those goals may yet come through a unified vision of progress if we know where we're going at the end of the day. Even the Griswolds knew they were going to Walley World. They made it....well, except for Aunt Edna. And her dog. Ah, heck, they were going to Phoenix anyway. But the important thing to know is we have goals and we need to stay true to them and we'll get there. It also helps to know the City doesn't shut down for two weeks for maintenance.

As I stated in the previous post, CONSERVATION must begin at the conception of development since this is also where DEFORESTATION begins. No trees are removed yet, but as the project goes forward, the process becomes inevitable as engineering and design costs increase. The economic factors set in. The deforestation begins on paper and on the computers in engineering offices long before it ends on the front end of bulldozers.

It's also important to note that PRESERVATION - maintaining the land in its current state - is a product of CONSERVATION, or the protection of the land from harm or destruction. If conservation cannot occur, the land area will not be preserved. I, personally, don't like the term preservation for woodland areas since the living forest is forever evolving and changing over time. It's the nature of the living forest environment to change, most of which you don't even see beneath your feet in moist and fertile soils, flowing behind the tree bark of 200-year old post oak trees, or rapidly beating in the heart of the young birds nesting in the canopy. The term 'preservation' merely helps us establish in word our goal that the land should be protected. Conservation gives us a more appropriate practical term to help protect the woodland to regenerate under the terms already present.

AFFORESTATION is the conversion of land into forest. It can also mean to revert a previously deforested land back into forest. This is not a term that is used much in these parts, but it raises ideas about the conversion of lands without a current practical use to a condition of being wooded. Typically, afforestation would involve a different type of regeneration that would involve planting saplings and seedlings which are much smaller than the minimum planting size (2-inch caliper) required by ordinance currently. You might see this with mostly lightly managed properties without introduced irrigation. This would entail a complete land conversion in contrast to a development landscape. There is no mechanism for this application under current Dallas ordinance but is discussed here because the UFAC has broached it. FORESTATION is the planting of trees over a wide area.

DEVELOPMENT is the creation of one or more built structures and the utilization of the surrounding land area to support the desired uses on the property. I won't go into great detail on this, but development is fundamental to a growing city to establish community growth and provide income for land owners. It is when this new development impacts heavily wooded - or other open space - property that was not previously developed that the conflicts become more pronounced between economic and environmental goals for the City. RE-DEVELOPMENT is the re-use of previously developed property to accomplish the same goals of development. Conservation efforts would encourage more of this type of development in areas that are already established with built infrastructure and in need of economic improvement.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is that which accounts for not only the economic impacts for the individual owner, the local community, and the economic gains of the City, but also considers and recognizes the environmental goals of the City. It is more than green construction materials and infrastructure. It works toward ways of conserving a balance of forest canopy where feasible based on the goals established by the community, not the builder. It considers the value of the LAND in every way, including the economics of the property based on what it provides the community through its resources, as in heat abatement, air and water quality, and the quality of life of the community around it. It seeks to find ways to BALANCE DEVELOPMENT WITH CONSERVATION.

The LIVING INFRASTRUCTURE is the urban forest. The individual trees are engines of sustainable living in the community. The living urban forest around the tree functions in sustaining that engine of air production that is at the same time consuming our toxins. The combined trees interact and function together naturally as a process of survival - and Life. We interact with this infrastructure more by receiving from it than by giving to it. It helps to sustain all life within our community. This infrastructure is a critical element to the community. However, in the City, it must be determined through our goals and management how and where this infrastructure should be sustained and where, in proper portion, we may be inclined to sacrifice it for the good of the WHOLE community. Striking the balance is the challenge being put before us today.

Soon, we will look at other concepts and definitions raised in the UFAC recommendations, and study a bit about the PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Meanwhile, note that I am only an adviser to the open committee and may speak here on issues related to its points of deliberation. I will voice my opinion (loudly at times) on certain issues, but I do not speak on official positions of City of Dallas staff unless I'm ever called on to do so. However, I will present ordinance as written. I am, at heart, a conservationist, a centrist, and a determined advocate for reasoned approaches to solutions and the use of diplomacy. These are personal traits that come in handy when you're an ecologist focused in a growth-oriented entity like the City of Dallas. The door is wide open for ideas and points of discussion and I invite any of my readers (or should I say both?) to present opinions and ideas.

You may also be interested in reviewing city ordinances through my personal website.

Planned Developments: A 'Positive' Case Study

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:47:00 +0000

There can be no complete discussion of the Dallas Article X (ten) landscape and tree 'preservation' ordinances without a brief description of PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, or PD's. The ordinance that governs the creation of planned developments is in Section 51A-4.702 of the Dallas Development Code. Some of what we may call planned developments are actually SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS, wherein a district like Oak Lawn, State-Thomas, or Farmer's Market can create specific rules for development that are appropriate for the area. The landscape conditions in these SPD's may vary dramatically from the Article X standards. A couple of the SPD's noted above date back to, or before, the original Article X landscape ordinance passed in 1985.

The first rule of tree mitigation that every developer in Dallas should know is "if you don't remove the tree, you don't mitigate the tree."

The purpose of the planned development is to provide 'flexibility in the planning and construction of development projects by allowing a combination of land uses developed under a uniform plan that protects contiguous land uses and preserves significant natural features.' This is not at all in conflict with the ideals of forwardDallas! or the practices of sustainable development. It also supports the 'ecological balance' between development and conservation we discussed previously for Article X. However, the scope of the planned development, and the level of flexibility, is - in the end - determined by the City Council. The process gets a significant hashing through city staff for a time before it ends up with the City Plan Commission. The Commission then reviews it based on the zoning standards for that property and how it works with the surrounding community. It then moves on to Council in the public hearings.

Depending on the new district, the PD may require a conceptual plan and/or a development plan, or may not require either.

The Article X Standard

As Article X applies to the site, the landscape conditions may vary. In most cases, 1) Article X is the base standard for landscaping in the districts. It is even more so for tree 'preservation' issues. There are other cases 2) where Article X will be the base of landscaping, and then exceptions or additions will be added to provide the general 'flexibility' requested by the applicant that is then voted up or down by the Council. Then we also have cases where 3) the landscaping is based on a specific formal plan that is used to define the required landscaping that MUST be installed for final inspections. If the site and landscaping don't match, then they are brought back for an amendment process.

It is the rarer instance that the Article X tree 'preservation' regulations are amended for a PD. When this does occur, it is usually to address a specific feature of the property or to alter a current Article X feature like conservation easements. For instance, a site may be highly populated with juvenile to maturing eastern redcedar trees that have grown on an old 'vacant' property that has been without proper management over the past few decades. As the lands sat fallow, and since fire has long since been removed as a land cleansing agent, the junipers had claimed the land and pioneered the beginnings of a new woodland terrain. If the average tree size is just at, or somewhat over, the protected size of 12 inches in diameter, the applicant may sometimes request an alteration to allow for the removal of the smaller of the trees with a mitigation exemption. For better or worse, junipers are given bad marks by many developers. (NOTE: I'll have more on junipers in an upcoming post.)

In other cases, the land owner may seek to use a tool similar to a CONSERVATION EASEMENT, which is currently available in Article X, and apply a different standard to fit the demands of their development. Planned developments are individually tailored to fit the desired development requirements for the new district; but also are intended, as indicated in its Purpose, to account for the 'significant natural features' of the land. Whether or not the conservation area is an easement or not becomes a matter of who holds the land and under what administrative protections (public deed restriction or PD) will maintain it in perpetuity.

Although this 'flexibility' for Article X conditions may create some serious challenges, it does not necessarily mean that the developer will seek to reduce their mitigation requirements by removing the requirement for tree mitigation. The planned development is only as strong as the sustainable development standards applied to it. PD's may actually help the City create a condition that could lead the developer to find a balance to make the development work with the natural features. This usually depends on certain decisions, or the whim, of the developer. Let's take a brief look at a PD case study from Oak Cliff (without going into great detail on specifics) that never managed - to date - to turn over any dirt.

PD 772 woodland area to be protected under current ordinance.

PD 772. This planned development was created in 2007 for a proposed development of a new single-family residential district in Southwest Dallas. The development never got started for various reasons, but the intention initially was to maximize the deforestation the area and create the new subdivision on the denuded property. Same book as before; different chapter. The only wooded land remaining would have been along the creek to the east. After a review of the tree survey, it was clear from everyone's perspective that the vast amount of tree mitigation (far exceeding the current high benchmark) was going to be a significant issue to the owner. It may have even been assessed that the expected mitigation costs exceeded the purchase value of the land. However, this did not stop the developer, to their credit, from pursuing new ideas that had not been previously considered by the owner or the engineer.

As the case was brought to Building Inspection prior to the hearings, the city arborist consulted with the owner while reviewing the surveys, the topography, and general lay of the land. Using some fairly basic land evaluation tools including aerial imagery, topographic maps, the county soil survey, the tree survey, and a truck for putting feet on the ground and eyes on the trees, the arborist was able to demonstrate to the owner methods of developing the property while minimizing the impact of tree mitigation. There was no real mystery to solving this problem, except to those who may not be introduced to the concept of CONSERVATION DESIGN. This process, also called 'conservation development', involves limiting development while protecting important environmental features. Exhibit A of this ordinance, found in public record, demonstrates the final development plan layout the owner had decided upon for passage of the PD.

Comparison of a standard 'cookie cutter' subdivision with the conservation design concept.

The re-design process for conservation design was initiated to remove from the project the areas that should be given priority for conservation. When the analysis separated out the high tree canopy areas and the land areas adjacent to the regional drainage channels, a significant number (55%) of protected trees were selected out of the areas to be considered for development. The engineer took the rough sketch and began to merge the technical data with the concepts discussed and draw in the lines to identify lot boundaries around the protected zones. The owner took this rather 'basic' design -by conservation design standards - with just a few less 'rooftops', and a significant reduction in roadway and infrastructure requirements, and was able to form up a development plan for the PD proposal. The tree mitigation through the PD-modified 'conservation area' (with up to 80% credit for the extended land protection outside the channel floodplain that would be allowed under Article X), and planting on site, reduced the remaining mitigation to less than 6% of the original mitigation requirements that was recorded to be well over 20,000 inches of Article X-protected trees. If the parties involved were more experienced in the conservation design procedure, it is likely the extent of tree removal could have been reduced further, causing the overall number of trees for mitigation to be reduced by as much as, or maybe more than, 60%, and they might have completed the mitigation before the last landscape tree was ever planted.

Could this design process have been more successful for establishing a profitable development while balancing more conservation area? ABSOLUTELY. We live; we learn. The site is currently not developed. There is still room for improvement.

It may have been possible the reductions would have occurred without the PD. However, current city ordinances may not be established in their current format to give the conservation design its full measure. The city ordinance provides the ability to create COMMUNITY UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (CUD) where lot sizes are reduced for the protection of land areas. One of the drawbacks to the CUD is that there tends to be a public distrust to forming smaller lots and moving homes closer together. Even though the development plan demonstrated a reduced 'footprint' on the property for development, it could have been reduced even further with other alternative housing development standards. The conservation easement areas could have been expanded while also reducing the level of roadway construction. In the end, a highly desirable woodland development could be constructed that would help protect riparian corridors, maintain a cooler living environment throughout the development, and provide scenic and recreational opportunities for the residential community in common areas.

In the end, we may find that balancing deforestation and development also calls for looking beyond Article X into other ordinances. All of the tools need upgraded to standards that help us build in the most sustainable methods available.

The first rule of tree mitigation that every developer in Dallas should know is "if you don't remove the tree, you don't mitigate the tree." There is instant dollar savings right there. The second rule is "if you stay away from the tree, you won't remove the tree." Sure, they seem like simple statements, but you might be amazed at how hard it is to put these into practice with rampaging bulldozers running about. They're not as solid as the wisdom of "never get involved in a land war in Asia" but there are some people who never seem to grasp that one either.

Large oaks in PD 772 to be preserved in the heart of the conservation area.

Being Flexible

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:04:00 +0000

As I sat through the Quality of Life Committee briefing in mid-November being presented by the Urban Forest Advisory Committee, I was quizzing myself over the areas of Article X where city staff may find value from a measure of 'flexibility' in conducting building permit plan reviews for landscaping. Council and the committee were discussing the merits of such action that appeared on the surface to give the Building Official undetermined liberties to approve landscape matters administratively. The UFAC had suggested through its proposed amendments that the City Arborist should be able to administratively affect a landscape plan in order to fairly expedite the plan review forward; to reduce loads going before the Board of Adjustment; and more importantly, to establish more appropriate growing environments for the trees. I made no case for or against the matter, and I will not. However, as an adviser to the committee, I feel compelled to describe (for clarity to the interested parties, and in order to attempt to dispel any confusion) what each issue is within the UFAC recommendations, and how each item was intended to function.

The UFAC recommendations establish several locations where the Building Official, through the City Arborist, would have the authority to adjust landscape plan reviews to provide an appropriate outcome within the confines of the ordinance. It should be noted that ALL of the recommendations from the Committee would be formed to function within specific established parameters by the City Council. I would not - indeed, could not - suggest it to the committee in any other fashion. The UFAC recommendations include the following:

Section 51A-10.103, Acceptable Plant Materials. "The building official shall have the authority to require plant species substitutions to a landscape plan if scheduled plants are deemed invasive."

- This would simply indicate the city arborist would require any invasive plant, as defined by city ordinance, to be removed from a required landscape plan and to not be planted as a part of that plan. Such instances would likely be extremely rare.

Section 51A-10.104, Planting Area Requirements. "Minimum spacing for trees is specified in the Technical Manual. The building official may approve alternative spacing."

- Currently, there is no Technical Manual. This is another recommendation of the committee that we'll discuss on a future blog post. Minimum spacing between plants has been advocated by the committee to assure proper planting and growing environments for each tree. This provision would provide the Building Official the ability to approve variances on plans created by the landscape architect, or other author. This would not be in effect on Council, or CPC, approved plans unless authorized specifically by ordinance. Stamped and approved plans by Board or Council may not be amended by the Building Official.

Section 51A-10.106, Irrigation Requirements. "....to authorize the building official to approve alternative irrigation plans for properties seeking compliance with green building standards."

- The green building ordinance has created situations where adaptability and flexibility for landscape design may be warranted if the licensed irrigator, and/or licensed landscape architect, had designed a plan to comply with the green code previsions while maintaining the plants in a healthy growing condition. The standard would be applied more to the state licensed contractor to prove the ability to the Building Official that the plan can achieve this level of operation.

Section 51A-10.124, Landscape Plan Review. "Revise to allow the building official to approve alternative plant materials where applicable for green building standards."

- Again, the green building standards may create a condition of conflict where implementation of design standards under 51A-10.126 would require thirsty large evergreen plant materials in circumstances not suitable to achieving the level of water conservation needed for credit. The UFAC suggests that landscape design standards may be amended in code to provide for an additional alternative design standard to fit the situation, or Council may wish to establish ground rules for the city arborist to approve a varied condition. For example, if a 'foundation planting strip' requires large shrubs, the location may be more suitable for more drought-hardy plant materials to better adapt to a drier planting condition while still providing the general attractive foundation planting environment.

Section 51A-10.125, Mandatory Landscaping Requirements. 1) "Revise to allow the building official the authority to approve a substitute tree when a conflict with utilities exist." 2) "Revise to allow the building official to approve an alternative site location when a conflict with utilities exists." 3) "Revise to allow the building official the authority to approve an alternative plan when a landscape buffer strip is in conflict with utilities or other site restrictions."

- Under the committee's suggestion, this section may have the most applications for standard landscape plan reviews. Essentially, the intention is to provide the city arborist with the ability to approve minor variances to a landscape plan for conflicts with overhead or underground utilities, or other obstructions, when the alternative would otherwise be to send the case directly to the Board of Adjustment. It has been suggested that Council may first wish to establish broader standards for street trees and buffer planting requirements for trees along street frontages or alleys. When the site could still not comply with the city standard, and if the condition was not imposed by a self-created site hardship, the city arborist could authorize a plan that was still within additional set standards established by Council and would still sufficiently meet the intent of the ordinance.

An example of this might be where an underground easement and overhead electric utility lines created a situation where street trees could not be planted on the property until 50 feet from the curb. This condition can exist. Current ordinance requires all street trees to be within 30 feet of the curb. If the standard distance was widened by Council to 50 feet or greater, the property might still comply with ordinance. However, if the new standard distance for street trees could still not provide an adequate tree location for the required number, the city official could approve an alternative location for a portion of the landscaping. In any case, the tree could not be set in a general distance from the curb unless the distance range had already been confirmed by Council in the ordinance. If it was determined by the Building Official that the tree location variance was requested by an applicant for self-created site issues, the official could reject the request and the applicant would submit it to the Board of Adjustment instead.

Another situation could arise with a high density development in a narrow front yard setback where overhead electric lines along the street restricted the proper planting of large canopy trees near the street. In this case, the city official could authorize small trees in certain locations if the large canopy tree would cause long-term conflicts with the built infrastructure, and there was not sufficient space on the property to safely plant the trees further back from the lines. In all cases, the intent of the UFAC is to provide specific tools to aid the city officials in addressing city infrastructure site conflicts without escalating them to a Board for 'minor' technical matters. Any other method of repairing this situation may entail zoning ordinance conflicts for allowable setbacks.

The city staff has not supported or rejected the recommendations at this time.

Call Me Ishmael

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:30:00 +0000

“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.” - Aldo Leopold, Round River

The outcast. This is how we regard certain tree species in Dallas that are not among the favored ilk. However, we should not consider all trees of this classification to be so ill-favored, and we should give them - at least, some of them - their due respect. The hackberry tree, likely the most populous tree in Dallas, provides important services to the community with the massive shelter of its tree canopies. There are other trees on the list, such as the Chinese tallow which was introduced into the Texas environment, that have become a menace to communities across the State and likely have been given proper marking.

We tend to list these trees in ordinance, not for the sake of other trees or the surrounding forest, but for our own interests. We consider these trees to be inferior, though in actuality they may provide - en masse - significant value to the community. I am not advocating removing any of these trees from the list. Indeed, there may be trees the City may determine should be added for efforts to better manage the forest for the interest of the human community. I merely state this for the purpose of understanding our own behavior of how we place our own selfish values on something we do not understand. Understanding the trees, and the forest, and the whole living community, will be crucial in the months ahead as our human community discusses how we will interact with them; be it with a framework and mindset of management, or neglect. Failing to recognize and understand our surroundings commits us to poor management, or none.

The Dallas landscape and tree ordinances have two main lists of trees. One is the PROTECTED tree list. Actually, it only identifies the few trees that are NOT protected by city law, and the trees that are planted for replacement of the cut-down protected trees. The trees that are NOT on the list are protected and are subject to the full protection of the law. The second list is the APPROVED REPLACEMENT TREE LIST which identifies the species of trees that are deemed suitable by the City Council to be appropriate for planting in Dallas. If you cut down a protected tree, you replace with trees from the approved list. I want to begin today's discussion with the PROTECTED list.

In Article X, a PROTECTED tree means a tree that has a caliper of eight inches or more and is NOT one of the following trees:

Silver Maple
Ailanthus, or Tree-of-heaven
Mimosa, or Silktree
Hackberry, or Sugarberry (two distinct trees, but we won't labor this point)
Arizona ash
Eastern redcedar, unless protected as listed later in this article.
Bois d'arc, or Horseapple (female only)
Chinaberry
Mesquite (with the same qualifier as the eastern redcedar)
Black willow
Chinese tallow (a nasty invasive)
Siberian elm

The eastern redcedar and the mesquite trees were designated by City Council in 2003 as having a different status than the rest of the trees. These two species are now protected at a caliper of twelve inches or more EXCEPT that they are still protected at eight inches or more if the trunk of the tree is located within 120 feet of the boundary of 1) a floodplain, 2) a wetland area, or 3) an escarpment zone; OR 4) if it is within 50 feet of a 'natural channel setback line'. These distinctions were raised as a means to address the impacts of the juvenile Junipers, and the established mesquite, that were scattered across otherwise open fields and increasing the tree mitigation impacts on development.

It is worth noting that ALL trees that are planted as replacements are regarded as PROTECTED trees at any caliper size. This is important to register as a basis for the planting locations on landscape plans. If the replacement tree is proposed in an unsuitable location for the tree to achieve a healthy growth to full maturity, it may be rejected for that location by the Building Official.

Our designations in ordinance merely give us a direction on how to regulate the removal of the trees. These laws do not help us better understand the impact of the trees on our society, or make us better equipped to give them the proper respect any living species on earth should receive. These are living ecosystems within the imagined borders of Dallas. They cross property lines contrary to our wills and with no regard to them. The trees favor open spaces and do not cope well with confinement. However, they do endure.

Some of these trees have served us well in our farming past. Consider that the bois d'arc was a significant tree to early pioneers for providing barriers before barbed wire was available. How many of these trees that had now grown to mammoth sizes (in cases, over 88-inches in diameter) over a century, or more, had been merely raked over with a bulldozer - and cursing men with broken chainsaws on the dense hard wood - with no regard to how they would be replaced, when in reality they could not be.

Eastern redcedar (Early Forest.com)

The juvenile eastern redcedar is regarded a severe nuisance to land developers and ranchers and any other land manager. But how majestic is the eleven-inch (not protected) mature eastern redcedar standing upright near the escarpment that looks over Grand Prairie? The tree had survived severe weather and poor growing conditions on its prominence, over long decades, to reach a point where it is given no consideration but to be too close to a lot line on an engineers' computer.

These trees may not be protected by law, but that does not negate them as a part of this living urban forest community called Dallas. They are deserving of the due respect that should be given any life on this earth. That we fail to provide this respect is OUR flaw. Don't blame the tree.

Drought Increases The Need For Trees And Thinking About Trees

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 04:30:00 +0000

Texas Climate Monitor

A wet and cold weekend, and I'm talking about drought? Sometimes our perceptions can deceive us. Living in the city, there is much of which we lose sight; especially Nature. Even with regional water rationing, there is a continual need for reminders to Texans - even those whose communities continue to be struck by water use restrictions - that we're in a persistent drought. As we have entered into a wetter seasonal pattern, reservoir levels are still low and getting lower. However, the cooler temperatures and the recurrence of precipitation events during the Fall and Winter entice us to put our guard down. Now, the Electric Reliability Council has reminded us that they might get a little less reliable, and that we don't just use our water for drinking and watering trees. Water keeps our power stations operational, and the continually depleted reservoir levels across the State will impact our ability to maintain the energy to power the conveniences of life, as well as impact the ability to provide water which is a necessity of life. Some small communities are on the verge of shutting down. The following graphic displays how the severe drought still lays heavy over the land.

TEXAS DROUGHT GRAPHIC

Click on text to go to the interactive link. Compare drought periods from 2000 to December 2011.

We also should not forget our gas drilling neighbors who consume and drop massive amounts of water into their 'fracking' operations. We tend to not realize that our abilities to produce energy is costing more and more energy and precious resources to obtain it as it gets harder to find. The energy companies don't share that information with us very much. Except for the guys making loads of cash, hydraulic fracturing and tar sands are hard pills for people to swallow as being a good thing. But we can talk about 'peak oil' another time. Let's just say, there's a lot more of us wanting the water that is available which is, at least in the short term, becoming less and less available under our current conditions. In the long term, we're not looking much better as our resources will diminish and our regional population expands.

If our precipitation totals for the coming Winter do not show considerable improvements, the coming Summer will become a tremendous challenge for more communities across the region as we struggle to maintain our growing population. Even so, there is some possibility that we could see a repeat of last Summer for its heat and dry conditions. The soil moisture contents will likely remain dry for many areas and our trees will be showing the impact over time.

Climate Prediction Center

Meanwhile, there are things we can do for water conservation and for the good of our communities. We should continue planting new trees as a part of the replenishment of our urban forest. The small amount of water necessary to establish new trees is by far offset by the positive gains provided by the tree (both now and in the future) to our communities. Also, helping to maintain our existing trees that form our forest canopy with supplemental water helps keep our present generation of forest infrastructure working to help balance our environment. These trees not only help cool your street and home, but they provide aesthetic qualities that comfort you and the entire neighborhood. They tend to provide the character of the street. They are a vital network of living infrastructure that must be managed appropriately to best serve the community.

The trees clean the air. The trees intercept water and reduce the rates of runoff entering the creeks at any one time. But the trees are also social bonds to tie you to the people around you. They are as important to nourishing the human mind in our urban environment as they are vital to supporting the rest of the living community in the woodlands - and your own front yard. We should recognize the many benefits the trees provide us and not just regard them like throw-away items we buy for convenience and collect in our homes. The trees deserve better than to be considered as an afterthought or a whim. They live; they give.

Your trees are a part of your social contract to help sustain your local community. The trees you plant, or have inherited, are your responsibility to maintain and nourish. If you accept this as fact, then perhaps you are one of the minority who understand the land ethic that implies you are not the conqueror and master of your land, and the collective life of the land, but you, yourself, are a member and citizen of it. It implies the Nature around you is to be respected. This is the higher calling as a true citizen of the City and of the world. It is also most honorable.

You say you 'love' trees, and the land, 'but'....

"...... just what and whom

do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are

sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the

waters, which we assume have no function except

to turn turbines, ﬂoat barges, and carry oﬀ sewage.

Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate

whole communities without batting an eye.

Certainly not the animals, of which we have already

extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful

species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the

alteration, management, and use of these ‘resources,’

but it does affirm their right to continued existence,

and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a

natural state." - Aldo Leopold

Nature strives for balance, and so should we. Conservation is the pathway that leads to 'sustainable development.' The land ethic is at the human heart of conservation. The true love of trees starts there.

More on the 'land ethic' coming soon.

A Discussion On The Purpose Of Article X

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:45:00 +0000

The Urban Forest Advisory Committee provides comment and recommendations to the City Council on issues pertaining to the protection of the urban forest canopy. In this process, the Committee has now spoken twice in the past year to the Council's Quality of Life Committee on suggestions for amending the Article X landscape and tree preservation ordinance. I have been providing some discussion to these recommendations recently for the sole purpose of clarity. It is most difficult to have open discussions on a topic where a clear understanding of terminology and meaning of concepts is not provided. It is hard enough to convey points of view when people are of different mindsets when it comes to an 'ecological conscience.'

Ignorance, or blatant disregard for life of the tree?

Of course, it's not my job to provide this clarity. But, as a private individual, it's also not my task to sit back and wait for the communication to fall flat because of erroneous perceptions that may have been corrected beforehand. Convenience lends me the opportunity to speak my mind here on this site. It also benefits me in clarifying for myself the issues before us. Communication is also a positive for me professionally. The greatest ally to a city official is a person's recognition of the rule of law and their will to voluntarily apply it to oneself. Last I heard, knowledge is the best thing to have in order to gain understanding. If you understand the justification of something from its roots, then you may be more inclined to want to conform to what is requested by the community.

On that note, I want to open up on the UFAC recommendations to expand on the philosophy, or the Purpose, of the ordinance. The stated purpose of Article X is designed to give the motivation, reasons, and goals of providing the law to be enacted. The original six specific purposes were given in the 1985 Article X landscape ordinance. In 1990, the City Council passed a resolution to 'support the protection and preservation of trees throughout the entire city.' The 1994 landscape and tree preservation ordinance added the seventh specific purpose 'to encourage the preservation of large trees which, once removed, can be replaced only after generations.' The current section in the ordinance reads as follows:

___________________________________

The process of development with its alteration of the natural topography, vegetation, and creation of impervious cover can have a negative effect on the ecological balance of an area by causing increases in air temperatures and accelerating the processes of runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. The economic base of the city can and should be protected through the preservation and enhancement of the unique natural beauty, environment, and vegetative space in this area. Recognizing that the general objectives of this article are to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, the city council further declares that this article is adopted for the following specific purposes:

(1) To aid in stabilizing the environment's ecological balance by contributing to the processes of air purification, oxygen regeneration, ground-water recharge, and storm water runoff retardation, while at the same time aiding in noise, glare, wind, and heat abatement.

(2) To provide visual buffering between land uses of differing character to alleviate the harshness of urban life.

(3) To enhance the beautification of the city.

(4) To safeguard and enhance property values and to protect public and private investment.

(5) To conserve energy.

(6) To provide habitat for wildlife.

(7) To encourage the preservation of large trees which, once removed, can be replaced only after generations. - added in 1994 with the tree preservation division.

____________________________

The UFAC has noted that these purposes are good, but it has made recommendations to attach additional purposes to the ordinance, in conjunction with technical amendments to the code, to apply to key aspects of the urban forest that, currently, may not be adequately addressed. In their summary, the UFAC stated the following additions:

"Revise the Purpose Statement to include 1) managing the urban forest for the conservation of all natural resources, 2) recognize trees and the urban forest as part of the city's natural infrastructure, 3) promote the understanding of a responsible land use ethic, and 4) to enhance the quality of life for future generations."

Let's touch on these suggested specific purposes.

Managing the urban forest for the conservation of all natural resources. The key component to this purpose is management for the conservation of all aspects of the land, including soil, water, flora and fauna, and even people. Management means proactively addressing the long term growth and health of the city's urban forest. It would imply that the science of forestry, and sound tree management practices, be more roundly applied on both private and public properties. Let's take into account all that we learn about the urban heat island effect, storm water retention for quality and quantity, air quality control, crime reduction and human behavior, necessary tree planting areas, water conservation, infrastructure maintenance, quality of life, and all the other studies that demonstrate how the forest protects us, whether or not we protect it.

Recognize trees and the urban forest as part of the city's natural infrastructure. It's a common understanding of the urban forestry community that the municipal forest is a vital component to the health and stability of communities. Our lack of recognition of this is our flaw which may set us up to make many mistakes in planning for the future. Our forest is green infrastructure. Infrastructure is the underlying foundation or basic framework of the living city. Our green infrastructure is not only fundamental in the functioning of our storm water controls, but is also the buffer for good air quality, and even impacts our social network for crime prevention. Green infrastructure counteracts (or balances) the impacts of development. We'll discuss more on green infrastructure later.

Promote the understanding of a responsible land use ethic. We've been touching on the land ethic principles on this blog of late as they are fundamental to the implementation and understanding of conservation. Here, too, is another commonality among land conservation advocates. The land ethic, as espoused by the early 20th century conservationist Aldo Leopold, states a moral standing on which the landowner recognizes himself as partner with the land, and does not consider the land solely as a commodity to be stripped bare for limited financial gain. A community that challenges its growth with this life ethic will strive to balance development with conservation. The Committee recognizes, as I do, that if the ordinance is changed but minds are not, then the law stands direction-less and subject to failure. A good law must have the moral conscience of the society behind it. For a society bound to urban living, the good law of conservation must also include connecting the public to Nature. It's not enough to 'love trees'. It's also a respect for life and all that is sacrificed for our dominance over the land.

Enhance the quality of life for future generations. This is a fairly simple but profound purpose to be stated. The loss of forest is to be expected with development. However, the ecological balance declared in the existing purpose statement is critical for sustaining a city for the long duration. Short-term gains for a few may be long-term losses for the community as a whole, and provide a net negative impact to the community. The Committee believes the land areas to be saved through conservation should be determined initially so that they can be balanced against the expected development and growth of the future. If these are addressed haphazardly and without direction, there is no management of the system and the impact of rapid development to future generations is left uncertain. Floodplain calculations for our creeks are established based on flows expected from full development in the watersheds. The ratio of lands conserved for forest canopy and open space retention should be calculated in like terms to assure we comply with new established goals of forest canopy coverage in the future. It's vital that we remember that we're building for the future generations and not ours alone.

I'll add this. Much of the City of Dallas is built out, but there is still plenty of land left to develop if it is determined that land should be developed. The City has set forward policies and ordinances to encourage sustainable growth throughout the entire territory but it is not evident to the Committee that the balance for sustainability is yet achieved. The specific purposes of Article X are all functioning to achieve that goal. The motion raised by the UFAC through these purposes is that this statement of sustainable growth must be made louder and stronger and with a greater understanding of just what conservation means.

Warming Up To Conservation

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 04:00:00 +0000

Just because I haven't been jumping around on the climate change trail recently doesn't mean I'm not paying attention to the arguments. The blog RealClimate has provided an update on Global Temperature News discussing a couple of recent papers.

It's still getting warmer.

It's apparent our national governments are not going to take this seriously, so it comes back to each of us in our communities to take up the charge and attack climate change from the grassroots level. If the mantra is to be profit over planet, then we need to let the game play out and the people answer with a proper response. That is, if you really have any interest whatsoever in dealing with something beyond your sense of self, it's becoming time to step up. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm as selfish a man as any. But I for one don't relish leaving my nieces and nephews a much harsher world than what I was given.

If there is to be a change of direction in our policies to address global warming, it starts with us in our home towns and not some government telling us what we should do. If we can't find the right path within us as active citizens, then we are also the problem. If a policy or law is contradictory to a sustainable path, it's up to you to change it.

La Niña conditions have made 2011 a relatively cool year – relatively, because they predict it will still rank amongst the 10 hottest years on record. They further predict it will be the warmest La Niña year on record (those are the blue years in the bar graph above).

Then we hear from Durban in South Africa that cities across the world make historic commitment to climate adaptation action. Well, tickle me silly. This involves the ICLEI. DALLAS is a member of the ICLEI. WOW!!

"History was made today as 114 mayors and other elected local leaders representing over 950 local governments from around the world, came together in the signing of the Durban Adaptation Charter, a political commitment to strengthen local resilience to climate change.

The event, entitled the Durban Local Government Convention: adapting to a changing climate – towards COP17/ CMP7 and beyond, ran in parallel to the UNFCCC COP17/CMP7 and drew over 700 delegates to the eThekwini City Hall, from 2-4 December. The Durban Local Government Convention was organised by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, the South African Department of Environmental Affairs, South African Local Government Association (SALGA), South African Cities Network (SACN) and eThekwini Municipality.

After intense deliberations in Durban‟s Council Chambers, governors from around the world moved, as proposed by the mayor of Kisumu, Kenya, and seconded by Lagos State, to unanimously adopt the Durban Adaptation Charter. Mayors, Governors and Chairs of local government associations from as far afield as Bangkok, Thailand, to Vancouver, Canada, from Johannesburg, South Africa, to Quito, Ecuador, joined with those from 24 other countries in making this ground-breaking local government commitment towards urgent, decisive measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) climate commitments. Through national associations, large numbers of local governments from Tanzania, Norway, Namibia, Mauritius, Nigeria and South Africa are also joined in supporting this Charter.

By signing the Charter, local governments have committed to unprecedented levels of local climate action to:

mainstream adaptation as a key informant of all local government development planning
ensure that adaptation strategies are aligned with mitigation strategies
promote the use of adaptation that recognizes the needs of vulnerable communities and ensure sustainable local economic development
prioritize the role of functioning ecosystems as core municipal green infrastructure
seek innovative funding mechanisms, etc.

By committing to the Durban Adaptation Charter, cities have further demonstrated their political will to address climate change, pledging to enhance their local adaptive capacity and engender greater resilience in the face of escalating climate change. This was emphasized by the ICLEI President, David Cadman, Deputy Mayor of Vancouver in Canada, who stated that “this commitment from local and sub-national governments compliments the „Global Cities Covenant on Climate – the Mexico City Pact‟, led by Mayor Marcelo Ebrard from Mexico City, through which they measure, report and verify greenhouse gas emissions reductions, climate mitigation and adaptation commitment and actions. This Pact, together with the momentous Durban Adaptation Charter, spearheads collective and decisive local action at a point in history where, sadly, there is no credible indication that our nations are able to reach a global deal at COP17. Our cities cannot wait for the COP Parties. We are at the tipping point of winning or losing the battle against climate change and we, the governments closest to the people, know we need to take collective action now.”

DURBAN ADAPTATION CHARTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS ADOPTED DECEMBER 4, 2011 OF THE OCCASION OF THE "DURBAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONVENTION: ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE" - TOWARDS COP17/CMP7 AND BEYOND

NOW we're talking! So, did Dallas sign this adaptation charter? Maybe someone will chime in and tell us. I know I can't imagine anyone around here saying something like 'action' and 'now' in one sentence. And it's not like this is getting any attention from the local media. I wonder if anyone remembers Dallas is a member city? I hope we at least showed up. We have a lot on the line, but I get the feeling not a lot of us are paying much attention. It is Christmas after all.

Face it. We suck at being responsible.

Global warming 'not slowing down', says researchers. ScienceDaily

Leopold And The Endless Struggle For Conservation

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:00:00 +0000

Excerpts from Aldo Leopold's 'A Sand County Almanac'.

I'm providing some of the writings from Aldo Leopold to supplement some of my recent posts and to help you better understand the meaning of the land ethic. Perhaps you might also contemplate some new ideas when I mention the ecological conscience. As a community, we vainly struggle on a continuous treadmill to achieve good conservation because we fail to understand what it means to conserve. Our goals for what we call 'sustainability' are tied to what we develop, be it the structures or parking lots we build. 'Sustainability and development' is empty without a regard for the land upon which it is applied. How many lectures about green buildings discuss the ideas of conserving woodlands on the properties on which they are built? All is fair game to the engineer except what another engineer forbids by a law mandated by a higher authority. I'd be interested if the new SMU graduate classes on the subject ever mentions a tree, or a bobcat. Our minds are set on the commercial value of the property by self-interest, but we fail to connect to the non-economic values residing in the land that cannot be marketed. Unfortunately, we also have tendencies to value ourselves - or let others value us - in this way as well. It isn't socially correct to be poor in America these days. How poor were my ancestors who worked themselves relentlessly to survive the American wilderness, and to scrape off an existence off the land, but were poor. They were also respected by their peers even if they were still just commodities to industry. They were rich in family. As wealth crushes the modest soul on a whim, it also doesn't pay to be a wooded piece of cheap land in the big city. It's easy to say 'that's just the way it is.' It's hard to say anything contrary without being called a nay-sayer or curmudgeon, or even worse - a tree hugger.

I hope you'll gain something from his writings on the ecological conscience and the land ethic. Implanted somewhere in these first two paragraphs may be the first, best, answer to making any amendments to the Dallas tree ordinance.

Aldo Leopold

".... a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are (as far as we know) essential to its healthy functioning. It assumes, falsely, I think, that the economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the uneconomic parts. It tends to relegate to government many functions eventually too large, too complex, or too widely dispersed to be performed by government.

An ethical obligation on the part of the private owner is the only visible remedy for these situations.

The Ecological Conscience

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Despite nearly a century of propaganda, conservation still proceeds at a snail's pace; progress still consists largely of letterhead pieties and conventional oratory. On the back forty we still slip two steps backward for each forward stride.

The usual answer to this dilemma is 'more conservation education.' No one will debate this, but is it certain that only the volume of education needs stepping up? Is something lacking in the content as well?

It is difficult to give a fair summary of its content in brief form, but, as I understand it, the content is substantially this: obey the law, vote right, join some organizations, and practice what conservation is profitable on your own land; the government will do the rest.

Is not this formula too easy to accomplish anything worth-while? It defines no right or wrong, assigns no obligation, calls for no sacrifice, implies no change in the current philosophy of values. In respect of land-use, it urges only enlightened self-interest. Just how far will such education avail us? An example will perhaps yield a partial answer.

By 1930 it had become clear to all except the ecologically blind that southwestern Wisconsin's topsoil was slipping seaward. In 1933 the farmers were told that if they would adopt certain remedial practices for five years, the public would donate CCC labor to install them, plus the necessary machinery and materials. The offer was widely accepted, but the practices were widely forgotten when the five-year contract period was up. The farmers continued only those practices that yielded an immediate and visible economic gain for themselves.

This led to the idea that maybe farmers would learn more quickly if they themselves wrote the rules. Accordingly the Wisconsin Legislature in 1937 passed the Soil Conservation District Law. This said to farmers, in effect: we, the Public, will furnish you free technical service and loan you specialized machinery, if you will write your own rules for land-use. Each county may write its own rules, and they will have the force of law. Nearly all the counties promptly organized to accept the proffered help, but after a decade of operation, no county has yet written a single rule. There has been visible progress in such practices as strip-cropping, pasture renovation, and soil liming, but none in fencing woodlots against grazing, and none in excluding plow and cow from steep slopes. The farmers, in short, have elected those remedial practices which were profitable anyhow, and ignored those which were profitable to the community, but not clearly profitable to themselves.

When one asks why no rules have been written, one is told that the community is not yet ready to support them; education must precede rules. But the education actually in progress makes no mention of obligations to land over and above those dictated by self-interest. The net result is that we have more education but less soil, fewer healthy woods and as many floods as in 1937.

The puzzling aspect of such situations is that the existence of obligations over and above self-interest is taken for granted in such rural community enterprises as the betterment of roads, schools, churches, and baseball teams. Their existence is not taken for granted, nor as yet seriously discussed, in bettering the behavior of the water that falls on the land, or in the preserving of the beauty or diversity of the farm landscape.

Land-use ethics are still governed wholly by economic self-interest, just as social ethics were century ago.

To sum up: we asked the farmer to do what he conveniently could to save his soil, and he has done just that and only that. The farmer who clears the woods off a 75 percent slope, turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks, and soil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society. If he puts lime on his fields and plants his crops on contour, he is still entitled to all the privileges and emoluments of his Soil Conservation District. The District is a beautiful piece of social machinery, but it is coughing along on two cylinders because we have been too timid, and too anxious for quick success, to tell the farmer the true magnitude of his obligations. Obligations have no meaning without conscience, and the problem we face is the extension of the social conscience from people to land.

No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis: loyalties, affections, and convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it. In our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.

____________________________________________

..... The case for a land ethic would appear hopeless but for the minority which is in obvious revolt against these 'modern' trends.

The 'key-log' which must be moved to release the evolutionary process for an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

It of course goes without saying that economic feasibility limits the tether of what can or cannot be done for land. It always has and it always will. The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land-use. This is simply not true. An innumerable host of actions and attitudes, comprising perhaps the bulk of all land relations, is determined by the land-users' tastes and predilections, rather than by his purse. The bulk of all land relations hinges on investments of time, forethought, skill and faith rather than on investments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, so is he.

I have purposely presented the land ethic as a product of social evolution because nothing so important as an ethic is ever 'written.' Only the most superficial student of history supposes that Moses 'wrote' the Decalogue; it evolved in the minds of a thinking community, and Moses wrote tentative summary of it for a 'seminar.' I say tentative because evolution never stops.

The evolution of a land ethic is an intellectual as well an emotional process. Conservation is paved with good intentions which prove to be futile, or even dangerous, because they are devoid of critical understanding either of the land or of economic land-use. I think it is a truism that as the ethical frontier advances from the individual to the community, its intellectual content increases.

Whispers Of The Past

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:00:00 +0000

"...and some things that should not have been forgotten .... were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth." - from The Fellowship of the Ring: Lord of the Rings

As a 20th anniversary recognition of Earth Day in 1990, the Dallas City Council passed a resolution that would lead to the City's tree ordinance four years later. This resolution didn't just happen. It was the result of active citizens, professionals, city staff, and other parties working hard and speaking their minds, and finding compromise and direction for the City. The resolution was a recognition that trees were 'valuable' and 'significant' assets. It was a recognition that there were existing ordinances which worked toward protecting trees in geographically specific areas. It was determined by the City Council this protection should belong 'throughout the entire city.' These forces still work in the City today to form policy and direction.

However, I'm certain not everyone was convinced about this action. But that's not the point. It is more significant to understand that the Council resolution, and the ordinance four years later, did not happen quickly or without controversy. It came about after years - even decades - of work by a group of people who understood the science of ecology and the meaning of the land ethic. These conservation leaders, and their work that led to the point where we are today, should not be forgotten. Homeowners, business leaders, and organizations stood up to protect their City. There was Save Open Space, the League of Women Voters, the Dallas County Audubon Society, and the Dallas Homeowners League at the table together with many others. We will long remember our boldest leaders like Ned Fritz and D.J. Young who could stand before their adversaries and give it out as well as take it. They, and others like them, were not only an emotional catalyst to a successful end, but they also provided the environmental education and support to advocate for the protection of these critical open spaces of the City. Their work is continuing through current champions of the urban forest who believe the Dallas natural areas are more than a side note to the success of the city.

Sure, we can talk for days about the 'merits' of the current 'land and tree protection' policies in Dallas, but that's not the point of this discussion. It's more important for us now to consider where the City might have been without the sequence of studies, policies and ordinances that came in the years following 1970 - the year of the first Earth Day.

Looking back we can briefly discuss a select few of these studies that some of which are now collecting dust on the bookshelves. We'll go back long before forwardDallas! (2006) which might now be considered an evolutionary construct from the earlier studies. Please be rest assured I understand that I'm not addressing every policy, plan, report or ordinance that's come down the pike. We might pick up on some of these studies individually at a later date. I don't want to bore you to death. Let's just start by going back real early where the scientists had been researching the natural richness of Dallas County.

The Geology of Dallas County (E.W. Shuller, 1915). An early geological study of the County. If nothing else, it makes for some good reading and some interesting picture.

White rock escarpment. A c. 1915 photo looking west toward Arcadia Park on what is now Davis Street.

Parks and Open Spaces Plan (1959). It was recognized through the Goals of Dallas and the original Environmental Quality Committee to need updating.

Dallas Ecological Study (1973). This was a county-wide resource inventory that identified the county's significant natural resources including the Trinity River and its surrounding floodplain and the White Rock Escarpment, which was determined to be relatively 'intolerant' to development. The dot-matrix imagery in the report is interesting, but barely informative.

The Escarpment Guidelines (1976). Established through the City Council the policies for the escarpment.

The Escarpment Report (1977). The report was generated to summarize research and planning conducted by the city planning office for the White Rock Escarpment. It included a zoning review case study from the Mountain Creek development area south of IH20. It provided an analysis of how the escarpment area should be protected through development. It also presented the guidelines to help direct staff and developers to develop the area responsibly.

Natural Open Space Plan (1979). This resulted from a restructuring of the city's comprehensive plan. This one section (of three including park spaces and urban spaces) concentrated on "lands which should generally remain open and not be altered or developed for active uses, because of their special natural resource and/or hazard characteristics." These areas had "ecological, aesthetic, or cultural" significance. The study objectives were comprehensive addressing floodplain, greenbelts, escarpment, and other areas. They included preserving environmentally significant areas; creating an open space system of continuously linked corridors; communicating effectively with citizens about local natural resources and hazards, and about City regulations and policies; and balance open space with economic development goals, among others. The most important item I took from this plan is that natural areas were given equal footing in consideration of how to go forward.

It states, "although the City does not as yet have an overall plan to strike the appropriate balance between competing goals, such as economic development and environmental protection, the Open Space Plan recognizes the inevitable conflicts. The proposed open space system should be within the City's economic means to establish and maintain, and not require a wholly unreasonable share of the City's improvements and operating budget. In addition, the plan should not require the removal of an unreasonable acreage from potential development which would otherwise provide employment and enhance the City's tax base."

City budget must be why they also added to find ways to "transfer costs of open space development and maintenance to local users and beneficiaries where reasonable."

Dallas Beautification Policy (1979). The second of the three part comprehensive plan stated above.

Escarpment Ordinance (1982. No building zone on escarpment face by amendment in 1985). Council decided to put into ordinance what was before a stated policy. It included mandatory performance standards to prevent excessive construction and grading in these areas, and provided a prohibition to building in the escarpment zone.

Geology of Dallas, Texas (Peter M. Allen and William D. Flanigan, 1986). A detailed study of the geology of the City covering water and geology characteristics.

City of Dallas Growth Policy Plan (1987). A predecessor to the forwardDallas! comprehensive plan, it included environmental policies, concepts and development standards to be encouraged for the preservation and enhancement of certain environmental features including "significant flood plains of the Trinity River and its tributaries, as well as the White Rock Escarpment." It suggested the City should encourage alternative types of development, such as "cluster development, to obtain better compatibility between environmental conditions and land use."

Major concepts of the Growth Policy Plan.

Dallas Parks 'A Renaissance Plan' (2002). This is a comprehensive plan for the City's parks system.

All of the ordinance provisions we work with today are a result of years of negotiation, conflict, compromise and agreement. The conservation easement, for instance, was created to provide development with the options it needed to help obtain a balance between conservation and development. We build on the valiant work of folks from over the four decades since the first Earth Day. If there is a desire to improve on the ordinances and policies in place today, it will only be a continuation of all their tireless work from before. The goals since long before the 1990 resolution have not changed. Our continued interest, energy, and perhaps our dedication to these goals, is what each person must address for themselves.

I think we are stronger, and the City of Dallas is better, from all the work that came before. Where would we have been without these older plans and ordinances? It's not something anyone can fully objectively answer, but I believe we can confidently state that without the policies and regulations in place today our environmental condition in Dallas would have been much worse. More land would have been cleared with - or, as would often be the the case, without - development to follow it. It's bothered me how some people have the perception that they think they can sell a cleared lot better than a wooded one. The free market allows developers to come and go, but the fate of the City's forest is no longer solely vested in the whims and desires of just one person without consideration of some form of compensation for the community's loss. This is no win for tree advocates, but it's a bit closer to civilization than anarchy. Successes come with failures. Choices are made. However, we shouldn't worry too much about treading on the past. That implies that we must continually be looking backwards. There is too much to consider for the future.

Now, we must also realize that there is a much more profound interest on the line for conserving our lands and forests for the current and future generations who, across an entire national landscape, are waking up to see their Great Inheritance being lost, swindled, and spoiled by the generations before them. If we cannot see the long-term mission ahead and do the right thing based on that vision, then we give the mission for some future city arborist, decades in the future, to look at the meager remnants of the old open space that is left (probably only in an un-managed floodplain) to wonder where we went wrong. What is the right thing? For me, the job at hand has to be based on the rules of law before us now. The rest is for Dallas to decide. The future for the Dallas forest has more to do with a land ethic, and how you think, than it does with the written law. The forest will be waiting patiently as ever. God willing, I will be there with it.

In the end, it may not matter if the City will undergo any tree ordinance amendments or not. It still comes down to individuals making correct choices that the City always 'encourages' us to make through its comprehensive plans. You see, the direction for finding our path has always been there. But the uninformed may take a wrong turn. Conservation comes down to making decisions as a community AND as an individual. Ask the question: what are the acceptable choices? Sometimes, law isn't enough if the conscience doesn't lead you forward to do the right thing anyway. When a tree is removed, it's too late for the law to do anything but punish, or force mitigation. We must find understanding that the tree is a worthy life and to only be removed when necessary, and the land has values far above what an appraisal district will tell you. Let's communicate, educate, and profess an ecological conscience. It's time to instill the 'Green Fire' that burned so bright in our elders' eyes and put their dreams into our conversations.

We'll discuss the 'green fire' soon.

Watering Trees During Watering Restrictions

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:00:00 +0000

In Dallas, Stage 1 of mandatory water restrictions has begun. Today, I read in the local daily a complaint from a reader from up north about how his community continues to add landscaping in new subdivisions that will only require more water use while we're supposed to be conserving it. The gentleman raised a valid argument that deserves an answer.

"...the member cities continue to approve new subdivisions, which will require even more water. Conservation is meaningless when a new Wal-Mart in Frisco was required to install 40-plus trees in the surrounding landscape, all of which will require what? You guessed it, water! If some of these trees die, the city requires replacement."

- comments from a reader in the Dallas Morning News

There's no pleasing people. Ah, well, let's go there with him. I've wondered for weeks now how I was going to explain this. The bug has hit me. I write...

Your city likely requires landscaping for the same reasons all other cities do. The simple answer heard from politicians regards aesthetics, the fact that people don't want to shop or live in a place barren of trees, and that everybody loves trees. I've been in large parking lots of shopping centers with few trees in Texas in the middle of summer. It ain't pretty. The more significant answer to why we plant trees in drought is that the trees are the only offset to urban sprawl available to us (because we won't stop it) and the trees are absolutely necessary to even attempt to make a dent on the negative effects of the heat island, storm water outflow, and our worsening air quality from deforestation. Unfortunately, we don't do enough commercial landscaping to counter the alterations to our environment caused by the unmitigated expansion across the Texas prairie and woods in the short term.

Our greatest successes with tree planting tend to be in our own residential neighborhoods; and not by ordinance, but by desire and the sheer will of the people who live there. In some neighborhoods, the people see their trees as the essence of its character. All in all, perhaps that is the best reason why we landscape and irrigate our commercial properties. Commerce is supposed to serve the people. It is right and just that commerce provides suitable tree-covered environments in which to shop. Well, at least try.

The catch to the planting issue is that we often fail to provide adequate space for an environment suitable for the trees due to outdated and limiting planting scenarios for providing tree planting areas. Landscaping is often treated as yard art, and sometimes even by some professionals. The transplanted tree on many commercial sites become a structure that you place in the ground, throw a life line of water to it, and hope it keeps working. Essentially, in many places we are forced into 'remnant landscaping'. This is where you get what's left after building and parking requirements which may be a little corner under a power line, near a transformer, next to a utility box, over a water line, and next to a perfect spot for changing motor oil. Landscapes don't get much respect since the owner doesn't perceive it as making them money. Communities across the country are working to change this mindset about the broader practical functions of landscape areas to the property. Some builders are apparently following along as they are kicking, biting, and dragging their heels while they're pulled into the future.

Island with appropriate plants collects runoff from parking lot. - Stormwater Partners Network

Meanwhile, in tiny holes in the middle of a concrete, barren, high-heat desert, we try to re-create the ideal forest type setting for the young tree with mulch or other ground covers. Over time, the tree can never reach its full potential to attain the high canopy tree sizes that may have been removed from the property in the first place. This actually has more to do with the available soil area for root growth and available soil moisture. The City of Dallas only requires a minimum of 25 square feet (5' x 5') of growing area, or 75 cubic feet of volume, per tree. All too often, that is all that is afforded them as a remnant. For a tree to attain a full large canopy spread at maturity decades later, a tree may need at least 10 times that volume of soil for root growth. Often times, a tree will find paths to expand their available area through weaknesses in the pavement around them. Usually, there is never nearly enough space and trees end up replaced when they have run out of resources to grow. Water is only part of the answer for any living thing. Put a person in a desert who is not acclimated to it and see if they thrive.

Parking lot islands. Trees should be planted in linear strips that are similar to the top image. Parking lot diamonds (bottom) should be abandoned from all designs for landscaping because they are not designed to permit long-term tree growth. Better planting environments requires less maintenance on trees. - Image: University of Florida

How do we take a situation where the land is fully permeable and vegetated, and then pave over 95% of it, and expect to be able to compensate for the negative changes to our environment? We don't, but we have to do with what we have. Are we going to stop development? Surely not. However, as I have preached fervently here in Dallas Trees, balancing conservation with development is critical to sustainable growth. The drought and the long-term impacts of a continually warming and changing climate, combined with our forecasts for population growth and water availability, make forest conservation all the more necessary. Personally, I don't see it as being a question of if we do conservation, but how. Forest conservation goes hand-in-hand with water conservation and land conservation.

I'm getting off track. I think the real complaint by the reader is that the commercial landscaping of trees does nothing but sit in a big parking lot of acres of a heat island sucking up water. The trees never really attain any significant canopy size before they're dead from lack of maintenance or succumb to the harsh environment and limited growing area. Then, they're replaced as a requirement of law for the maintenance of the landscaping. A critical matter to consider is that good maintenance takes an unappreciated level of skill and planning. If done properly, it can efficiently live off minimal water consumption. However, the best management cannot do miracles if the landscape design does not consider for the long-term growth (at least 30-50 years) of the trees.

Planting areas must be expanded. Water must be efficiently targeted to the tree. Drought tolerant, winter-hardy, and native plants need to be planted. Responsible people must care. A good urban forest needs good urban forest management.

In the grand scheme of things, the trees which actually provide significant value to your environment (more than you know) are the gifts that keep giving as they increase in value. Even an economist can understand that. If well maintained, they are irreplaceable to the community for improved property value, for aesthetic quality, as well as for providing a cooling feature to the surrounding environment. They are the true working INFRASTRUCTURE that helps us control and regulate our basic utility uses. Without the trees, our energy bills - and more importantly, our energy consumption - goes up drastically. Without the trees, we consume more water on other landscaping and our foundations than we ever would have needed to provide our trees. Without the trees, our quality of life diminishes and wildlife abandons us for more fertile fields. The rains deplete our soils through massive erosion that severely impacts water quality and the quantity that affects wildlife and our own water supplies.

Everyone has their job to do. Developers develop. Cities manage cities. Forests sustain quality of life. We must continue to attempt to replenish what we remove, even if it is not sufficient to the task at hand at this time. Landscaping for development by regulation is part of the overall scheme of sustaining our forested environment for the future. If the City managed its forest, the landscape ordinance would be one section of the management plan for the future growth of that forest.

The Dallas urban forest has grown tremendously in a City due to its strong neighborhoods of people who loved trees so much they came to the prairie and planted a forest. We have done exceptional work over the years in growing this rich tree-lined environment, especially when you consider this was mostly prairie turned to crop production and ranching. One of the successes of Oak Cliff was the tree-lined streets they provided to the early neighborhoods. As in Winnetka Heights, the people of the community keep planting back as the old trees die because THEY know the value of a tree to their neighborhood. Our commercial landscaping cannot currently replace the forest of the past, but it can help somewhat offset the impacts to your community for the future. A little well-placed water provides great rewards.

Eight Land Development Tips For Dallas Land Owners

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:30:00 +0000

This blog is not sanctioned by the City of Dallas and does not reflect the opinions of persons or departments within the government. The following refers to my personal opinions and my acquired understanding of procedures from serving the public as a municipal arborist.

Tip #6: Great intentions mean nothing with poor concept, design and application.

Every task in society has its specialists. In urban forestry, you find tree service professionals who will come to your home and take care of your tree. It's a dangerous job getting up into the trees and bringing down large, heavy limbs and enormous trees. That's only part of the battle and good tree service companies deserve tremendous credit for their part in sustaining a healthy urban forest canopy. As a municipal arborist, a person will spend less time in the trees and more time scouting properties with tree surveys and consulting with builders and property owner on empty lots and construction sites. It's not as physically demanding, but confronting urban / nature conflicts through development can beat down the zeal of any ecologist, pronto. The point is, when you need answers to a problem, you should go to the source and not rely on people who 'play an arborist on television.' You wouldn't just take your own appendix out, would you? Bad things can happen and somebody (probably you) might get hurt. No, you go to a doctor. Well, think of that big tree limb over your head as a real big bad-ass appendix. As you reach up to hack on that limb, you may not have bothered to think that appendix weighs a couple of hundred pounds and that ignoring the law of gravity is not a good idea.

If you would have consulted the doctor, he or she might have told you that taking your own appendix out isn't a good idea. An arborist will also tell you that if you're not properly skilled, dropping a two hundred pound appendix isn't a good idea either; especially if your head is under it. As for the municipal arborist, they probably would have also told you the same thing and informed you to go get the tree service specialist.

If you attempt to go into removing that appendix without some guidance, you may be setting yourself up for even bigger problems than the one you thought you were getting rid of. People are trained to do specific jobs. That's how our civilization functions. Now, let's look at that appendix as being a big, bad tree ordinance. Well, for that matter, it could be any land protection ordinance, like for the escarpment or floodplain. It's even more threatening if it is state-mandated stormwater regulations. If you go into the practice of trying to confront that ordinance or regulation unprepared, you could very well be setting yourself up for greater problems down that road that go much deeper - perhaps like bleeding to death. There are specialists for ordinances and regulations too. Use them.

I'm a municipal arborist by profession. My task is about more than enforcing landscaping and tree ordinances. It's also about working with how the trees and people interact in the urban environment without reference to the law. Public safety and looking out for our customers to keep them from getting into trouble (physically or legally) are critical parts of my emphasis, and there is always the need to help the folks who don't have a full grasp on the basics of either the law or the physical attributes of trees. They're holding the scalpel and I need to respectfully disarm them, or tactfully guide them. Alongside that is the need to educate the people who interact with the urban forest on topics like 1) how to live with trees safely, and 2) how to live with trees without violating the law when they get in your way. As a municipal arborist, I thought I'd share with you a few little tidbits of landscape and tree preservation knowledge I've gained over the years that might help you if you were thinking about acquiring land in the City for development, or if you need to know what to do with trees on your property you already own in the City of Dallas. Keep in mind that much of this is about commercial development.

First of all, I can put us down to three general rules of what to know before moving or removing anything (soil, trees, etc.) on non-residential properties in a city: 1) If you don't know if you need a permit, you probably do. 2) Don't do anything without a permit. 3) If you 'don't need a permit,' you better be asking questions to someone other than the guy who said you 'don't need a permit' as to why you don't need to have a permit. Let's start with that one.

Permits don't help bad ideas and poor tree protection. Appendectomy with bulldozer.

Tip #1. If you're planning to remove trees or move soil on to, or around, your non-exempt property, you probably need a permit for that. Actually, if you're planning to do ANYTHING on your property in ANY city, you need to be asking a representative of the BUILDING OFFICIAL if you need a permit. Don't do anything until you have talked to the appropriate professional and confirmed your status. Don't ask the local animal control officer. They are specialists in animal control, not building permits. Don't ask Cliff Clavin down the street. He's a know-it-all mailman and he delivers mail. Don't go to the County when you need answers from the City. Fortunately, many cities have learned the advantages of the internet and have provided a wealth of information online. You just need to know the right places to go. If everything seems too easy, it probably is. Yes, the process of working through the City can be complicated, but it doesn't have to be. But a happy bulldozer operator running over large trees on a property without a visible permit is a sure sign of something not being right. Permits have to be posted on site.Violations of ordinance make it even more difficult because you still have to come back later to get the permits after dealing with the violations. Don't try to take shortcuts. Easier isn't always better.

Tip #2. If you think you're exempt from city ordinances but have any doubt about a particular tree, ask before you act. In Dallas, the vast majority of lots with current single family and duplex uses are exempt from the tree ordinance. However, there are rare zoning districts, as in Oak Lawn and perhaps other areas, that do not have an exemption in some areas or have other restrictions. These exemptions/restrictions may be based on different zoning standards for single family houses in multifamily districts, or by a conservation or historic district. Also, trees in parkways and alleys are owned by the City, even though you are required to maintain the healthy trees, and to remove the trees if they're dead. Protected tree removal always requires a tree removal permit unless the Building Official determines otherwise. Make sure you know the tree is not protected before removing it. Remember that the city arborist may not be your complication. People of Dallas love their trees.

Tip #3. Buyer beware. There are some cases where someone will acquire a property intent on developing it and then begins to fill and grade the property and remove trees without permits. They may have, or more likely not have, consulted with a city official beforehand. As the situation becomes apparent, the owner finds themselves in deep trouble with municipal, and sometimes State, enforcement for significant land violations. In some cases, the owner then sells the property at a reduced rate to an unsuspecting person who sees a great deal and suddenly finds themselves inheriting a nightmare from which they cannot escape unless they end up selling it to another unsuspecting soul. Do your homework and assess the property through city officials for any possible holds, violations, or other complications that can end up costing you tens of thousands of dollars before you could even consider putting a dollar of investment onto improving the property.

Tip #4. What is the real land value? You should consider the tree ordinance when you're shopping for a property in Dallas. First of all, if the land is not developed (vacant), or is near or in floodplain, or has significant topography, or may have a particular zoning, then it is probably going to have a lower purchase price. Don't let that fool you. You need to consider ALL of the possible development costs that go into developing the property, including increased engineering costs, surveys, infrastructure, retaining walls, etc. It becomes a huge problem for a land buyer who finds out AFTER purchase that his property is 100% in the floodplain. It is a long and expensive road to make that property a legal building site, if it can be done at all. The impact of tree mitigation is only a part of the equation. Know the property before you buy. Ask a zoning consultant about the zoning of the property and its potential uses. Inquire with the municipal arborist about the tree population. Before doing a full tree survey, you may be able to get a general assessment if the potential mitigation cost is going to be zero, in the thousands, tens of thousands, or in rare and extreme cases for large sprawling properties, in the hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars. The arborist will also be able to discuss strategies for developing the property while also conserving forested land for the benefit of the community - on-site or off-site - to reduce the overall mitigation. It doesn't cost anything to ask before you over-commit to an enterprise. You need to take responsibility for your acquisitions and your actions. Consider conservation in conceptualization.

Tip #5. Read ForwardDallas! This is the comprehensive plan for future development for the City of Dallas. If you have read all of the sections of the document and believe your goals fit within that framework, then you can at least say you've done your homework. ForwardDallas! does not prohibit the development of wooded properties, but it does encourage the prospective developer to consider the options for reducing footprints and for balancing that development with efforts to conserve forest canopy in the community. Again, it's about taking responsibility.

Tip #6. Great intentions mean nothing with poor concept, design, and application. Landscape wisely. Under the Article X landscape ordinance, anyone (at risk of irritating some professionals) can draw a landscape plan. However, that's not saying anyone can draw a good landscape plan. There are times you might consider going to those professionals who would be State-licensed landscape architects. But if you don't choose that route when you decide to do your own plans, you might still consider the assistance of other professionals like landscape designers who work in nurseries, or even a neighbor gardener who has a knowledge of plants and growing areas. No one expects you to know everything, and no one will expect you to be able to draw the best landscape plan that works to fit within city landscape ordinances. Some re-developments can be particularly challenging. Landscaping for ordinance is not just about planting with flower pots. The landscaping can become expensive and a difficult design component for your property that might also include irrigation. That involves possibly another State-licensed individual. Your commercial landscaping will also be a significant investment for a lot of small businesses that can easily die on you. The city arborist office is able to assist you in working through the minimum standards; but ultimately, landscapes should be a design from the heart of the owner or a skilled designer. If the heart's not in it, it might look like another body part had its influence. It's probably not the appendix. Like Tip #1, don't take shortcuts.

Tip #7. The redevelopment of small properties can be difficult. Contrary to popular belief, the difficulty of landscaping in Dallas on the expansion or re-use of infill lots is not as much an Article X issue of tree placement around utilities, as it is 1) minimal physical lot space to comply with the landscaping, and 2) additional/alternative landscape standards applied in Planned Developments. For instance, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District requires additional landscaping in parkways where existing conditions (small, fully paved lots) and utilities (overhead and underground) may not favor landscaping. If you do an addition to a facility to make use of the property, you may run into a situation of seeking a variance to make the improvements on your property. Each property and every circumstance is different. I encourage you to always do your homework and make contact with city officials if you don't know what you're walking into. This is the best and greatest advice any city official can give you.

If not restricted, tree roots usually expand outwards, and shallow, far beyond their drip line of the tree.

Tip #8. Trees 'hate' pavement. Well, I say hate as if the tree really thinks, "I hate this pavement." Actually, the trees hate it in a way that they may just end up dying rather than tolerating the change in their environment, and then they'll start dropping limbs on your cars if not just come right out and uproot themselves on your building. They may just die and get ugly on you. I'm saying that if you're going to design a facility around trees, design your facility to protect the trees. If you don't know how, ask someone who does. It helps to at least know where the appendix is in the abdomen if you're going to use a chainsaw to get to it. There is a fundamental point to consider for developing around trees: you will damage every tree in proximity to your construction. Tree root expansion just beneath the surface of the soil makes it inevitable, especially if you do not recognize the risk. The goal is to MINIMIZE the damage to any and all trees you want to preserve. Protecting the tree roots - the part of the tree you can't see - is the most critical aspect of tree protection. Post oaks, one of Dallas' most prized and long-lived trees, are extremely intolerant to development activity, and this must be taken into account during your conceptual design.

Too close.

Let's look at it this way. You are a builder. You know buildings. Ask an arborist. There are certified arborists throughout the City who can assist you to protect the tree or to tell you when you're not. You know from your experience with construction (or any other trade) that doing something correctly involves knowledge and training. Just because you 'love trees' and look at them on a daily basis doesn't necessarily mean you're the best qualified to provide care to the tree. You look at people on a daily basis, but how many of them are you wanting to conduct an appendectomy on? I mean, besides the one's on the highway. People get degrees for understanding trees and how they grow. Let them assist you.

Information for quick reference to general topics:
City of Dallas Building Inspection
Irrigation and Landscape
Sustainable Development and Construction
Trinity Watershed Management
Trees Are Good - Find A Certified Arborist

An Arborist Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:30:00 +0000

With humble apologies to Clement Clarke Moore.

'Twas the night before Christmas and amidst all the calm,
not a tree was standing, not even a palm.
In the hours 'fore sunset the bulldozers were roaring,
while the people of North Texas watched the Cowboys not scoring.

The trees were all shattered across landscape laid bare,
and through din of machines, life scattered here and there.
Now I with my Wii, and you with your Netflix,
settled in for a night to wait for jolly ol' Saint Nick.

Enjoying the cut pine standing glaring and bright,
my carbon footprint increase was oh a gaudy sight.
The Christmas tree strewn with electronics and plastic,
shimmering, glistening, but beneath - life cut drastic.

I soured my face realizing the matter,
we had just caved in to the capitalist chatter.
Christmas had begun in October this year,
when sales and marketing made broke people fear.

I finished my cookie, and ran out of the house,
gave apologies to my friends and my dear loving spouse.
Looked to the sky, no sleigh and no reindeer,
I took to my car knowing not where I steer.

But I drove to the glade where I always found comfort,
in the grove of pecan trees that stood like a rampart.
When before me I saw with horrid amazement,
the pecan trees were felled and splintered and spent.

A sign stood tall with proud large narration.
It said, above all, 'Mega Store Location'.
Surely, corporatists were dancing in their warm homes with glee,
their fortunes to be increased by two times or three.

I spied a raccoon scurrying stealthily through shadows,
having left den and her cubs for a home by the meadow.
I looked to the sky where towering trees had place,
now only streetlight dimmed stars and infinite empty space.

Where grandfathers once played as children under green leaves and mast,
next year I would see building and pavement spread vast.
In order to feed our desires to spend,
we sacrificed our inheritance for convenience with no end.

I stumbled over the fallen, immense and the broken,
as they've been cut to the ground with no epitaph spoken.
Sorrow, not joy, was in my heart this cold night,
while oblivious souls waited for dawn's first light.

In the dark I returned home. No deer, no sleigh.
But the night brought sleep where I dreamed pain away.
I awoke in the morning with a vain smile or two,
and shared the Christmas moments of giving - just like you.

I ventured in the day to the hillside of my past,
where the fallen giants lay from the mechanical tempest.
But on the cold wind that morning, not only the fallen I saw,
I saw many more trees still standing, great and tall.

I now saw the land was only cleared for a portion,
and the rest of the forest moved in the wind as one motion.
The raccoon with cubs found a home in the wood,
preserved next to cleared land to give shelter and food.

I ran to the proud large sign with great urgency,
and it stated, much prouder, 'And Conservancy'!
An image was drawn with beige, green and blue,
where pavement was one part and trees would be two.

A parkland was nestled in the green for the public,
while a store would conceal parking, be taller, and rustic.
The city was growing, this was shown true,
but with wisdom, conservation, and kept memories or two.

I read through the sign, then looked to the trees,
and saw that the builder was building to please.
Not for whim or for fancy, or even for greed,
it was obligation, their children, and even community need.

All was not lost this Christmas morning,
Santa had come to show trees still adorning.
Life still had meaning. Flora and fauna,
and trees have their place - without all the drama.

I wandered the forest that remained on the land,
dreaming of walking trails, folks hand in hand.
Because of the courage of an unspoken few,
the City will be stronger and healthier anew.

Philip Erwin

Christmas, 2011

Merry Christmas to all.

ARCHIVE: 8/9/09 - A Less Destructive State Of Equilibrium

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Recently, I have been discussing elements of the Dallas landscape and tree ordinances. In doing so, we have reflected on the purposes of these ordinances and have further studied the roots of the current movement toward the need for a balance between economic development and natural conservation. It is not a new movement by a few idealists, or nutty tree-huggers, but is rather an old movement that has been proclaimed - and yet trivialized - over and over through the past half century. At some point, some city elders may realize that the old Gospel of Economic Growth will not be sustainable, and that the future requires much more from us than what we had previously been willing to provide. Perhaps the timing is unfortunate, but protecting our future means that, at times when it matters most, growth and development must be tempered by reason and conservation. The demands of a community are more than perceived conveniences and a few jobs. The long-term demands of a community rely on sound planning and reasoned design to preserve something which would otherwise be lost forever to future generations. The Dallas leaders of the past who had vision understood this.

In the 1892 book 'King's Handbook of the United States', the design for the new town of Oak Cliff by T. L. Marsalis was heralded. It was the 'Brooklyn of Dallas' where the 'primeval forest' had been replaced by 'a model city of many thousands of inhabitants, with 30 miles of streets, lined with 20,000 fancy trees, planted to contrast pleasantly with the selected and saved woodland trees.'

In this model city was both aesthetic beauty and a vision that understood the need for a balance between development and conservation. We should reflect back to past generations on people of foresight who saw what Oak Cliff could be with this balance of nature and community. We risk sacrificing much if we ignore the needs of future generations in order to provide for the convenience and instant gratification of a few.

I thought it appropriate that we reflect on a post from August 9, 2009 that covered the 1973 Dallas Ecological Study. It follows after the 1894 clip:

In 1973, the City of Dallas released the Dallas Ecological Study with the purpose of creating an inventory of our 'significant resource patterns' in Dallas County because the city planners declared 'urban developmental needs must be weighed against the costs to the natural resources.' Essentially, the leaders and planners of Dallas had taken the step to look to the natural resources of Dallas as something of value. They sought to understand and protect these areas to 'insure urbanization in harmony with the natural system.' It appeared the age of looking at our natural open land as 'an inexhaustible mine for man's use' may be coming to an end. I think that thirty-six years after that study, we may have lost some of that vision - to speak kindly.

I believe the study did manage to give us a rather realistic and humanistic definition of sustainability. The study proclaimed: "We have reached the juncture in our evolution where it is essential to direct people and their environment to a less destructive state of equilibrium." I think that puts the meaning of sustainability into perfect context. In everything we pursue for human development and advancement, and economic progress, the economy of Nature is impacted to some degree and always in the negative. There is no equilibrium to be attained with a global population of over 6 billion people, but the effort of making human impact on Nature less conflictive is to come closer to that result of a 'state of rest.'

As developers and designers propose plans to save a tree on development sites, I often mention that it is important to be realistic in their endeavor. Most trees on most constructions sites will be impacted negatively, in one form or another, and to differing degrees, due to location, soil textures, species, etc., but, more importantly, how we choose to interact with it. There is a point at which the physical risks of catastrophic failure of the tree overrides the ambitions of the designer to save the tree. The designer must expand their vision and understanding to all dimensions of the life of that tree (not just a flat sheet of paper) and to an extended time (not just the end of the project). Nature forces us to expand our understanding and vision beyond what we think we know, but to enter into the realm of the conflictive complexity of simple natural design. Tree roots look simple, but consider the vast and intricate network of life-sustaining nourishment being cycled to the tree through extremely delicate and tender feeder roots and the supportive network in the living soil. Too often, the tree is lost due to our lack of vision. A battle is lost - not the war.

At some point, human endeavors must seek to find that 'equality of effect', or a balance between the two opposing powers, because, in the end, there is no victory over Nature. There is only humble acceptance of its power over us. I'll guarantee you that Nature can out-last us.

In some aspects, the city has sought to protect some of its most sensitive areas by policy and philosophy, with some apparent compromise when they come in conflict with economic development. A whole ordinance is set aside to protect and manage floodplains in the city, as well as the White Rock Escarpment in the southwestern portion of the city. Landscaping and tree ordinances were applied and amended to attempt to protect the urban forest to some degree. Many of these progresses did not come out of thin air but from the desires of the people of Dallas from nearly 40 years past. The intention was clear. Build where suitable and appropriate, but protect what is most rare and natural. This concept was driven forward decades later in forwardDallas! The vision is clear, but it takes courage and steadfastness to that vision for appropriate action. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to be 'less destructive.' Is this our best definition of sustainability? It sounds awfully 'glass half empty' to me.

"Hell begins on the day when God grants us a clear vision of all that we might have achieved, of all the gifts which we have wasted, of all that we might have done which we did not do."

- Gian Carlo Menotti

DIPITY DO DA-llas Trees

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Dallas Trees on Dipity.

I'm all about gadgets and tools to make life just a tad easier and simpler. Thus, for your reading pleasure, I would like to introduce to you the Dallas Trees Timeline. It's available here now to take up more of your idle time and to help you look back at some of the more interesting blog posts of the past four years or so. It's available through the Dallas Trees Library main page. You can also link to read it directly at the Dipity website itself.

If you go back far enough, you can see when I took off about 6 months from posting. You can go back to my September and October 2008 political rants. You'll find all of my Unfrozen Caveman Governor posts (September 2010 to June 2011) and a few other long lost surprises. I've even done a few little animations to introduce a few landscape concepts, including for my 2009 analyses of the Dallas Article X landscape and tree ordinances. Keep in mind that prior to this September, only the more 'interesting' posts are listed. You will still need to go to the Archive listing in the sidebar to find the full content of the past several years.

Dipity is a cool site I ran across when I was looking for ideas for interactive stuff to place on my genealogy website. It's great for creating your own time lines for whatever purpose. It's free until it's not.

ARCHIVE: 5/16/08 - Our Town: MY American Dream

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:42:00 +0000

We enter into a new year of 2012 having endured years of economic stagnation. There is hope for a improvement, but in the scheme of the duration of our civilization, any returns we gain now are more and more likely doomed to be short-lived. I have set my eyes on the long-term goals of our community and our civilization. Unfortunately, we have no set goals aside from stating we wish to survive. Our economies are built upon the standard of the here and now with the assumption that there is plenty to provide for the future. Efforts to change this mindset are always challenged by greed and selfish children who cannot see beyond their own portfolios. We can no longer afford to think this way.

In 2008, I wrote the following post with what I would term as 'my American dream' for communities to come together and find ways to bond. In some fashion, neighborhoods have begun to create change to find unity. However, it takes more than community gardens to change people. It takes re-fashioning our minds to a different way of thinking. This thinking should be inclusive to people of all persuasion. The concept of the land ethic is a unifying philosophy because it ties all elements of our community - including that which has no economic value - together.

In the article I write of common purposes. It is the concept of the 'Common Home' which is our communities. I wrote of 'Our Town' where we claim our heritage and our future in our town that must be sustained so our children can say with confidence - and with cleaner air - this too is 'Our Town.' I wrote of the land ethic which should be, in my opinion, at the heart of the philosophy of any economic development policies, and not hidden behind directionless gestures and empty speeches by dignitaries for 'the love of trees.' Such words mock me.

As we enter 2012, I offer these words from 2008:

Landscape Sketch by Theodore Rousseau

“I am trying to teach you that this alphabet of “natural objects” (soils and rivers, birds and beasts) spells out a story….
Once you learn how to read the land,
I have no fear of what you will do to it, or with it.
And I know many pleasant things it will do to you.”

“Wherefore Wildlife Ecology,”
The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays – A. Leopold

As I establish for you the framework of my ‘American dream’, let me inform you that I am fully aware that we shall never achieve the goals I set forward here, nor am I foolish enough to say that any great percentage of fellow citizens share my hopes and beliefs. The concepts I state here, as I have made in previous comments, are something that I, or we, can strive for in the coming years. Just as we may never fully obtain liberty or justice, we must strive every day and night of our mortal lives for them. Our Republic may never fully achieve its great potential, but we must always strive to believe in and reach for it. The same can be said of my dreams for our community.

I have recently publicly stated my admiration for the volunteers who have set the welfare of their neighborhood above their personal lives. No matter the real purpose of their efforts, they do share the common gift of giving to others. They are providing for the future of their shared home. In this, many of us share a common interest for our shared, or common, home. The Common Home is the place that surrounds us and protects us. It is what is not outside of our place of comfort. It is familiarity and confidence. Our neighborhoods will qualify for many of us as a Common Home, while others may only regard their street with this trust. Others still will not move from their own front yard, or front door, to let the world reach out to them. For those people, we must honor their liberty to be stewards of their own home and respect their fears and the reasoning of their thinking. It is difficult to un-learn generations of hatred, fear and pain. There is bitterness found in lost hopes. We can only set forward an example to shine a light in their direction and hope they will join the neighborhood if, God willing, they wish it.

Our Town is a spirit of belonging to something greater than one self. It is a union of Common Homes joined together for common cause and common interest. It is a place where Trust is found and Unity brings Solidarity. The name ‘Our Town’ is, of course, derived from the play by Thornton Wilder, which spoke of life in a small New England town where life was simple and yet so perfectly complex. Our Town, in the context of our community, is not naïve to the realities of the world around us. Instead, it recognizes the harsh cultural and social distinctions between us, but refuses to be consumed by the divisions that would separate us and that seek to overtake us. In Unity, our Common Homes decide - together - that we must protect Our Town from the outside negative influences that would weaken and divide us. Our Town raises as its primary interest the liberties that are due the individual. But those individuals also recognize that he or she is a part of a greater whole in their Common Home. The efforts of all who would join this 'Union of Peoples' will recognize that their Common Home is established beyond their front porch, or their property lines. They share a common neighborhood symbolized by the nature around them. The trees that reach both skyward and then penetrate deep through the soil and that cross property lines, tie each of us together when we understand, recognize and accept the Wild as an equal part of our community. We are true stewards of this nature when we recognize and accept this duty to the whole community. We may then become caring and responsible for each other. It sounds of delusion, but it is merely a determination of choice. There are many who are believing in these concepts but have not yet forged them into a unified movement.

The beginning and center of this Common Home is the understanding of the Land Ethic. We understand that we are a part of the land and it is part of what protects us. When these separate neighborhoods unify in their efforts and form a Common Home, then they can come together under one banner as Our Town. The liberties that drive us are American and the spirit of giving and compromise is just as American. As a community, we protect our Common Home and build trust and friendship that is the only hope we have of being a solidified nation. It begins at the grassroots level with you.

Our world is changing, and the dynamics that have led us for the past century cannot be trusted to lead us to our future. Industry and technology has betrayed us to a false prosperity that is not sustainable, though many would continue to lead us on that track of personal financial enrichment today but with the potential for its ultimate disintegration tomorrow. The false prosperity can only endure as long as the resources are available to feed it. Those days will end sooner than you may have imagined and your children, and their children, will pay the ultimate price for our shortsightedness. In our nature we fail to plan for or foresee the future, but we as civilized people must learn to ‘grow up’ and stand on our own feet as intelligent beings and find the Truth of the world within ourselves. In order to find ourselves, we must also find each other. We must learn to boldly venture back to the land to unite us and help us grow in confidence with one another. We now need to learn what we have un-learned as we moved from an agrarian working culture to a pampered one.

We should establish partnerships in our Common Homes that build purpose. Community Gardens could be started as seeds to forge new friendships and partnerships. Neighbors work together to grow and sustain a land area for the good of the community bringing people together in one place with one objective: care for a parcel of land. From this small beginning, people gain confidence and re-learn how to read the land and go back home to grow their own garden; a ‘Victory’ Garden. In harsh times, this brings the person back to the land they have long forgotten. They find that in Nature, when they cannot find confidence in what they have always known, they find it in their care for the land that gives back in turn. They learn patience and strength and re-learn to value what they had forgotten is an important and valuable gift to themselves: the knowledge and faith that the land is a part of them.

With this start, we re-build communities and re-learn to believe in ourselves, in our communities, and in our nation. We must at some time forsake the crimes and failures of our past and look to the future for our survival. Volunteerism and a civic pride and patriotism can be re-established, re-built and re-learned. Our economy in the coming years will likely lead us to withdraw into our small communities, or our homes, and we must protect these Common Homes for the common good. We must re-learn that with all of our societal differences, what is common among all of us is the land. The land that you stand upon is the same land that touches your neighbor. Under this common land, we must re-learn that human brotherhood is found under the comfort of a shade tree.

The hackberry tree, that is often forsaken and reviled as a nuisance, or 'trash' tree, and becomes a sign of abandonment and disregard, stands along many fence rows through our city, sitting on property lines that are a natural bridge between two neighbors. The tree itself knows no boundary but the extent to where it can obtain resources for survival. Nor does the bird, that landed on a fence row years earlier and had deposited the seed that became that tree, know anything of human obsession for title. But the tree shades two human neighbors, and nests many birds and wildlife, and produces life sustainability as part of a greater forest.

Re-learning a land ethic will bring people in Our Town to understand that we must protect what is most valuable for the survival of our future generations. We can grow new life in old neighborhoods, that have forgotten how to be confident and strong, by uniting together to bring positive energy to their homes by planting trees, building gardens, and just caring for one's neighbor. We should charge our community leaders to protect Our Town, not only by ordinance or deed, but by a shared land ethic that states that cherishing a harmony with the land is the only way that Our Town will endure the generations.

We continue to build monuments to ourselves and our greed, disregarding the signs of eventual societal collapse that may be looming in our future. After all, such demise seems impossible. The economic and environmental stability we have known all our lives is fading away and we ignore this to our peril. It is only by reaching within ourselves, and our familial pasts, and by re-learning a land ethic, that we learn to reach out to each other withTrust, Unity, Solidarity and a Vision of Our Town. You need only to imagine and believe.

ARCHIVE: 8/12/2009 - Article X: Tree Preservation, Removal, and Replacement - APPLICATION

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Before I get back to more original posts, I'll present to you the following archived post from 2009 (with some amendment) where I was presenting the whole of the Article X landscape and tree preservation ordinance in separate posts. This is a timely re-visit to some ordinance discussion following the recent Council committee briefing. Again, it's important to note that these are NOT statements or opinions representing the office of the City of Dallas Building Official or the city arborist. This is for informational purposes.

Is this the eventual culmination of Dallas' escarpment, floodplain and tree ordinances? It may be a bit more than forwardDallas intended for a Texas Plains city.

We start with a dandy. The ordinance acts in the following fashion: it encourages preservation, it regulates removal, and it enforces replacement. It does not mandate preservation in any situation where new construction is enacted. But Council does have the liberty to do so through planned development districts. However, the code does specifically direct the building official to deny tree removals in other circumstances if it is not in the 'public interest' to remove a tree. There will be much more on this in a later entry.

Division 51A-10.130. Tree preservation, removal, and replacement.

Again, this is a 'replacement' ordinance for development. It is a 'preservation' ordinance only where it is not in the 'public interest' to remove a protected tree for any other means. But preservation of trees is highly encouraged with incentives. The best incentive, of course, is that if you don't cut down a protected tree, you don't have to mitigate that tree and 'pay the development cost' to the city for removing the tree that is benefiting the community. It's simple math and logic. A building permit, being economic development, is inherently considered to be in the public interest and so any approved development allows for the removal of most trees, as deemed necessary by the owner, and if they are not protected under other ordinance (escarpment or floodplain, for instance) or Council mandate. The choice to keep, or remove, a tree is usually in the purview of the land owner and based on the scope of development. The cost (in inches removed) remains with the land.

51A-10.131. APPLICATION OF DIVISION.

This division applies to all property in the city except for:

(a) lots smaller than two acres in size that contain single family or duplex uses; and

(b) lots in a planned development district with landscaping and tree preservation regulations that vary appreciably from those in this article, as determined by the building official.

In reading any ordinance, every single word (and how it is applied in the sentence) is extremely important. I'll focus on paragraph (a).

In this ordinance, a single family or duplex use is said to be in place when there is an existing construct, or dwelling unit, on the lot that is currently used for a single family or duplex use. The zoning district is irrelevant. If a tree is removed on the Property that is under 2 acres in size, and while the dwelling unit is standing (if currently inhabited or not), the tree is not considered 'protected' under Article X ordinance. In other words, the lot is exempt from the enforcement of Article X. The property owner may remove any of the trees on their lot, without permit, prior to demolition of the structure.

Once a demolition permit application is had, and the process of demolition has physically begun on the structure, the trees become protected under the Article X ordinance. Any protected tree on the lot would then be subject to full enforcement and mitigation, on an inch-for-inch basis (more on this later), under the code. All other standing protected trees on the lot are required to be protected from construction (including grading) activity as specified under the ordinance.

On this issue, any lot that is two acres or larger with single family and duplex uses is subject to the full effect of the Article X tree ordinance. A single family unit on a 3 acre tract would require a tree removal application as would any other commercial, or multifamily uses, in Dallas.

Homeowner's, and other land owners, are encouraged to preserve trees where, and when, possible, but city controls on this can often be limited. This was designed into ordinance for a purpose. Essentially, it is not in the interest of the City to infringe on the personal rights of the citizens of Dallas and in how they protect their homes. The City mainly intercedes when an issue becomes a 'community' issue (or nuisance or threat) as stipulated in city ordinances and codes. Many situations arise where neighbors conflict on tree protection and damages issues. Most of these are usually civil matters that must be resolved by the two parties. In the 'minimum standards' code for property owners, there is a stipulation that (Section 27-11) "an owner shall remove dead trees and tree limbs that are reasonably capable of causing injury to a person." The 'a person' comment refers to any person on, or off, your property.

It's important to bear in mind that all trees (and other vegetation and improvements) in the parkway (area along the street between property lines) are owned by the city but are, by code, maintained by the adjacent land owner. Trees in the alley are to be maintained by the adjacent property owner to the center of the alley. If a tree dies and must be removed, in either of those situations, it is the responsibility of the land owner to remove the dead trees (Section 48-11; Chapter 48 'Trees and Shrubs'). I'll have more on this issue at a later time.

It helps to understand that the tree 'preservation' regulations are not the landscape regulations. However, they can cross paths from time to time. Existing trees that you preserve on your lots can be counted toward your landscaping requirements for homes or any other type of development. The city encourages the preservation of large trees wherever possible and when safe to do so. Public safety is the most critical feature of any tree preservation effort and will always be the first factor of consideration in public areas.

Just to follow up. This information is provided as a general guideline for how your tree ordinance works. If there are questions, you can contact your friendly city arborist. This does not act as any legal advice on how to resolve a personal property matter or issue of tree law.

- Image: A. Bierstadt - 'Among the Sierra Nevada's - Morning'

Drought Graphically

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:53:00 +0000

This experimental graphic from the National Drought Mitigation Center indicates North Texas root zone soil moisture content has improved dramatically with the Fall rains.

The water restrictions across the Texas region are increasing in number and in degrees. We've come through a good dose of autumn rains in North Texas but it barely made a dent on our reservoir levels. It doesn't help that Lake Texoma has become the forbidden waters due to the zebra mussel invasion that is just a breath and a boat ride away from infesting other Texas water resources.

The drought persists, and forecasts don't give anyone real hope for the coming summer. Even the DFW area, which is probably the least impacted part of the state, is expecting for drought conditions to increase once again. It's a good chance that that big dark area on the graphic below will climb up again by mid-summer. It's also likely to be as persistent, if not more so, as we march on into the future. Our local and regional planning for how we maintain our existing forests, and plant for our future ones, needs to step up to find reasonable solutions toward water conservation. Our forests help us protect the quality and quantity of our water resources, streams and rivers that we do have. We also need to plan how we as a society must direct growth so that water is available for everyone for the generations to come.

But let's survive this day first. Restrict your watering. Plant wisely. Protect your shade trees. They are life.

You can find these graphics and other web sites at the Texas Climate Monitor.
Coping With Drought NIDIS (Fall 2011)
Image below from the U.S. Drought Portal

A graphic time line of drought conditions for the entire state of Texas from January 2006 to today (far right). DFW is currently in the garden spot of Texas represented in the yellow area of the upper right corner. The image indicates the land area of Texas impacted by the various grades of drought, ranging from the 'abnormally dry' to 'exceptional drought.'

Drought development is likely for the DFW area and is expected to persist throughout the region through March.

In Defense Of Arbres

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:50:00 +0000

A French botanist, Francis Halle, has released a new book 'Du Bon Usage Des Arbres'; or in English, 'Making Good Use Of Trees.' This may be a must have for me (if it ever makes an English edition through Amazon) as it's directed to 'decision-makers and town planners.' God knows the difficulty of adequately explaining the ecological and biological importance of trees to that lot. Mindsets around trees are usually based on the trivialities of aesthetics, the personal and political complications of quarreling neighbors and developers, and the overall impact to economic development, of course. How else would they think of them if not educated to the implications of the loss of our forest, and not oriented toward thinking about the forest as a critical asset in our maintaining healthy living standards? No, as an arborist, my job is to educate - and learn - as opportunities arise. If our 'deciders' aren't ready to decide based on knowledge, that comes back on us tree professionals and scientists for not adequately explaining it. Ignorance is not a friend to forestry. It's may even be more dangerous than apathy.

"It is the economic invisibility of ecosystems that has led to this ecological crisis."

Pavan Sukhdev, co-Director of Deutchse Bank in Mumbai

The Contribution Of Trees To Our Lives: It Is Time To Take Stock, Frederic Joignot, Guardian Weekly, 1/3/12.

"Hallé believes that arboreal photosynthesis is our best ally in the fight against global warming. Buffon's plane tree, like all trees, absorbs quantities of carbon dioxide, responsible for greenhouse gases, and between 20% and 50% of matter produced by the tree, including wood, roots, leaves and fruit, is composed of CO₂. When trees breathe they clean the atmosphere and retain CO₂ and urban pollutants such as heavy metals, lead, manganese, industrial soot and nitrous oxide. These are stored in the wood. That is why we should refrain as much as possible from cutting down old trees. The older they are, the better they control pollutants.

At the same time, trees release oxygen that allows us to live. An adult human consumes about 700g of O₂ per day, or 255kg per year. In that time, an average tree produces 15kg to 30kg, so about 10 trees are required to provide oxygen for one person. Trees also humidify and cool the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration. A wooded area of 50 square metres brings the temperature down by 3.5C and increases the humidity by 50%. Leaf movement, especially in conifers, releases negative ions that are supposed to have beneficial effects on health and mood. And the tree is home to many useful species."

“When did the bees last send you an invoice for pollination?”

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:19:00 +0000

I've always been so much about lamenting how we fail to recognize the economic value of Nature, that I didn't stop long enough to consider that there are people out there putting a price on something that our governments and businesses fail to do. It's inconvenient, and Nature doesn't belong in the 'free market.' Yeah, right. I'm not going to jump into this fray just yet, but I thought I'd share a couple of recent articles that might have some relevance to our discussions about saving our local trees. Our land speculators and appraisers look at raw land and see 'low cost' since the wooded property is sitting there not being productive in the market. It's the free 'public' services the woodlands bring - not just the individual trees themselves - that are underestimated and not rated appropriately by our society. The problem is not in the trees. It's in our value systems - and our values. It's time certain 'important' people started figuring this out.

Putting A Price On The Real Value Of Nature - Yale Environment 360 interview with Pavan Sukhdev

"... partly it’s the challenge of addressing what I call the economic invisibility of nature, because nature provides a hell of a lot to us — whether it’s clean air, fresh water, or nutrients and water cycling for agriculture, or whether it’s disease prevention or recreation. There’s a lot coming to us free. These are goods and services which are not market goods and services. They’re in the nature of public goods. But the problem is that we are not in a situation of plenty anymore. We have been eating into this capital, so to speak, that’s providing us free, but valuable, services. We use nature because it’s valuable, but we lose it because it’s free.

As a society, we just got so entranced by this idea that value means market value. And we can’t seem to get over the fact that there’s a lot that’s valuable which doesn’t have a price. Now how do you get this inside people’s heads? I think that’s the challenge for my [TEEB] project... I hate the term “putting a price on nature,” because there’s more than that. It’s more about valuing nature.

..... When did the bees last send you an invoice for pollination? That’s a more global example where a group of researchers calculated the global value of pollination for food-bearing trees and various forms of agriculture to be of the order of $190 billion per annum. Billion. We are not talking about small numbers."

Texas 2011 Drought, $93 Billion In Tree Losses? - Texas VOX, Citizen Carol

".... But nobody knows the economic value of trees. Or ecology. Or nature itself. And that’s the point. Our environment should probably contain exponentially more economic value than our industrial economy. Perhaps we should start counting. And start changing. If you believe, as I tend to, that we humans are playing Russian roulette with the planet’s future, changing the way society measures economic success is paramount, as is eliminating the emissions believed to be driving things like radical drought, as is preserving our trees and ecosystems."

TEEB

Preserving Our Preservation

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:39:00 +0000

When many think of the word 'preservation', they usually talk about preserving historic landmarks and structures to their nostalgic past conditions with the usual needed maintenance. Preservation is sometimes misapplied to isolated and fractured woodlands since all things in Nature are in constant flux. To preserve a pocketed and isolated environment within an urban abyss of development (as is often prescribed as development leftovers not applicable to construction) is not preservation as much as it is a window to stagnation and a 'desert forest'. Preservation is often a last grasp for humanity for people in a city to hold on to something that is most basic and essential to our existence: our planet. In landscapes, we build false worlds on restricted budgets, and in the minds of engineers, on 'Complete Streets,' and in over-expansive parking lots, with made-up landscapes and insufficient green spaces, hoping to give us some sense that we're not leaving our world behind. We blaspheme in our efforts to be god-like in our personal application of the 'creation' of our modified 'natural' environments.

A recent article in the local daily about a land preserve in Garland caught my attention. The City of Garland and Dallas County were placing expanded paved trails around the Spring Creek Forest Preserve to open up new trail links along its perimeter. I won't spend much time on this. Human improvements alongside a natural area doesn't normally get people stirred up. People like to see nature without getting their feet dirty. How you put in a perimeter trail without damaging the forest edge - essential to many species - might be my first concern.

The issue for me was that, in my opinion, the intent of the preserve was violated once the City took upon itself to counter the suggestions of the Preservation Society for Spring Creek Forest. According to the report, the Society had suggested some less intrusive options that were essentially ignored. The Society was founded to act as the trust to protect the land and manage its activities. If they're not allowed to perform this function as it was deemed necessary decades ago, what is the point of their existence but to be an annoyance to planners and Council members once in a while? But this isn't even the real issue.

The real topic of concern for me was this: areas that were intended for preservation through a County-wide effort to preserve our last remaining wild places should not have any intrusion that has ANY motive or incentive than the preservation, management, and restoration of the preserve.

But, in general, how does a community that determines that something is worth saving in one decade begin to take steps to decide that they are not worth saving in another - and in one lifetime? They whittle away at this piece, and that piece, until eventually they take off a whopping huge portion because somebody looked at it and saw a revenue source. Once the financial and personal value for economic gain takes hold, then the natural value of the land becomes meaningless and pointless. Once the investment of engineering and putting pen to paper begins, there is little hope of protection. Just as preservation fails in efforts to preserve historic structures, the efforts to preserve the sensitive lands that the community once cherished is also lost.

Throughout the region, areas that we might think are protected are not. Forty years ago, communities around Dallas County saw the expansion coming and decided some things were worth protecting from our invasion. We have lost sight of this and have allowed apathy, convenience and ignorance to take place of our once impressive 'Green Fire' to protect what we knew could be lost. It is being lost. Before your closed eyes. One acre at a time. One tree at a time. Today.

The continuously growing Dallas County Open Space and preserve system was to be the beginning of preservation for our most sensitive areas. It was not intended to be the end. If we allow for unabated intrusion into our protected sensitive areas with an open door of economic ~~destruction~~ development, it's obvious we lose our protected areas. It's also the subtle introduction of ourselves into the edge of these 'preserves' that should also alarm you. Incremental changes as minor as a few feet may as well be miles to some species.

If we were to fully preserve these places, we would once again restore vast acres to open prairie and woodland and protected cliffs so we could also restore natural ecological functions as they were intended. This will not happen. Our best hopes lie in conservation. Our preservation of woodlands and prairie that we did deem as important is a noble effort to retain our humanity component in our natural community and it should be rewarded by assuring these places are protected 'forever'. When something is protected, it should remain that way. It should not be bartered off to the highest bidder or the convenience of real estate location.

January 24, 2012: Looking Forward

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:37:00 +0000

As usual, the Republicans are falsely accusing the president of one thing or another and consistently misrepresenting his policies and record. After awhile, you'd think even the gullible would stop listening to the boy crying 'wolf' at the GOP podium and airwaves. This being the same boy who was raised by the wolves and was paid off for protection and information on where to find the sheep. I'm sure they'll lay into Obama that he's hurting jobs and energy production with the current Keystone decision. Listen to them if you want, but please tone down the 'baaa'. You're just sending up flares to your whereabouts.

January 23 News: America's Oil Production Grew Faster Than Any Country In The Last Three Years, Climate Progress (Wall Street Journal)

"Federal forecasters are expected to confirm on Monday what the energy industry already knows: Oil production is surging in the U.S.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration is likely to raise by a substantial amount its existing estimate that U.S. oil production will grow by 550,000 barrels per day by 2020, to just over six million barrels daily.

The forecast will include new production data from developing oil fields, including the Bakken shale area in North Dakota, which could hold as much of 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. North Dakota’s output of oil and related liquids topped 500,000 barrels per day in November, meaning that the state pumped more oil than Ecuador. In fact, U.S. oil production grew faster than in any other country over the last three years and will continue to surge as drillers move away from natural gas due to a growing gas glut, experts say. The glut has sent natural-gas prices to a 10-year low.

The three oil giants will post billions more in profits than they did in the fourth quarter of 2010, thanks to higher oil prices."

The Alarming Outlook For Urban Water Scarcity, Climate Progress

Ocean Acidity Rise Unprecedented In Past 21,000 Years, Researchers Say, Yale Environment 360

Value of Conserving Habitats Could Be Worth $500B To World's Poor, Yale Environment 360 (re: Fiona Harvey, The Guardian)

"Some of the world's poorest people would be half a trillion dollars a year better off if the services they provide to the rest of the planet indirectly – through conserving natural habitats – was given an economic value, a new study has found.

Many of these valuable habitats and species are under threat, but the people who live in these areas lack the means to improve their conservation, according to a new study in the journal BioScience.

If poor people were paid for the services they provide in preserving some of the world's key biodiversity hotspots, they could reap $500bn. There are some fledgling schemes that could help to raise this cash – for instance, the United Nations-backed system called Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), which uses carbon trading to generate cash to preserve trees – but so far they are small in scale.

The benefits of safeguarding these habitats, such as providing valuable services from food, medicines and clean water to absorbing carbon dioxide from the air, are more than triple the costs of conserving them, the researchers found.

Will Turner, vice–president of Conservation International and lead author of the study, said: "Developed and developing economies cannot continue to ask the world's poor to shoulder the burden of protecting these globally important ecosystem services for the rest of the world's benefit, without compensation in return. This is exactly what we mean when we talk about valuing natural capital. Nature may not send us a bill, but its essential services and flows, both direct and indirect, have concrete economic value."

He said that preserving areas of highest biodiversity should be the priority. "What the research clearly tells us is that conserving the world's remaining biodiversity isn't just a moral imperative - it is a necessary investment for lasting economic development. But in many places where the poor depend on these natural services, we are dangerously close to exhausting them, resulting in lasting poverty," said Turner.

Many of the benefits of conservation, so-called "ecosystem services", are invisible – for instance, maintaining wooded land can help to prevent mudslides during heavy rainfall, and provides valuable watersheds that keep rivers healthy and provide clean drinking water, as well as absorbing carbon dioxide from the air. These benefits are not assigned an economic value, however, so that chopping down trees or destroying habitats appears to deliver an instant economic return, when in fact it is leading to economic losses that are only obvious when it is too late."

Teddy says....

noreply@blogger.com (P Erwin) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:31:00 +0000

BULLY!!