View Full Version : City aims to rejuvenate its "green canopy"



metro
10-18-2007, 10:43 AM
OKC aims to rejuvenate its ‘green canopy’

October 18, 2007

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma City Council recently approved funding for a tree inventory to determine whether the city has lost its green canopy over the last 100 years.“

This will give us some idea of how much vegetation we’ve removed and haven’t put back as we’ve been settling and developing the city,” City Planner Aubrey Hammontree said after the $10,000 project was approved.

The task, which is expected to take three to six months to complete, is being undertaken not only for beautification, but for environmental and economic reasons as well, she said.

City planners are looking at the possibility of drafting new tree preservation policies. For example, she said, “There’s the benefit of storm water runoff control – you don’t have to do nearly as much engineering for storm water management when you have open space and trees, and that’s good for the site itself as well as the environment overall.“Then there’s the cooling aspect and filtering pollutants from the air and increasing oxygen quality. When you have vegetation and cover near the ground, you don’t have as much heat building up in the pavement and building horrible heat islands. … You can save in heating and cooling costs when you have trees in the right places protecting your buildings,” Hammontree said. “So there’s actually a monetary value associated with this.”

The city revamped its landscape ordinance in 2003 and incentives were introduced to protect so-called significant trees, or those with trunks at least 6 inches in diameter. But land developers don’t always know the best ways to work around larger trees and they get bulldozed anyway, Hammontree said.

In order to improve the city’s preservation efforts, planners have been looking closely at similar cities’ ordinances. Some Texas communities “really go gung-ho to protect their trees,” Hammontree said, citing San Antonio, Austin and Houston as examples.

City planners also are studying cities with similar environments and tree sparseness, such as Little Rock, Ark.; Plano, Texas; Boise, Idaho; and Omaha, Neb.“We want to craft a tree preservation ordinance specifically to Oklahoma City’s needs,” she said.

Using historic surveying records and photos, city planners will be able to pinpoint older stands of trees and determine how much forest is necessary to keep the local ecosystem in balance. When natural resources are diminished beyond a certain point, an ecosystem can no longer sustain itself.“We’ll be able to develop policies to restore and protect those natural areas … like raising standards for planting new trees or preserving significant trees that are already there,” Hammontree said.

Species most likely to have been around for 100 years are blackjack oaks and post oaks, which form the basis of crosstimbers forests, she said. “They usually look kind of scraggly and small, so people don’t realize how old and important they are,” Hammontree said.

Regardless, “If people are going to be outside, recreating, then they want trees around. It creates an entirely different social dynamic and behavior,” she said.

In an unrelated project, state Forester John Burwell recently started a statewide inventory of Oklahoma’s forest resources. The Forest Inventory and Analysis program is funded by a U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service grant through the state agriculture department. The state inventory is expected to take three to five years to complete. Officials said the resulting data about tree species, their volume and general health will benefit economic and environmental management programs. The timber industry has a $2.4 billion annual effect on the state’s economy, the department has reported, largely due to private landowners selling access to their resources to lumber companies.

City and state officials haven’t made any predictions on tree numbers. Hammontree said, “It’ll probably shock people, one way or another.”

http://journalrecord.com/_images/articles/t_labsokc%20trees%20-%20jp.jpg
Trees on the northeast side of Oklahoma City grow from a shallow pool of water at the corner of an office building recently. (Photo by Jennifer Pitts)

karlanee
10-18-2007, 11:24 AM
I know this is about Oklahoma City, but since I live in Edmond, it really bugs me that Edmond calls itself a tree city thanks to a national program, but in recent years has taken out so many trees it's not funny. I know sometimes you have to decide between progress and nature, but for goodness sake, some of the amounts of trees taken out have been insane.

I love the blackjack oaks.

CuatrodeMayo
10-18-2007, 11:40 AM
I know, Karla.

Its sickening at times.

John
10-18-2007, 12:48 PM
And then the beautiful trees taken down get replaced with the worst tree in the world: the bradford pear.

karlanee
10-18-2007, 12:54 PM
John you couldn't be more right.

Kerry
10-18-2007, 12:56 PM
I am pretty sure there are more tree in OKC metro right now than at anytime in the last 1,000 years. In those old timy photos of the land run how many trees do you see? And what happens if it turns out there are more trees now? Are we going to start taking them out to get nature back in balance? I doubt it.

OU Adonis
10-18-2007, 01:26 PM
The more trees the better. I think what happens is that we don't see a lot of green because of drought conditions. This year has been different.

bretthexum
10-18-2007, 03:21 PM
I am pretty sure there are more tree in OKC metro right now than at anytime in the last 1,000 years. In those old timy photos of the land run how many trees do you see? And what happens if it turns out there are more trees now? Are we going to start taking them out to get nature back in balance? I doubt it.

The point is there wasnt 1.2 million people living in OKC 1000 years ago.

AFCM
10-18-2007, 04:39 PM
We need this. I just hope we can start planting soon so the trees have time to mature before I turn 50. I always love driving just east of Tinker and on 235 because of all the trees. I'm excited about this news.

CuatrodeMayo
10-18-2007, 05:02 PM
Forward-thinking.

windowphobe
10-18-2007, 05:45 PM
Well, I don't know how many trees Oklahoma City has right now, but a dozen of them surround my house.

tnajk
10-18-2007, 07:32 PM
One of the reasons I live where I do is because of all the trees! (I am in between Edmond and Guthrie off I-35) It's such a beautiful area!

CuatrodeMayo
10-18-2007, 09:03 PM
I agree...beautiful...more so east of the interstate.

BG918
10-19-2007, 04:36 PM
I'd like to see a city-wide or metro-wide program aimed at planting more trees along the interstates and also planting more along the Oklahoma River banks.

CuatrodeMayo
10-21-2007, 12:59 PM
...and making it look like a river.

BG918
10-21-2007, 03:11 PM
I think it looks like a river when it's full of water (most of the time). It just needs the banks to be more landscaped so it doesn't look like a drainage ditch, especially if we have boats and tourists plying its waters. This is a nice view with the river and skyline. Now just imagine twice as many trees along the banks and a few more towers in the skyline! Could happen in the next 10 years or so...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1185/1431196102_a90af146d5_o.jpg

jbrown84
10-23-2007, 09:13 AM
I'd like to see a city-wide or metro-wide program aimed at planting more trees along the interstates and also planting more along the Oklahoma River banks.

Yes yes yes. Totally agree. It's a huge problem. East side of Lake Hefner could use more too. For some reason the ones planted 15 years ago or so don't seem to have matured much at all.

The Old Downtown Guy
10-23-2007, 10:42 PM
Yes yes yes. Totally agree. It's a huge problem. East side of Lake Hefner could use more too. For some reason the ones planted 15 years ago or so don't seem to have matured much at all.

The City doesn't water or feed them. I planted eight maple trees on the street in our block six years ago. They were 3" in diameter and about eight feet tall. They are now up to 8" or more across and a couple are up to twenty-five feet tall. Food and water make all the difference.

One of the first things to go as a neighborhood declines is the tree population. As they die out or get lost to storm damage, they don't get replaced. Lots of older inner city neighborhoods like Heritage Hills, Edgemere etc. have scads of trees but some of the near east side neighborhoods and areas north of I40 up to 10th street west of Classen are pretty bare.

More trees please, but hold the Bradford Pears if you don't mind.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
10-23-2007, 11:43 PM
The City doesn't water or feed them. I planted eight maple trees on the street in our block six years ago. They were 3" in diameter and about eight feet tall. They are now up to 8" or more across and a couple are up to twenty-five feet tall. Food and water make all the difference.

One of the first things to go as a neighborhood declines is the tree population. As they die out or get lost to storm damage, they don't get replaced. Lots of older inner city neighborhoods like Heritage Hills, Edgemere etc. have scads of trees but some of the near east side neighborhoods and areas north of I40 up to 10th street west of Classen are pretty bare.

More trees please, but hold the Bradford Pears if you don't mind.

That's no kidding. When I bought my house about 5 years ago, it was brand new and the tree in the front yard was an anemic 6 foot tall twig. Watering it and feeding it with stakes has made it grow at probably twice the rate of similarly aged trees down the block. It's fast becoming quite the beautiful tree.

I need to plant more in my back yard...It's huge and there's nothing in it.

AFCM
04-03-2008, 01:32 PM
Has anyone recently heard or read anything related to this? I'd love to push this issue as much as we've pushed the Big League City vote.

Nawfside OKC
04-03-2008, 05:57 PM
So what about green-roofs. Does any of our downtown buildings have green roofs ?

I was in atlanta and as ya'll know its is super green and when I was taking a break on top of one of the roofs looking over the city it looked like one big chia pet.

mmonroe
04-03-2008, 07:04 PM
In midwest city, they had started putting trees in the middle of big "turn-around" on ramps and off ramps of the highway, but most of them are gone now. Highways would be perfect though, I mean, cars.. pollutants... not a bad idea.

Two, when I first saw this headline, I started thinking of the building downtown, not exactly sure what street, but I do believe in the SW area of the arts district on the west side, it looks to have a broad base about 9 stories up, then tiers in the middle up another 4 or 5 stories and on each side of the roof looks to be greenhouses.. anyone else know what i'm talking about?

Kerry
04-04-2008, 05:47 AM
I am all for more trees but the point I was trying to make is that the $10,000 study is waste. Just use the $10,000 to plant more trees and forget the study part.

This will give us some idea of how much vegetation we’ve removed and haven’t put back as we’ve been settling and developing the city,” City Planner Aubrey Hammontree said after the $10,000 project was approved.

This statement is rediculous. There are more trees in OKC, even with 1.2 million people, than at any other time since Vikings landed in the Northeast. Like I said earlier, what if they do the study and it comes back and says OKC has MORE trees. Are we going to start taking trees out so it looks like it did back 1890? No! So why do the study at all then? Just plant the trees and save the $10,000.

wsucougz
04-04-2008, 09:39 AM
Or spend the $10,000 on... trees?

FritterGirl
04-04-2008, 09:42 AM
Here's what I found out from the friendly folks at Planning:

The study will be used to identify where native forests exist in OKC (the post oak/blackjack oak crosstimbers) that play a critical role in habitat, stormwater and other environmental factors. It will also show the loss of native FOREST cover (not individual trees) to see if the rate of loss/gain merits developing tree protection / preservation ordinances. We need to know what the current situation is and where important canopies and ecotypes exist before we develop incentives and regulations for future development._____________



I am all for more trees but the point I was trying to make is that the $10,000 study is waste. Just use the $10,000 to plant more trees and forget the study part.

Here are my additional comments:
Development of urban forests, and sustainable urban forests, at that, are a lot more than just about "planting trees." It's about selecting the right types of trees for the environment, creating a balance between hardwoods, softwoods, fast-growers, slow-growers, and creating a viable habitat in which all the trees cannot just survive, but thrive. Some species of trees - even native species - are not that desireable. Why? They might be more susceptible to diseases that can wipe out entire populations. They might have root systems that cannibalize other, more desireable trees. There are multiple reasons why forestry research is an important component in forestry development.

It's easy to pick and moan about how money should be spent, but isn't it more desireable to spend money when you know you've done your research on your product than to just spend that same money and hope for the best?

Kerry
04-04-2008, 11:22 AM
I still don't see what value there is determining what use to be in OKC 50, 60 or 100 years ago. The important question is what can be done today. Heck, there could have been a giant redwood forest at Villa and I-40 but that doesn't mean it is going back there. Now if they want to determine species and locations as part of some urban reforesting then fine, just say that is what you are studying.

It sounds to me that they already have a good idea about what they want to do and now they are just searching for the "science" to back up their plans. Like I said, if they find out we have more forest are they going to allow "significant" trees to be removed or encourage clear cutting? No. Most likely they will proceed with tree protection ordinances anyhow. That is fine with me, I just wish they would spend the $10,000 developing their forest plan.

HOT ROD
04-04-2008, 08:19 PM
I have to agree with Kerry on this one, but also with Fritter.

It does seem to be a waste to do a study on whether OKC has the tree canopy it did 100 years ago. However, it is nice to do a study to determine how to make OKC's canopy better than it is. Perhaps that is what the paper really meant to say, but the naivity of the author came through making the article appear petty and worthless (in Kerry's eyes apparently).

But I do think FritterGirl is correct, it seems much more appropriate to do a study on how to expand the urban forest and make the city more beautiful and environmentally stable. There are immediate direct benefits to canopy cover (can you say improved air and cooler climate/control.... not to mention a more pleasant looking city...)

And while I do agree with Kerry that they should just do some tree plantin' for heaven's sake, but we also want to select the appropriate varieties based on which part of the city we're at. I'd hope that this 'study' will go further than JUST documentation but instead turns into zoning laws for developers and residents. We need to make the city more beautiful recognizing the habitat we have (which is NOT barron and dusty like many Seattle compatriats like to think - OKC is NOT Omaha or Dodge City).

OKC needs to do a much better job at promoting itself to the world, and with the NBA coming - OKC needs to step up to the plate QUICKLY so that first impressions will be POSITIVE (and lasting). That will get the word out and then OKC can dust off it's inaccurate yet pervasive reputation.