RE: [mclarenparkcollaborative RE: Clearcutting of McLaren Park
sme314
Hi Tom,
The goal the McLaren Park Trail Improvement Project is to enhance the park’s sustainability and vibrancy. For every tree removed, there will be more than one planted. All Capital projects report on the number of trees removed and number of trees planted, and these are tallied in our tree management database.
There are three reasons for the removal:
- Safety: Sick and aging trees pose safety risks, especially along trails. We're removing trees deemed hazardous by an independent arborist to ensure the well-being of park visitors.
- Habitat Enhancement: By carefully pruning and removing trees, we're fostering healthier ecosystems and restoring native habitats across the park. From increasing daylight penetration along Grey Fox Creek to thinning over-crowded eucalyptus trees at University Hill, our efforts aim to promote biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.
- Trail Work: Upgrading trails to minimize erosion and enhance natural beauty is a key focus here. In addition to improving existing trails, we're creating new pathways to improve accessibility and provide new opportunities for exploration.
Thank you for your advocacy.
Regards,
LaMonte’
____________________________________
LaMonté Bishop
Senior Manager of Policy and Public Affairs
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department
City & County of San Francisco
McLaren Lodge in Golden Gate Park
501 Stanyan Street | San Francisco, CA | 94117
E-mail: LaMonte...@sfgov.org
Direct: (415) 831-2769
|
|
Visit us at sfrecpark.org Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Watch us on sfRecParkTV Sign up for our e-News |
From: Tom Borden <t...@intrinsicdevices.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:55 PM
To: Bishop, Lamonte' (REC) <lamonte...@sfgov.org>
Cc: Ginsburg, Phil (REC) <phil.g...@sfgov.org>; McLaren Park Collaborative <mclarenparkc...@googlegroups.com>; Commission, Recpark (REC) <recpark.c...@sfgov.org>; ChanStaff (BOS) <chan...@sfgov.org>; DorseyStaff (BOS) <Dorse...@sfgov.org>;
EngardioStaff (BOS) <Engard...@sfgov.org>; MelgarStaff (BOS) <melga...@sfgov.org>; Peskin, Aaron (BOS) <aaron....@sfgov.org>; MandelmanStaff (BOS) <mandelm...@sfgov.org>; PrestonStaff (BOS) <presto...@sfgov.org>; RonenStaff (BOS) <ronen...@sfgov.org>;
Safai, Ahsha (BOS) <ahsha...@sfgov.org>; Walton, Shamann (BOS) <shamann...@sfgov.org>; StefaniStaff (BOS) <stefan...@sfgov.org>
Subject: Clearcutting of McLaren Park
Lamonte,
It's been over two weeks and you have not responded to any of my questions. In the mean time, there have been a few new developments.
At the April 18th Rec Park Commission meeting an attendee reported, "Phil Ginsburg explained that the NRAMP is being implemented at McLaren Park. Trees are being removed to restore habitat, which is the mission of the NRAMP. He said for every tree removed,
two will be planted." Why does the "McLaren Trails Priority Improvements Project Tree Work Info – FAQ" only offer the half-hearted promise that RPD is, "aiming to plant slightly more trees than we're removing"?
A tally over the weekend shows that the NRD has already cut down 30 trees in the Amphitheater area of McLaren Park. An additional 71 trees are marked for removal. That total is double the "approximately 50 trees" shown on the notification
signs.
New tree removal signs were posted in another area adjacent to the amphitheater removal area, again without any public discussion.
I take it from your lack of response that:
-RPD has no documented commitment to a 2:1 tree replacement policy, or even 1:1 for that matter.
-The database of tree removals and tree plantings RPD committed to create does not exist. Without this database, trees are being cut down at will with no department-wide recording. Without this, the promise of corresponding replacement
trees is hollow.
-RPD is removing trees less than 6" diameter at breast height (DBH) and not counting them, even though it claims to follow the SNRAMP directive to count any tree greater than 15 feet tall, which includes a huge number of trees less
than 6" DBH.
-RPD clearcut the area along Visitacion and is doing the same in the amphitheater area. This is expressly forbidden by the SNRAMP, but you refuse to acknowledge the violation and RPD moves headlong with the massive tree removals during
bird nesting season.
Please consider an immediate halt to the McLaren Park tree cutting and only resume when real protections are put in place for our forests, our wildlife and our committment to fight anthropogenic climate change.
Respectfully,
Tom Borden
-------- Forwarded Message --------
|
Subject: |
Re: NRD Tree Removal Practices |
|
Date: |
Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:16:05 -0700 |
|
From: |
Tom Borden <t...@intrinsicdevices.com> |
|
Reply-To: |
|
|
To: |
Bishop, Lamonte' (REC) <lamonte...@sfgov.org> |
|
CC: |
Chavez, Lauren (REC) <lauren...@sfgov.org>, Campbell, Christopher (REC) <christophe...@sfgov.org>, McLaren Park Collaborative <mclarenparkc...@googlegroups.com> |
LaMonte',
Thank you for your email in which you claim,
"The Recreation and Park Department diligently monitors tree removals and replacements related to storm damage and capital projects, ensuring a 1:1 replacement ratio for trees standing at 15 feet and taller."
I would like to point out some contrary evidence based on information available to the public.
Tree Replacement Ratio
First, let me point out, RPD has committed to planting 2 trees for every one removed. This appears in the base Strategic Plan. In the 2021 update, RPD was to develop
reforestation guidelines, presumably in line with the 2:1 replacement ratio. Then in last year's update RPD committed to create a tree management database.
2016-2020 Strategic Plan, Strategy 4, Objective 4.1
Performance Indicator Tree replacement ratio
Performance Target Plant two new trees for every tree removed
2021 strategic plan update, Strategy 4, Objective 4.1
Develop reforestation guidelines for all maintained park sites to sustain a healthy and vibrant tree canopy
2023 Strategic Plan Update, Strategy 4, Objective 4.1
Develop and populate a tree management database to record plantings, maintenance and status of park trees
There is no way RPD can meet a 2:1 or even a 1:1 replacement commitment without a database tracking trees removed and replacement trees planted. Would you please provide a copies of the Department's "Reforestation Guidelines" and its
tree management database? People should be able to see the progress RPD is making on this Strategic Plan issue.
Are trees less than 6" DBH being counted?
The next issue is what qualifies as a Tree. The management of RPD's undeveloped parkland, or Natural Areas, is to be managed in compliance with the SNRAMP which states, "For accounting purposes, the SNRAMP defines a Tree as any
plant having a dominant vertical trunk that is over 15 feet tall." Your statement agrees with this. However, RPD staff are not using this measurement to decide if a removed tree is a Tree, that needs to be counted. There is abundant evidence of this.
Lauren Chavez, the capital planner running the tree removal and native plant restorations for the NRD made statements at the Collaborative meeting.
She does not know of a database where RPD tracks trees removed and replacement trees planted.
She said that trees removed were only counted as Trees if they were more than 6" or 8" diameter at breast height (DBH). She was completely unaware of the measure of a tree as any plant having a trunk over 15 feet tall.
The report by Oracle Oak, "TREE ASSESSMENT: VISITACION AVE. PROJECT AREA, McLAREN PARK" states that their survey only included "Candidate trees were greater than 6 inches in diameter". In their examination of each tree, they "Measure the trunk diameter
(DBH) of each tree." There is no mention of noting if the tree is more or less than 15 feet tall.
The Hort Science report, "Tree Risk Assessment McLaren Park Trails Priority Improvements" similarly states that its assessment includes,
" 4. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54-inches above grade." There is no mention of noting if the tree is more than 15 feet tall.
The document you attached to your message, "McLaren Trails Priority Improvements Project Tree Work Info – FAQ", states,
"Typically, plants are considered Trees when they have a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 8 inches or more. For accounting purposes, the SNRAMP defines a tree as any plant having a dominant vertical trunk that is over 15 feet tall. This is
sometimes shorthanded as a plant with DBH of 6 inches or more."
DBH and height of the vertical trunk are two completely different measurements. Trees that are 6" DBH are much taller than 15 feet, especially eucalyptus and pines. Saying that 6" DBH is equivalent to 15 feet tall is nonsense. One is not "shorthanded" for
the other. That statement above is just a attempt to cover up the fact that staff are ignoring the SNRAMP and using a DBH measurement as the reporting cutoff.
Using 6" DBH as the cutoff for what is a Tree means that you are not counting (or replacing) vast quantities of young trees that are the future of our urban forest.
As I understand it, NRD gardeners are empowered by RPD to cut down trees up to 8" DBH without involving dedicated RPD forestry staff or an outside contractor. Considering the people who wrote the FAQ believe, "Typically, plants are considered Trees when
they have a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 8 inches or more." I doubt that gardeners are reporting the bulk of the trees smaller than 8" DBH they remove on their own.
Large scale tree removals in localized areas
Finally, you did not address the fact that the NRAMP prohibits mass tree removals of the sort RPD executed along Visitacion and is starting to execute by the amphitheater. The language in the SNRAMP FEIR is as follows.
"The SFRPD would spread tree removal across targeted portions of Natural Areas and would not concentrate it in a particular location. Larger-scale tree removal (that exceeds half an acre or on average more than 20 trees), identified and analyzed as long-term
programmatic projects in this EIR, would remove trees within urban forests (MA-2 and MA-3) over time and not simultaneously in one portion of a Natural Area."
The clear cutting RPD performed along Visitacion is a blatant violation of this. The proposed tree removals by the amphitheater will be another one. If RPD is responsible to the public, it will halt the planned removals and rework the removal plans
so they comply with commitments agreed by the Department.
Regards,
Tom Borden
On 4/5/2024 1:52 PM, Bishop, Lamonte' (REC) wrote:
Hi Tom,Thank you for your email. The Recreation and Park Department diligently monitors tree removals and replacements related to storm damage and capital projects, ensuring a 1:1 replacement ratio for trees standing at 15 feet and taller. Please reference the attached FAQs for information on tree replacement. Removal of hazardous trees is not constrained by a specific quota, as removal decisions are dictated by the level of hazard they pose. Our approach to tree removal carefully considers both immediate and long-term environmental impacts, with subsequent restoration efforts meticulously planned. This encompasses proactive measures such as planting and erosion control, which are integrated into the broader restoration initiatives for the affected areas. Notably, tree removal activities in McLaren Park encompass both natural areas and the wider park landscape beyond these designated zones. Note that RPD is not clear cutting the area. We are employing selective removal based on an arborist’s assessment report to enhance the health of McLaren ecosystem. All tree removals and plantings are being accounted for.Regards,LaMonte'____________________________________LaMonté BishopSenior Manager of Policy and Public AffairsSan Francisco Recreation and Park DepartmentCity & County of San FranciscoMcLaren Lodge in Golden Gate Park501 Stanyan Street | San Francisco, CA | 94117E-mail: LaMonte...@sfgov.orgDirect: (415) 831-2769Visit us at sfrecpark.orgLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterWatch us on sfRecParkTVSign up for our e-News-----Original Message-----From: Tom Borden <t...@intrinsicdevices.com>Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:12 PMTo: Chavez, Lauren (REC) <lauren...@sfgov.org>Cc: mclarenparkc...@googlegroups.comSubject: NRD Tree Removal PracticesThis message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.Lauren,You made some worrisome statements at the McLaren Park Collaborative meeting yesterday evening. Based on them, it appears the NRD is disregarding its obligations under the SNRAMP.The SNRAMP calls for 1:1 tree replacements for trees removed. You said you did not know if RPD has a database to track tree removals and replacements. Such a database is fundamental to meeting RPD's tree replacement commitments, especially considering that replacements are made at a later time, possibly in different parks and not necessarily in Natural Areas. If there is not a well tended database, then there is no way RPD can be meeting the 1:1 commitment.No one in the NRD seems to have told you the correct definition of a "tree" for the purpose of counting removals. You indicated that you used a standard of either 6" or 8" diameter at breast height. Neither of those is correct. "For accounting purposes, the SNRAMP defines a tree as any plant having a dominant vertical trunk that is over 15 feet tall." I suspect the entire NRD is using 6" or 8" DBH as the reporting cutoff. Most trees that are 6" to 8" DBH are much taller than 15 feet, especially eucalyptus and pines. This means that San Francisco is losing many Trees that are not counted and or replaced.We didn't discuss it last night, but clearly you are unaware that massive tree removals in localized areas are not allowed under the SNRAMP. The Plan puts limits on concentrated tree removals to moderate the shock to the environment, control erosion, etc. Your planned removals in the Gray Fox Creek area certainly exceed the 20 tree limit, especially if you count "Trees" correctly.The clearcutting the NRD performed along Visitacion is a serious violation of this proscription.I refer you to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan (Volume I). You can find it on the SF Planning website cataloged under case number 2005.0912E. In reference to the current subject of tree removals, see pages 95-96. A copy of those pages is attached.I just noticed that the area East of Visitacion between the middle school and Hahn Avenue is not included in the SNRAMP/NRAMP. It seems a separate EIR should have been required for the scale of transformation the NRD is implementing there.I do not know who is in charge of the NRD now. Is it Christopher?Anyway, could you pass this email on to whoever is running the show?Thanks,Tom Borden
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "McLaren Park Collaborative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mclarenparkcollabo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mclarenparkcollaborative/BY5PR09MB55237E13579990FDFCA80144941C2%40BY5PR09MB5523.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.