PARD has obtained a permit to remove the large pecan #18 by the SW corner of the BSP bath house, approved 9.2.11 , and a second permit to prune 40% of the canopy of the tree next to it, #19.  Both of these permits, approved by the City Arborist office, are to address safety issues to the public that according to PARD can’t be addressed in any other manner. (See permits pasted below.)

Please, email Mayor Leffingwell, city council, Sara Hensley, other PARD upper management, the BSP Joint Committee and other boards (see email addresses below) as soon as possible and ask that these 2 trees not be removed, or pruned significantly, until an independent tree inspection is done by Don Gardner.  Please, ask that this issue be discussed at the next BSP Joint committee.  These trees may be removed as soon as tomorrow, or on Thursday when the pool is closed!

lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us, Kathie.Tovo@ci.austin.tx.us, mike.martinez@ci.austin.tx.us, sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us, bill.spelman@ci.austin.tx.us,  chris.riley@ci.austin.tx.us, Laura.morrison@ci.austin.tx.us, Sara.Hensley@ci.austin.tx.us, kelly.snook@ci.austin.tx.us, Kimberly.McNeeley@ci.austin.tx.us, Cora.Wright@ci.austin.tx.us,  Charles.Vaclavik@ci.austin.tx.us, Tom.Nelson@ci.austin.tx.us, Gary.Gregson@ci.austin.tx.us, Walter.Passmore@ci.austin.tx.us, Michael.Embesi@ci.austin.tx.us, shannon.halley@austintexas.gov, barbara.rush@ci.austin.tx.us, andrew.moore@ci.austin.tx.us, Robert.Levinski@austintexas.gov,  heidi.gerbracht@ci.austin.tx.us, marc.ott@ci.austin.tx.us, Bert.lumbreras@ci.austin.tx.us, marygaymaxwell@sbcglobal.net, jennifermwalker@earthlink.net, lhg@grandecom.net, clee.parks@gmail.com, jerry.perales@gmail.com, maryannneely@me.com, pbrewer@bartlett.com,  tdhayes3@gmail.com, wildewoode@yahoo.com, maceostudios@aol.com, nclassen@austin.rr.com, whabell@gmail.com,  janehrivera@austin.rr.com, jfrancell@tnc.org, lynn.osgood@mail.utexas.edu,
Pasted below is what Don Gardner, consulting arborist, said about these 2 trees in 2009.  I’m attaching his report (tree #18 included there) and his 06.16.09 letter after doing some root excavations (tree #19 included there):

• “#18 Pecan, NW bathhouse, risk rating not high enough for removal, no obvious structural flaws.  Monitor.  (provide) Tree health care.”
• “#19 Pecan, no evidence of decay in the lower trunk, root crown or roots.  Needs care but not removing.”

These 2 trees were part of the 28 trees targeted for removal in 2009.  Tree #18 is the large pecan that lost a large branch in July (see picture attached).  When the branch fell down, AHTF obtained permission from PARD-Tom Nelson to water the trees by the bath house, following city water conservation guidelines.  Since we started watering, no branches have fallen off and the trees look fine.  As a side note, a large branch fell off a pecan by the Tree Court entrance to the pool in September, and that was because we hadn’t been watering the tree court due to the high traffic in that area.  Once that occurred, AHTF watered the tree court every 3 weeks, and again, not a single branch has fallen since then.

These branches fell off because the trees were not getting any water in a time of severe drought.  How can mature trees do well without any water in a time of severe drought that has lasted several years?  Even established native trees need a little supplemental water in times of severe drought.  In addition, the soil where these trees are is very compacted.  A team that met on site in January agreed to soil aerate these trees.  This team included Walter Passmore, forestry Manager (Tom Nelson, Gary Gregson, APF Charlie McCabe, and Zoila also attended).  However, it took several weeks for APF to get permission from Forestry to do the soil aerations, and finally the aerations were delayed until fall due to the need to water the dripline for a year after this process.  However, now due to the lack of water, all soil aerations have been put on hold by PARD.

Regardless of not having received the soil aerations, these trees have been doing well with regular watering.  They have responded well and the canopies look fine.  We (AHTF) are observant of the leaves, branches and canopy, and we water the trees when we see the need for water, about every 3 weeks now.  We have spent many volunteer hours watering and caring for these trees.

The tree removal permit was obtained with a letter from Sara Hensley to the mayor and city council dated 08.02.11, based on the branch failure “compromising the tree’s structural integrity and balance”. It also asks for a permit to remove, or prune significantly, the tree next to #18, because based on the Davey’s Tree Report of 2009, removing tree #18 would necessitate removal or significant pruning of tree #19.  The letter states that “both trees are a public safety hazard, and that no other treatment option is available to mitigate the public danger”.

I, [Zoila Marchena Vega, director of the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation] strongly disagree with this.  This is the same situation we went through in 2009.  The large branch fell off from tree #18 due to lack of watering and lack of maintenance that was promised 2 years ago by Forestry and never happened. These BSP heritage trees, even though they are irreplaceable, never get supplemental watering, except for the ones that AHTF has been providing. These trees also never get any care, not even adding compost or mulch.  The extent of the care they received from Forestry is minor pruning in 2010.  The AHTF has been mulching the BSP trees, a few at a time, trying to raise money, or find ways to get mulch and compost, without any support from Forestry, other than allowing us to do it.

Back in 2009, it became very evident to the community that the Davey’s report was faulty and highly inaccurate.  Many certified arborists with good reputations stated that the Davey’s report was wrong.  The scans shown are from an unreliable technology. The conclusions are not based on data, but are subjective.  The city spent $57,000 on a faulty report to justify the removal of the 28 trees.  Now, the same report is being used to justify the removal of these 2 trees that were in the list!

The City’s arborist office approved the removal of tree #18 based on the report submitted by Forestry.  I hope that they did their own inspection.  But I’m surprised and disappointed that the City Arborist did not tell the community.  The permit for tree #19 is for 40% green canopy removal.  The maximum canopy removal per year is 30%.  Not much will be left of this tree when 40% of the canopy is removed.

A year ago, the Joint Committee asked PARD and Forestry to notify them before any BSP tree removal due to the controversy of 2009, where the community was outraged at the proposal to remove the 28 trees based on the Davey’s report.  I’m assuming that the Joint Committee didn’t know since this tree removal was not discussed at the last Joint Committee meeting.  AHTF adopted these BSP trees in 2010 and we have been watering them regularly since July, but we didn’t get notified of this removal.  This is highly unacceptable and very disrespectful of volunteers, partners, and the community!

I was just looking at tree #18, and I don’t see the safety issue.  This tree is not even showing signs of stress from the drought (since we have been watering it).  Remember the way to calculate safety risk depends on 3 factors, one of them being the target.  The risk can be reduced by removing the target, or pruning the tree so that if the branch falls down, it doesn’t hit anyone.  The branches left of this tree are mostly over the soil island where the trees are. The long term plan is to soil aerate these trees and enclose the area with a fence, so people won’t be under the tree.  This eliminates the safety issue.  In addition, the traffic can be rerouted to the outer path, further eliminating any safety issue.  There are other ways to reduce the safety risk of these trees than removing them or pruning them drastically!  First of all, it should be recognized that the branches fell off due to lack of water, since no branches have fallen since the trees have been watered.

It’s almost like going back in time.  Being a partner with PARD since 2010 for caring of these very same trees, I can’t believe that PARD would remove these 2 trees that mean so much to the community without letting us know, without letting us ask an independent arborist, all based on the opinion of the same Forestry department that wanted to remove these trees 2 years ago, and that has not provided any care for them since then (other than minor pruning).

This issue also seems to ignore the heritage tree ordinance, where if a 30 inch tree is to be pruned more than 30%, then the permit has to go through a public process.  We discussed another instance of a case like this, a BSP tree, where in 2010 Forestry obtained an approved administrative permit to prune a 32 inch cottonwood by Eliza Springs more than 30%.  The Urban Forestry board asked the City Arborist to correct this situation.  I recall that it was agreed that cases like this have to go to the public process.

In addition, another tree, also among the list of the 28 trees list, was removed with a tree permit approved by the City Arborist last January.  This was the 18 inch pecan tree in the south hill, behind the cottonwoods by the diving board.  It was called the co-dependent tree, that was leaning on another pecan.  This tree had “heaved”, meaning that the roots have given up on one side and allowed the tree to lean due to lack of support on the opposite side.  This was reviewed by Don Gardner, during an on site visit for other reasons, who agreed that the tree was leaning more and needed to be removed.  The removal of this tree is OK.  However there are two problems.  First, again the community and Joint Committee were NOT notified (to the extent of my knowledge), and second, the 18-20 inch pecan tree that this tree was leaning on was also removed.  I have pictures of the other tree showing that it was in good health and of good shape.  I didn’t notice that both trees were missing until the on site visit in August.  Forestry said that the second tree was removed because “the tree had fallen”.  I’m having a hard time believing this because the second tree was a healthy tree.  I think that the wrong tree was removed.  The permit was only for the leaning tree, not the healthy one that the tree was leaning on.   The result is that the area is now bare of trees.  Two young trees were planted in the area, again without consulting the community or Joint Committee (who has requested that nothing be planted in BSP without public review), but both young trees died in summer due to the drought and lack of watering.  In addition, the invasives (ligustrums) were removed by the fence, so the entire area is a bare desert now, bare soil, no trees, other than the cotton woods, which are most likely next in the target list.

The proposed Forestry BSP Tree maintenance plan does NOT include applying compost or mulch to the 2 cottonwoods, or the elm up in the south hill because these trees are considered to be beyond saving by Forestry.  The Forestry tree maintenance plan also does NOT include 3 large pecans in the north hill because they are in a slope that is “too steep” to hold mulch.  However, this slope is not as steep as the south hill’s, and the Forestry plan is to mulch most of the south hill trees, regardless of the steeper slope.

The trees outside the north fence need care, they need commitment, and they need water.  It is NOT OK to deprive heritage trees of water in a time of severe drought, to NOT give the trees outside the fence yearly compost and mulch, and then remove them when branches fall off.  These are the trees that have extreme soil compaction.  It’s because of this lack of care that the trees become safety issues!  These are majestic trees that are very important to the entire community, these are the trees that motivated the BSP Master Plan, these are the trees that have a large amount of money allotted for their care.  Why are they being removed?  Why is the community not being notified of their impending removal?  This is NOT acceptable.  I thought we had worked painfully through these issues in 2009.  Isn’t PARD supposed to be working with the community?

Is this Forestry’s idea of tree care, to deprive mature trees of water and mulch when they need it the most, while concentrating all efforts into mulching the trees inside the pool fence where the trees are doing well, except for the 2 cotton woods and the other few that will not get any mulch because they are not that well?  But, that is exactly when trees need mulch the most, when they are not doing well.