New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Hendricks Park, DAC
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Specific Parks
>
Hendricks Park, DAC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2014 3:19:28 PM
Creation date
7/30/2014 10:25:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
e , <br /> y 03 c e SIERRA CLUB <br /> � y z Many Rivers Group <br /> ' �� <br /> 0 P.O. Box 11211 <br /> Eugene OR 97440 <br /> October 26, 1997 <br /> Ms. Vicki Elmer, Manager <br /> City of Eugene <br /> 777 Pearl Street <br /> Eugene, OR 97401 <br /> Dear Ms. Elmer: <br /> The Many Rivers Group of the Sierra Club continues to have serious concerns <br /> regarding the city's plans to remove 12 Douglas -fir trees from Hendricks Park. While <br /> it is well understood that occasional tree removal is necessary for sound park <br /> management, these trees do not all meet that objective. According to the latest press <br /> release (10/21/97), the Public Works Department plans to remove six trees this <br /> fall /winter, six trees over the next two years and the remaining seven according to a <br /> proposed long -term park management plan. This most recent incarnation of the tree <br /> removal plan is an improvement in terms of numbers of trees, but still exceeds the <br /> citizen committee's recommendation. Furthermore, there is considerable doubt <br /> regarding the justification presented for removal of these trees. A number of issues <br /> still must be satisfactorily addressed before any tree cutting proceeds. <br /> 1) The city continues to ignore the carefully researched position of the citizen <br /> committee. Rather than cutting six trees this fall, the Public Works <br /> Department should remove the two trees consented to by a majority of the <br /> committee (R -28 & R -53). The other four trees scheduled for removal are <br /> close to a neighbor's home and seem to present a liability problem for the city. <br /> A number of Group Two trees share this characteristic. If potential liability is <br /> the driving force behind any tree removal decisions it must be recognized as <br /> such. <br /> 2) Justification for the removal of specific trees has changed over the course of <br /> this debate. As new information comes to light regarding stem decay, butt rot, <br /> windthrow and other factors influencing tree stability, hazard ratings must be <br /> revised accordingly. It appears that tree failure hazard from stem decay <br /> 1 <br /> .. .To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.