New Search
1 Yee � �/ -t( ov <br /> Eugene Water & Electric Board <br /> ,( Yej r <br /> EV\/EB 500 East 4th Avenue / Post Office Box 10148 <br /> Eugene, Oregon 97440-2148 5 / / <br /> 541 - 484 -2411 Fax 541 - 484 -3762 //%/ � /[�_ <br /> March 28, 2000 / <br /> Christine Andersen, Director J/ <br /> Public Works Department , / ep City of Eugene <br /> 858 Pearl Q � <br /> Eugene, OR 97401 j V`'s [ t <br /> Dear Christine, <br /> This letter is intended to serve as Eugene Water & Electric Board's response to the document <br /> "The 31 Trees in Whiteaker Neighborhood," written by The ARBORIST Inc. We have several <br /> concerns with this report and would like to be clear about several points either made or <br /> referenced in the paper. We would appreciate it if this response is attached with staff materials <br /> when the report is sent to the City Council. <br /> We have a primary concern with the "Background" section that appears on Page 3. Generally, <br /> this section is mistitled because it contains very pointed conclusions that normally do not appear <br /> in this section of a report. Typically, "Background" includes narrative explaining the context for <br /> the report, the history of the issue, the setting for the report. I cannot recall a report in which <br /> opinions, which present themselves as conclusions, appear in the "Background" section. <br /> The report is also missing a description of the methodology used in conducting the analysis. The <br /> first paragraph under "Findings," on Page 5 of the report, alludes to the methodology used, but <br /> lacks a detailed description so that the reader better understands the reasoning behind the <br /> conclusions that were reached. Specifically missing are the techniques used by the arborist to <br /> investigate the issue, such as visual inspection, the taking of core samples, interviews, etc. <br /> EWEB should have been interviewed by the contractor at some point. In fact, we were never <br /> contacted by the contractor, yet his conclusions are directly pointed toward this utility. <br /> EWEB takes specific exception to the content in the second paragraph under "Background," on <br /> Page 3. Not only is the text extremely negative toward the utility, it fails to mention that over <br /> the past six years we have, in fact, been observing current ANSI A -300 pruning standards as <br /> well as Dr. Shigo's 90-3-90 line clearance techniques in all of our projects. EWEB has been <br /> routinely observing the tree pruning methods outlined in Section C of the 1994 Intra- <br /> governmental Agreement between the utility and the City of Eugene covering tree trimming and <br /> maintenance practices in the public right -of -way. There is no mention of this agreement in The <br /> ARBORIST report. <br /> Another point we wish to make is that we have always conducted tree trimming in accordance <br /> with the existing industry standard. The narrative in the "Background" section might lead the <br /> reader to conclude otherwise with the words "While the `pruning' that was done to protect over <br /> head utility lines may have been accepted as industry standard at the time...." <br />