New Search
� ',_ r ^';r i,j. h R - •a b`it` <br /> fir y fi tir , s s r s i 5 ltrr4 fifiti � <br /> / • • <br /> E :.f K i 3 iJ' , � FiF 1, f k .p 44 EC J { : ) � <br /> Hendrick's Park .Comments on- Hazardous -Tree e maval.. F . <br /> sence or not of the fungus infection. The subject tree eauIdiajsa be� <br /> felled and bucked (disected) where the preponderance ..of } e framing s <br /> bodies are located on the bole of the tree.. <br /> Cutting as many trees as has been proposed North of the shelt_ex a1ong:, <br /> the Heights Blvd. could increase the likely hoed of wind .thrdki'on the <br /> East exposure of the ridge. <br /> I would be glad to share with you more of the "whys and Wherefores " if <br /> you have further questions or comments., <br /> Possible Alternative Actions.. <br /> 1.. No harvesting of the existing trees. Monitor on an annual` <br /> basis to determine windthrow risk. The risk would be demonstat <br /> ed by reduced vigor, increased stress, wind shake, presence <br /> of other fungi indurated by their respective fruiting bodies, <br /> and reduced root stability.. <br /> 2.. Remove all trees between the East property line of the park <br /> and Heights Blvd.. Replant with trees whose risk of windthrow <br /> is less than Douglas Fir« a tree species with a more windfirm <br /> root system.. This would be difficult to accomplish because of <br /> the shallow_ effective rooting zone of this soil series.. <br /> 3« Removeall.trees, replant with Douglas Fir or a species of <br /> choice. Over time thin trees to reduce their density (number <br /> of .stems). foster increased root growth thus increasing the <br /> windfirmness.. <br /> + 4x L • -: '. 4; " • <br /> I would.. suggest: that. the c Publi Y�orks..Department :consult kith the fol_ -: <br /> lowing agenciesT:.for ,possibie development` of ..other strategies.: Confirm <br /> of the decay pr * endzt�ie properties: of i:the 'soil on the s te« <br /> 1.. Nationar Resources` CanServation Service, `located ;in the Oak <br /> Way <br /> 2. The . Urban ' Foresrty Department , .Oregon School_ of .Foresrty,'• • <br /> Corvallis., • . <br /> 3.. Oregon State Forest Experiment S tation, Corvallis. <br /> 4.. The Pacific Forest & Range Experiment Station.. Portland.. <br /> I find it difficult to accept the proposal to remve any of the 18 trees <br /> based on the "facts" presented by the Public Works Department.. I also <br /> find the excuses_ for not seeking further professional help from Eugene,- <br /> Corvallis, and Portland rather flimsy.. All the effort that is needed <br /> to accomplish .this, is a telephone c §,I1 to set up a meeting on the site <br /> and perhaps ,a• hours time. -at the site.. , t , <br /> I was amazed at the "expertise exhibited by the Public WorkS-Department. <br /> On another note I was amazed to find that the. City of Eugene ,has no <br /> M L"w <br /> articulated .'goals A Forest Management ; Plan for any - ;of "the, ,orested <br /> areas on city ,owned, land.. I would gu:ess --that the total...acreage tot- forest <br /> land owned y the cit y b is in excee of several hundred acres Asignif -; <br /> -,'. <br /> icant number of acres and `dollar value. ;'Spencer Butte, St�ciner s Butte, <br /> and Hendrick 'S r are : but ` three examples. The Public This„ mploye <br /> seemed less than enthused that some action be taken in developing a se <br /> of goals and a management plan for this reasource. : They seemed'-more <br /> focused on why the goals or/and _ plan could not be developed. - <br /> Who owns the park forest ?. The city bureaucracy or the citizens? <br /> V • <br /> ' t ♦ ....' 1 „_ - • .7.ii 4'i` :( riY,� 4 . �N,u1 C 7 '+ ?,l 'Y Ok .,, <br />