Hendricks Park - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Sanford S. Tepfer 2011 Elk Drive Eugene, OR 97403 -1788 (541) 343 -7178 <stepfer@oregon.uoregon.edu> August 22, 1997 Scott Plamondon, Urban Forester Eugene Department of Public Works 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 Scott I am enclosing my "rating" sheets on the Hendricks Park trees recommended by you for prompt removal. I much appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the decision - making process on the destiny of these trees. First I would like to repeat what I have said before. I treasure this park. At the same time I believe that in a public park there comes a time of decision about management of a stand of trees. While theoretically immortal from my botanical point of view, in a managed part of the park it is reasonable to remove trees that are in the way of construction plans, or that are so damaged by disease that they are immediately hazardous. So 1 am neither a tree hugger nor a tree butcher but favor a middle ground in which we should recognize that some reasonable risk - taking is appropriate in order to preserve the appearance of the park in spite of disease while at the same time deciding that some trees are so unhealthy tht they represent a serious risk and that removal is in order. There is more to say, but 1 would need more time to think about it first and more information before going beyond giving my curent impressions of the route that I believe your department should take. Before any large -scale tree removal should be undertaken, a management plan for the trees of the park must be developed, taking into account the special requirements of douglas fir trees: that they usually occur in the valley in a stand of uniform age trees, that their seeds do not germinate in the full shade found in such stands, that the survival of the trees as jr stand depends on having an unbroken canopy, on the fact that the particular trees we are studying are growing in a wind funnel, that douglas firs are genetically adapted to a long summer drought and do not do well when lawns and shrubs beneath them are irrigated, etc. etc.etc. tt seems obvious to me that in the vicinity of the picnic shelter it is nu possible to remove many trees without losing all of them prematurely to wind and other natural occurrences. People love the trees as they are and we should try to prolong the appearance of a normal forest as long as possible while at the same time making plans to convert the forest of the immediate area to a grove of broad- leaves trees of shorter stature, perhaps mostly of species with persistent leaves but not entirely so. That's about all that I can say in a hurry. I know that you wish to tabulate the opinions of our group tree by tree promptly so 1 am enclosing the rating /comment sheets. They contain only the notes taken on the spot, often just paraphrasing what you and others were saying, NOT my own judgments. In order to make my evaluations known to you, I also am enclosing with this letter my own tabulation of trees, giving expected fife spans in the light of your knowledge of disease infestations that occur in all of them. I have divided the trees into four categories: 4 that should be removed this year, 4 that should stand for 5 years at which time they should be re- evaluated, 3 that should stand for 8 to 10 years before re- evaluation, and 7 that should be re- evaluated after 10 or 15 years. Whenever trees are removed, replacement trees (NOT douglas firs) should be planted. This DEMANDS that a plan be drawn up promptly for selection of replacement species, etc. In the next week or so 1 plan to meet with my long -time colleague at the U of 0, Stanton Cook, a member of our group, to see if we together can come up with a more detailed statement. Sincerely yours, Sanford S. Tepfer