New Search
August 24,1997 <br /> Johnny R. Medlin, P.L.S. <br /> Maintenance Support Manager <br /> City of Eugene <br /> Public Works <br /> 1820 Roosevelt Boulevard <br /> Eugene, OR 97402 <br /> Dear Johnny Medlin and Public Works Maintenance Staff, <br /> This letter is in regards to our tour of the Hendricks Park trees proposed for <br /> removal. In lieu of comments on individual trees I have decided to write some <br /> general comments with specific references. Before beginning I do want to thank you <br /> again for the opportunity for a citizens group to meet, tour the trees, and offer <br /> recommendations. Also, thanks for the great dinner! <br /> After touring the trees, and listening to Scott's appraisal, as well as to other <br /> knowledgeable group members, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one <br /> tree that poses a possible immediate hazard, with one other that could be argued to <br /> pose an immediate threat. Tree number R 28, which is the one Scott understandably <br /> felt the most strongly about, is in apparent rapid decline, and is in striking distance of <br /> the shelter. It is the only tree which may need to be removed this year. I would much <br /> prefer to see tree 28 allowed to die a natural death, but I understand this could pose a <br /> danger to humans. <br /> The only other tree that I would consider recommending for removal is tree <br /> #53. It is a very thin tree with a lean toward the shelter. I don't believe it poses an <br /> immediate hazard. Is the tree likely to break off where the lean begins? <br /> While tree # 112 is heavily infested with conk, the surrounding trees seem healthy. I <br /> don't believe removing #112 will protect other trees, as the actual cutting could <br /> release more spores than leaving it stand. The surrounding trees have already been <br /> exposed to the disease and have seemed to withstand it on their own without help <br /> from us. Tree number 112, and tree number 24 should perhaps be especially carefully <br /> monitored, but I definitely oppose removal at this time. <br /> My reasons for a conservative approach to this dilemma are as follows. It was <br /> pointed out that trees with this particular disease (sorry, I won't attempt to spell it), <br /> are capable of continuing to live for many years. This disease is a natural occurrence <br /> in Douglas Fir forests, and probably at least a third of the Hendricks Park trees are <br /> infected. Most importantly, this particular disease does not seem to indicate a tree is <br /> in any more danger of falling due to severe winds or over saturated soils, than <br /> healthy trees. In fact, removal of trees will most likely make remaining trees more <br /> susceptible to wind and water. They will be more exposed to wind, and there will be <br /> fewer trees to absorb water and run off, and prevent erosion. The tree that fell last <br /> year was by all appearances a healthy tree. It would not have been one proposed for <br />