New Search
•„ r ,,� e "a�B ham. j d'l r.+ va* e a t3`':u f ' . s' ° y ?)"" ! -n <br /> t <br /> t ti c s � � tt DTs • x * x s' i u ; r °Xie- L' r 4 r- a 6 <br /> tij + 7� r { . { ca �• ,i a. .- � b.+r * as <br /> ., _ <br /> Hendrick's Parie,COmments on Hazardous Tree Removal..: < <br /> sence or not of the fungus infection.. The subject tree couTdsorbgi,:. <br /> felled and bucked (disected) where the preponderance ofthe,fru Ling <br /> bodies are located on the bole of the tree. <br /> Cutting as many trees as has been proposed North of the�sheit_er along: <br /> the Heights Blvd. could increase the likely hoed of wind throw on <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 indicated by their respective fruiting bodies <br /> and reduced root stability. <br /> 2.. Remove all trees between the East property line off 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. Remove ,a11, trees, replant with Douglas Fir or a species of <br /> choice.. Over time thin trees to reduce their density .(number <br /> of. stems), to foster increased root growth thus increasing the <br /> windfirmness.. <br /> I would, sug r thePublic s torks Dep art ment..consult .w ith: the fol -: <br /> lowing agencies ; }for „,posaibiedevelopm.ent of rather strategies.` Confirm <br /> of the decay problem ,and^° ?ths properties : of :thc sail bn the sit.. " <br /> 1.. l ' <br /> NationaResou Conservation Service, °1ocated to the Oak <br /> Way Mail. <br /> 2. The Urban Foresrty Depart©.ent,, .Oregon School_ of Foresrty, <br /> Corvallis.,' <br /> 3.. Oregon State Forest Experiment Station, 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..AlI the effort that is n eeded <br /> t r accompli ha this, time telep ohe c0 to. set up a m eeting an the site <br /> . <br /> P <br /> P P , _: <br /> r <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 hasno• <br /> articulated ,'goals A Forest Management ;Plan for any of tte ; ,forested <br /> areas on city ;owned land.. I would= guess _•that the total...acreage <br /> land owned by ,.,the city , is in excee of several hundred ...=: <br /> .acresAisignif-, <br /> icant numb acr <br /> of `es sand ,`dollar value. Butte, <br /> H Skinner `s Butte , <br /> and Hendrick s'Park''are ,but three examples. The' Public Works employees .. ,'. <br /> seemed less than enthused that some action be ye <br /> taken in deloping:a.set <br /> of goals and a management plan for tlus 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 /> . , <br /> W re ,r <br /> Cy ✓., �. .�//y/.{/ ` is T J rCst < &'1 j <br /> + .s�n y .. !!! a t,R� f rr <br />