New Search
(e.g., cost to work around a tree, or exploratory root excavation to evaluate a tree, or to acquire <br /> additional ROW to preserve a tree, or for maintenance), tree value, technical feasibility, and the <br /> level of public concern are included in the guidelines. Decisions to be reached as a result of <br /> research and negotiation are: 1) preserve tree(s), 2) remove tree(s), and/or 3) plant new trees. <br /> Some ideas for ways to preserve trees and plant new trees are also shown. <br /> One of the main concerns with implementing this "ideal" process is the lack of resources within <br /> the Urban Forestry Office. We have not estimated the impact of the new process as yet, <br /> however, more Urban Forestry staff time is an obvious need. Public Works staff have estimated <br /> the cost of implementing the draft Tree Preservation Ordinance at $200,000 to $275,000 (two to <br /> three FTE) over the long -term. <br /> Related to the above concern is whether we can realistically supplement our Urban Forestry staff <br /> with consultant arborists. Recent experience has shown that consultants do not reply to the <br /> Request- For - Proposals (RFP) the City has advertised to recruit back -up arborists. The <br /> assumption is that these consultants do not consider it desirable to represent the City of Eugene <br /> to the public. <br /> The FY -01 budget contains a position for Urban Forestry to hire an additional Maintenance <br /> Technical 3 funded from the professional services fund. This position will provide scoping and <br /> other Urban Forestry support for capital projects with time being charged to the project GJN. <br /> PWM has authorization to start the hiring process but does not anticipate the person to be on <br /> board prior to July 1, 2000. <br /> A concern about the new Tree Preservation Ordinance is the requirement that tree - cutting permits <br /> must be obtained for all city projects in the right -of -way or on city lands (as well as utilities and <br /> private developers) for trees which appear to have 30% of their theoretical critical root zone <br /> (CRZ) impacted as part of a construction project. Past practice has been to cut the roots of trees <br /> which are near, but not in, the path of the improvement and leave the trees standing. With the <br /> new ordinance, if 30% of a tree's theoretical CRZ may be impacted, a permit is required and <br /> trees which are identified for removal will be posted as part of the project -- so that trees that <br /> used to be left standing will be posted for removal. One alternative is to post the trees for <br /> possible removal pending field confirmation of actual damage sustained during construction. <br /> The trees would not be removed at construction time unless they pose an immediate blow down <br /> hazard (with Urban Forestry agreement to leave the trees and monitor them for a decline in <br /> health). However, it may be misleading to the public, and might damage our credibility with the <br /> public, to post for removal if we may not remove the tree during construction or in the near <br /> future. Also, there is concern that the public may perceive the City to be cutting down more trees <br /> than necessary. <br /> Safety is a critical element that the whole Team has concern for. However if a tree falls, it is the <br /> Urban Forester's Office which receives the call and takes ultimate responsibility because of their <br /> area of expertise. The Urban Forester's Office has scientific data to suggest how much damage <br /> different types of trees can sustain before irreparable damage will result (and how long it might <br /> take for the tree to manifest decay). Unfortunately, we don't have empirical data specific to our <br /> own geographic area. <br /> 3 <br />