Dear Editor:
The construction process is having a detrimental effect on the trees
remaining at Grants Pass High School. These trees have been identified
as having desireable characteristics, and the trunks are outside the
construction envelope, but the roots are not. The fact that the trees
have roots growing in living soil has conveniently been forgotten by the
designers of the new campus. The trees are the only reminder, except for
the grandstand, that the campus ever had a previous incarnation.

The effects of construction damage on the root systems of these vestigal
trees will be to cause them to get sick, and die from thirst and
starvation. Why not just cut them down, now, rather than go through the
sham of preserving their trunks and crowns?

Why hasn't there been a Tree Protection Plan designed to keep these
trees a permanent part of the campus? The TPP is the mechanism, used by
the construction industry, by which contractors are prevented from
damaging trees. These professionals, who work in cities where the
consequences of removing/altering root zones are recognized, have not
implemented accepted arboricultural practices. Even the City of Grants
Pass has recognized this rampant problem of tree death after
construction, and publishes a brochure stating the problem and options
to correct the situation.

For a realistic chance of survival, root systems should have been kept
from soil compaction, contamination, and dessication. This means that
the construction debris piled on the soil could have been placed in a
dumpster, the grading should not have scraped away topsoil or have
suffocating dirt stockpiled on top of the root zones, and the building
materials piled next to and leaning against these stately tree trunks
needed to be stored somewhere else.

How much more would it have cost to change standard construction
practices to have kept these trees alive more than a few years after the
project completion? Would the extra expense (which is why they didn't
try) have been worth it? Who will be paying for tight-quarters tree
removal after the construction budget has been closed out? Will the ten
foot tall saplings to be planted where the big oaks are now standing be
adequate 'replacement trees'?

Michael Oxman

Reply to post by Michael Oxman, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

FYI there are photos of this construction project. The aftermath is on the home page.
The during shot is at http://198.237.133.13/gphscst/Images/Hs091297.JPG from last September.

Reply to post by Michael Oxman, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

These are the right links, sorry bout that last post.

Reply to post by Michael Oxman, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

What can we do about this???
Ther are books and articles about construction protection, mitigation, etc., but is it possible to get a real consensus on a generic tree protection guideline to be published by ASCA and ACTIVELY distributed to planning departments, building and LS architects, developers,etc.?
Sounds do-able. Anyone willing to volunteer to help?

Reply to post by Dorothy, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

I am willing to help. My specialty is root disease of conifers, obviously encouraged by construction (destructive practices of.) Sign me on.

Reply to post by Dorothy, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

Dorothy, Michael, Peter, et al...

If you aren't already aware of it, get a copy of "Trees and Development"... outstanding new book by Nelda Matheny and Jim Clark, loaded with in-depth information... thorough, functional. Could be titled "everything you ever wanted to know about tree preservation and construction impacts"! Published by ISA.

However... info is probably too in-depth where what is needed is a brief, functional standard for laypersons. Such an effort would be difficult, but I believe there are enough basic yet critical tree protection and procedural factors to produce a reasonable guideline.

Consider... pruning standards cannot (and do not attempt to) specifically address every individual tree's needs, but provides very general, ideal guidelines with limitations.

The key on a tree protection standard would likely be qualification... that is... qualifying that detailed evaluations and preservation recommendations must be developed on an indivudal tree basis...

I believe there is a need and a possibility of development of such a standard, albiet likely via significant debate! While many governing entities require tree preservation, few agree on how or when that should be done!

Boy have you guys opened a can of worms with this subject!!!!!!!

Torrey

Reply to post by Michael Oxman, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

Mike

The reason is that no one has the balls to insist upon a tree or arboricultural implication study (AIS). Until we arborists stop behaving like funeral directors, i.e refuse to "Dress the Corpse" nothing will happen. We are not Landscape Artichokes - we know about trees - our clients and the planners do not. Grow up and start insisting on the right path - stop bitching to us, we know the problems - our client base does not.

Until you 'grasp the nettle' of insisting that the bozos in planning could care less about trees and until you tell Landscape Artichokes to 'butt out of our profession' you will get no where.

It can be done, we did this in England and the Planners now listen to us. You must stand up for what you believe is right, otherwise you are 'pissing in the wind'

Sorry to be so blunt and Anglo Saxon - but that's the way it is. If you're so passionate about getting it right, get out there and do it stop bugging us who already know and who, in many cases are actually doing it.

Go see the developer and talk to him. Go see the planners and talk to them, go and do it!!

Sorry, but there is no easy way - just go and do it.

For guidance, you might want to check the relevant British Standard, BS 5837:1991 - A Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction - its all in there - check their web site at http://www.bsi.org.uk. or Come to Birmingham in August and learn how it can be done.

Dealga

Reply to post by peter torres, on April 24, 1998 at 02:05:19:

I am willing to help. As a municipal forester and member of ASCA, I am often asked for ideas in the Rocky Mountains. TPP's are new here. We must find a way to please the politicians (yeah, right) and keep in balance with mother nature. Perhaps first we can work on a standard set of definitions.

Reply to post by Dorothy, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

Sign me up. I'm a commercial arborest and I spend a lot of time in downtown Boston. I see a LOT of trees destroyed by construction damage.
My background is in plant physiology.

Reply to post by Torrey Young, on April 24, 1998 at 02:05:19:

Thousands of Oaks in my neighborhood were recently trimmed by landscapers hanging from the trees with no climbing gear etc. The wood-carving cuts they made make flush cuts look like the Industry's standard.While driving by I actually hit the curb in the median. This was after I wrote a nice proffesional letter & free pruning instructions & with diagrams of proper pruning cuts to "The Horticulturist" in charge of the trees. The "Dr" called me up and gave me lip service on how he had instructed the people to make good cuts so they can heal (yeah right, trees heal)I will donate Time & money to this cause also. I am tired of pissin' in the wind,
and I Love the Artichoke term. I will also donate money towards helping someone go to Birmingham as I will be taking a well deserved trip to Hawaii that month with no kids.
Ken Six

Reply to post by Dorothy, on April 14, 1998 at 18:38:50:

Dorothy

What you suggest is entirely achievable and, in my opinion THE way to go on this. I will assist any way I can and by way of a start, I would recommend that you contact Jim Skiera at ISA and get hold of the Sustainability of Resources Programme, (SORP), products that deal with this aspect.

These products have been developed in the UK and have 3 years of practical application behind them. They work, are wriiten both in Planners Speak and Builders Speak - so they are not frightened off by Arbor.Speak.

I would seriously recommend that you investigate what has been done, through ISA Europe as there is little to be gained in re-inventing the proverbial wheel. I am sure ther is a lot in what has been developed that would take you and ASCA further down the development line that you would think.

Feel free to email me if you would like motre info. I would also recommend as a MUST, that you obtain a copy of the British Standard on this topic, it is called "A Guide to Trees in Relation to Construction" at is is BS 5837:1991.

You can contact BSI through the web on
http://www.bsi.org.uk

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on April 24, 1998 at 02:05:19:

Dealga, I checked the site you mentioned and found this:
Price: GBP31.80 to subscribing members of BSI, GBP63.60
to non-members
40 page(s)

That's a bit over US$100, if I figure right. What does this publication have that makes it worth this price for us?
Russ