- Location
- Nationwide
hey all. Yeah, I left this forum a while ago. A situation has prompted me to return to ask for educated, constructive input.
A State Park I work in, and consult to, has come up with a pretty crappy plan.... lemme fill you in.
this State Park is located on the Central oregon coast. it is home to dozens of fantastic, exaggerated examples of Nurse logs and stumps. imagine an 85' sitka spruce 36"dbh sitting atop a bird-cage like root structure a grown man could walk through.... now imagine 50 or 60 examples of this, some over 100 years old...
the indigenous trees are Picea sitchensis, Thuja plicata, and Tsuga heterophylla. There is a lot of Alnus rubra and a bunch of invasive Pinus contorta as well...
the state park consists of about 15 loops assigned a letter designation, and each loop has about 25 campsites. An asphalt road winds between the big trees. Over the years, the asphalt has buckled and pitted, and the roots of the trees have broken through the asphalt in many places. this park sees non-stop use, dozens of campers every single day of the year.
The State wants to re-pave and re-grade many of the sites, which is reasonable. They are contracting to a paving company which will perform the work.
The Powers that be in the Park system have decided that they want to:
1. Cut any root that has broken through the asphalt before paving.
2. Remove any tree that has had a root cut or removed.
They have already marked six healthy trees over 65' in height and over 20" dbh.
So here's the deal..
they are gonna pave. it's not debateable.
they are not gonna move the roads or the campsites to accomodate the trees.
they are not going to pave without taking some sort of mitigating action where the root/paving conflict is likely.
Does anyone have any verifiable, documented cases that could be of use when I write a proposal to save these trees?
I am interested in any innovative, effective procedures used to pad/insulate/bridge large established tree roots that are to be paved over...
I probably have until next tuesday to put something legitimate together or else we're just gonna end up removing them.
Thanks, -C
A State Park I work in, and consult to, has come up with a pretty crappy plan.... lemme fill you in.
this State Park is located on the Central oregon coast. it is home to dozens of fantastic, exaggerated examples of Nurse logs and stumps. imagine an 85' sitka spruce 36"dbh sitting atop a bird-cage like root structure a grown man could walk through.... now imagine 50 or 60 examples of this, some over 100 years old...
the indigenous trees are Picea sitchensis, Thuja plicata, and Tsuga heterophylla. There is a lot of Alnus rubra and a bunch of invasive Pinus contorta as well...
the state park consists of about 15 loops assigned a letter designation, and each loop has about 25 campsites. An asphalt road winds between the big trees. Over the years, the asphalt has buckled and pitted, and the roots of the trees have broken through the asphalt in many places. this park sees non-stop use, dozens of campers every single day of the year.
The State wants to re-pave and re-grade many of the sites, which is reasonable. They are contracting to a paving company which will perform the work.
The Powers that be in the Park system have decided that they want to:
1. Cut any root that has broken through the asphalt before paving.
2. Remove any tree that has had a root cut or removed.
They have already marked six healthy trees over 65' in height and over 20" dbh.
So here's the deal..
they are gonna pave. it's not debateable.
they are not gonna move the roads or the campsites to accomodate the trees.
they are not going to pave without taking some sort of mitigating action where the root/paving conflict is likely.
Does anyone have any verifiable, documented cases that could be of use when I write a proposal to save these trees?
I am interested in any innovative, effective procedures used to pad/insulate/bridge large established tree roots that are to be paved over...
I probably have until next tuesday to put something legitimate together or else we're just gonna end up removing them.
Thanks, -C