Yes, caution is in order. From the newspaper story (chilling emphasis mine):
Countering these claims, Locog said it would not damage or remove trees of ecological importance. Jackie Brock-Doyle, Locog's director of communications, said: "We understand concerns about Greenwich Park but believe it will be a stunning venue in 2012 with unique features such as the Meridian Line. We want to work with local residents and Greenwich Council to make sure the local community gets involved in our plans."
Doesn't this this sound familiar, Atlantans! Almost every neighborhood in our city has heard similar words, usually the last sound before the bulldozers and chainsaws awakened them from their dreams.
What makes a specific tree "of ecological importance?" The discussion, as I understood it, was about trees of historical importance, anyway. (This is called "moving the goalposts.") In my limited understanding of environmental issues, I thought that all trees are important in improving and maintaining our declining air and water quality, controlling temperature, providing wildlife habitat, preventing soil erosion and other functions within the ecosystem on which we are dependent --not to mention providing shade and beauty.
I am waiting to hear the proposed fate of our own trees from the self-appointed authority who has stated that paving over tree roots should be done to protect them, and the reason he thinks the trees along Wesley Drive aren't looking so well is because of the foot traffic around them. This could be solved, he argues, by putting down pavement:
(from an email)
"....Most of the erosion in the park is occurring along the avenues of human activity. The earth path next along Wesley near Northside Drive used to be above street level. Now, in many places it has been worn down to several inches to a foot or more below street level. When it rains, instead of running down the street to the storm sewers, the rain (when we get it) washes over broken/recessed curb-stones into the “path”, and ultimately down into the park. I suspect this erosion may be why so many of the trees along that stretch are not looking so good."
Not being or having consulted an engineer, I wouldn't dare say what is causing "most of the erosion in the park", and no doubt human activity, i.e., development, is actually affecting it the course of it more than natural causes. I'm not so sure that an expert would say that daily foot traffic is causing "most of the erosion in the park," when so much of enormous consequence has been going on for years. But it's patent nonsense that the ground has been worn down a foot anywhere. Anyone with eyes can see that.
The trees in question are on a ridge, just above a section of the park that is "below street level," (flood plain, remember?) Agreed, water runs downhill, so runoff will certainly go towards the stream. I have no idea why that is bad. His description makes it sound as if torrential rains and floods have been uprooting the trees by the side of the road.
Actually, there are numerous trees growing within the stream bank that have managed to stay upright, even though standing within roaring floodwaters many times. (Some have succumbed to erosion now and then over the years -- that's nature for you.) By the way, two more park trees have fallen over in the past month. Neither was on the footpath.
If the tree roots are covered with paving, they will not be able to receive rainwater, which will also continue to flow down into the park at a greater rate. Could that cause more erosion within the park?
Actually, there are numerous trees growing within the stream bank that have managed to stay upright, even though standing within roaring floodwaters many times. (Some have succumbed to erosion now and then over the years -- that's nature for you.) By the way, two more park trees have fallen over in the past month. Neither was on the footpath.
If the tree roots are covered with paving, they will not be able to receive rainwater, which will also continue to flow down into the park at a greater rate. Could that cause more erosion within the park?
Yes, I know the shredded poured rubber stuff is called by the Path Committee chairman "Permeable Surfacing." I can call myself Santa Claus, but I still won't be able to fly around the world on Christmas Eve.
(None of the professional arborists who have examined those trees have shared this rather novel diagnosis that these or any trees need pavement to save them.)
In fact, they have said the trees are doing very well, considering the extended drought and Atlanta's increasing number of high smog-alert days. They have said that covering the roots with organic mulch, as the Path Committee did a while back, was an excellent idea. The mulch should be replaced as needed. The consensus from REAL horticulturists, who have studied these things, is that paving should be kept many feet from tree roots, the exact distance depending on the size and species of the tree.
This is moot, though, if the paving group has its way, because the committee, at last report, has been guided to agreement on a seven-foot wide path with rubber bumper guards on both sides as on the existing walks. In that case, most of the 20-some trees cited in the email above will have to come down, which, as Mr. President Cartledge has chimed in, is no problem at all. (It turns out that Mr Cartledge was technically correct when he said how insignificant would be the cost of replacing those trees. He was obviously not talking about replacing them with trees of the same size and age, but with 2 1/2" diameter trees, the smallest the City will allow as replacements. The MPCA could almost afford to buy those little things, even with its budgetary woes.
If the Path-cum-Trail Committee, along with the Parks Department, orders a narrower sidewalk in that area to leave the trees standing, the trees will most likely die in a few years due to inability to get water as the rubber becomes more clogged with each passing day (especially when the creek deposits its overflow of filth), heat damage to roots, and the absorption of toxic chemicals leached from the rubber. (Which will also eventually taint the water supply.) Recycled tires degrade into some very nasty substances.
Now here is the fascinating dilemma for the Path Committee: Mr. Quillian keeps preaching that the City will replace the healthy trees it cuts down (which is misleading, but has a tiny grain of truth in it). However, the City does not have any obligation to replace trees that die due to disease, storms, abuse, neglect, vandalism, poisoning, or improper paving. It only is required to replace those trees that were healthy when they were cut down. (And replacements don't need to be placed in the same park, of course. The purpose of the tree ordinance is to maintain Atlanta's statistical tree canopy, not keep a particular street or neighborhood green.)
If the committee wants any chance that the City will plant more trees to help restore the neighborhood from ravages of paving, it must recommend the trees be removed while they are healthy, and ask for the Parks Department Arborist's approval to take them out.
Otherwise, the trees will probably die later-- maybe within 5-10 years. It will be due to the paving, but the City won't be under any obligation to plant any new trees. We will be that much further behind in tree coverage.
They can cut them down right away and possibly get lot of small trees, some of which will possibly survive and one day provide shade and clean air for our great-grandchildren. Or they could let them die a slow, lingering death one by one, until that stretch of road is barren. I'm sure the owners of the first 5 or 6 homes on Wesley Drive will enjoy their new unobstructed views.
It will be interesting to see which option is chosen. Stay tuned.
(None of the professional arborists who have examined those trees have shared this rather novel diagnosis that these or any trees need pavement to save them.)
In fact, they have said the trees are doing very well, considering the extended drought and Atlanta's increasing number of high smog-alert days. They have said that covering the roots with organic mulch, as the Path Committee did a while back, was an excellent idea. The mulch should be replaced as needed. The consensus from REAL horticulturists, who have studied these things, is that paving should be kept many feet from tree roots, the exact distance depending on the size and species of the tree.
This is moot, though, if the paving group has its way, because the committee, at last report, has been guided to agreement on a seven-foot wide path with rubber bumper guards on both sides as on the existing walks. In that case, most of the 20-some trees cited in the email above will have to come down, which, as Mr. President Cartledge has chimed in, is no problem at all. (It turns out that Mr Cartledge was technically correct when he said how insignificant would be the cost of replacing those trees. He was obviously not talking about replacing them with trees of the same size and age, but with 2 1/2" diameter trees, the smallest the City will allow as replacements. The MPCA could almost afford to buy those little things, even with its budgetary woes.
If the Path-cum-Trail Committee, along with the Parks Department, orders a narrower sidewalk in that area to leave the trees standing, the trees will most likely die in a few years due to inability to get water as the rubber becomes more clogged with each passing day (especially when the creek deposits its overflow of filth), heat damage to roots, and the absorption of toxic chemicals leached from the rubber. (Which will also eventually taint the water supply.) Recycled tires degrade into some very nasty substances.
Now here is the fascinating dilemma for the Path Committee: Mr. Quillian keeps preaching that the City will replace the healthy trees it cuts down (which is misleading, but has a tiny grain of truth in it). However, the City does not have any obligation to replace trees that die due to disease, storms, abuse, neglect, vandalism, poisoning, or improper paving. It only is required to replace those trees that were healthy when they were cut down. (And replacements don't need to be placed in the same park, of course. The purpose of the tree ordinance is to maintain Atlanta's statistical tree canopy, not keep a particular street or neighborhood green.)
If the committee wants any chance that the City will plant more trees to help restore the neighborhood from ravages of paving, it must recommend the trees be removed while they are healthy, and ask for the Parks Department Arborist's approval to take them out.
Otherwise, the trees will probably die later-- maybe within 5-10 years. It will be due to the paving, but the City won't be under any obligation to plant any new trees. We will be that much further behind in tree coverage.
They can cut them down right away and possibly get lot of small trees, some of which will possibly survive and one day provide shade and clean air for our great-grandchildren. Or they could let them die a slow, lingering death one by one, until that stretch of road is barren. I'm sure the owners of the first 5 or 6 homes on Wesley Drive will enjoy their new unobstructed views.
It will be interesting to see which option is chosen. Stay tuned.
Not, of course, that any of it is ever going to happen. But it is so interesting to watch the machinations unfold and learn of the fantastical flights of logic.
Posts
