Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon Department of Forestry: many River Street right‑of‑way trees likely to be removed; replacement and protection recommended
Summary
ODF community foresters told the River Street ad hoc committee that many right‑of‑way trees would likely be removed under the current corridor concept because construction will impact critical root zones; they recommended removal/replacement, planting diverse 3‑inch caliper stock, and strict tree‑protection measures during construction.
Britney Oxman, a community assistance forester, and Allison Harrell, a community assistance forester with the Oregon Department of Forestry, told the River Street ad hoc committee that the project as currently proposed will affect many trees in the public right of way and that a number of those trees are unlikely to survive the required construction work.
Allison Harrell said the discovery of an invasive pest has already narrowed options. "You have a detection here in Newberg, which means that any of your Fraxinus ash trees are going to have to be removed in the next five years anyway," Harrell said. The foresters said that ash and some birch specimens are already under pest pressure and that some large trees are reaching natural senescence.
The foresters explained the technical reason for removal recommendations: construction will cut into trees' critical root zones or otherwise damage roots and structural support, producing a safety hazard. "When you cut through the critical root zone there will not be enough structural roots left for those trees to stay standing," Harrell said.
ODF recommended several mitigation steps if removals are necessary: adopt a street‑tree replacement list that follows "right tree, right place" principles; plant diverse species to reduce pest risk; prefer 3‑inch caliper stock with multi‑year establishment care (watering and structural pruning); and require consulting arborist assessments for private‑property trees adjacent to the work. Britney Oxman said reusing removed wood (for benches or public features) and specifying proper protection fencing during construction are examples of practices that other communities have used.
Committee members pressed for clarifications about homeowner impacts and liability; the foresters said preserving private‑property trees is often possible but requires on‑site consulting arborist evaluation and protective fencing during construction. The foresters also noted quarantine rules that affect handling of ash wood.
The ODF presentations concluded with staff and the committee agreeing to prioritize tree considerations in the next steps: staff will include tree planning and replanting priorities in RFP materials and follow up with detailed guidance on emerald ash borer responses and tree‑protection specifications.
Next steps: the committee asked staff to prioritize a tree plan in the RFP and to schedule a tree‑focused follow‑up meeting; ODF said it will send follow‑up materials on ash borer and planting best practices.
