tree wells.........

[budroe69moni]

hey boys,
anyone out there have any experience w/ tree wells??????
i bring this up this morning because i just got back from the
indian river county commission meeting and they're hashing thru
a new tree ordinance for the county. the law on the books now is that if you are going to add fill over 12" deep around specimen trees, you need to have a tree well 1' diameter around the trunk. they are now trying to pass and ordinance increase the size of the wells to a distance of 5' out from the trunk. this ordinance will apply to all trees over a 24" dbh. what do you think??????? i'll let you know the reactions of the county commissioners were.
peace,
budroe

 

[Newfie]

Sounds like a step in the right direction. I'm certainly not an expert, but for a tree that size it still sounds too small, practicality aside. But I've been wrong before.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Awareness of the root collar being able to breathe has come. Changing the soil level around the tree can 'sour sap' it, not let it breathe etc. There are machines and services to remove soil from around the tree, so that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Greg]

Sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure about the deminsions, that should vary depending on the species of tree and how big it will be at maturity I would think.
The problems I have with ordinances is how most often they seem to be built to screw developers and leave no room for common sense. I did a job for a developer in an area of town known for being picky about permits, etc... I asked him up front if he has taken care of the permits to remove the trees I was going to take down, he said yes the general contractor took care of everything, just get it done. So I did. Turns out no permits were pulled, and now the developer has to replace 102in DBH of hardwood trees in a minimum of 2in increments. There is NO WAY that this site could hold that many trees, this lot has trees all over it, even with the 6 gone that I took down. If he doesn't want to replace the trees he has to pay over $12,000.00 to the tree preservation fund. No doubt he should have had the permit pulled, and I should have asked to see it. However if he had waited 3 months for this work to take place when the home owner was back in the home no permit would have been necessary at all. A permit was required becasue there was more that $10k in construction going on. I removed trees for landscaping purposes, not due to construction. He is going to try and fight this, and his lawyer brother and father may get him out of it, but without them he would be screwed. I hate red tape!!
Greg

 

[tshanefreeman]

Whenever a landscape is changed through the addition of fill, the trees will be placed under stress. Aeration, possible compaction, and soil interface are possible problems that would most-likely arise. Thus the implementation of tree wells is an excellent attempt to aid the tree in its hope for survival. But when you mentioned that a 1' diameter well was to be placed around any tree being burried with 12" of fill, I had to wonder.................perhaps the only problem that will be alleviated is the possibility for trunk/bark rot due to possible moisture retention against the woody tissue above the root flair.

Without larger tree wells, the tree will still be under enormous levels of stress........unless the contractor takes the time and money to install alleviating measures, such as weeping tile/aeration ducts under the soil to aid in the exchange of vital gases.

Of course every species will require different treatments and therefore, different tree well dimensions should be implemented. However, the call to increase the diameter is justified and hopefully will take effect in not only your county but in many more...........even though some will disagree and feel that the red tape should be cut!

Shane Freeman
Total Tree Care & Consulting

 

[FBerkel]

The ordinance ought to prohibit burying root systems on mature trees period. My observation is that tree wells seldom prevent dieback unless the diameter approaches that of the crown of the tree.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I've read a few small studies on this, and there is consensus there (not rael scientific) thast the problems come not from the increase in grade, bu there method of filling. If the dozers push the soil up there and compact the soil, then the additional soild just exacerbates the real problem.

One of thses studies found that , with a pine species (White?) there was no differance between having aeration pipes, and not, if the soil is dumped in with a loader that does not enter the drip zone.

Some of the points I agree hardily with;
drainage- if the well cannot drain water, the trees are toast.

Diameter and age- if the tree has not yeat raeched it's mature age, then the well may be in the zone of trunk expantion. so figuring an average diameter growth of .25 inches, this puts the conflict in at 20 years, so lets give a tolerance of +/-5 f0r 15-20 years. less if there are large buttress roots and DBH is the guage, more if the root flair is the point of measurment. (RF would be cool, that would mean having to dig it out in many cases)

Species-lowland trees are much more tolerant of soil deposition, part of theire ecosystem. And what about small-medium species specimins? You get to burry that old 20 inch apple?

 

[Oxman]

Here's another thread going off topic.

Greg's issue with the requirement to replace or pay for the loss of 102 diameter inches with only $12,000 cash is a pretty good deal for the developer/homeowner.

Imagine having to pay the real appraised value of two, 51 inch trees, four 25 inch trees, or eight 12 inch trees. Any of these options would cost more than the penalty levied.

As far as the intent of the ordinance, adding red tape to the process of improving real estate is not why the ordinance was created. The law is to protect the community from deforestation.

The trees contribute to the quality of life for all the people who live in the area, not just the person who owns the land that they sit on. These neighbors have the right to enjoy the financial, social and ecological benefits that these trees provide.

This means that someone walking their dog nearby has the right to listen to the birds tweet while they sit on a branch from the clients tree. Removing that perch entails a penalty that is designed to act as a deterrant for future violators.

If the diameter of the stems cannot be replaced on site, plant them offsite with a contribution to the tree preservation fund. The cubic volume of the canopy cannot be replaced with an equitable formula, can it?

Is there a better way to calculate how much the 'withdrawal' from the community forest 'bank' was worth? If this lot has trees "all over it", where are those six stumps located? Or, are you just challenging the concept of zoning rights, where a governing body holds owners of private property to community standards? Should there be no law prohibiting someone from cutting down all trees on their lot?

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and tree lovers have gone to city hall and sucessfully lobbied for tree preservation. I'm one of them.

Does going to court to fight this issue mean an exception is desired in just this case? Why not go to the planning commission or zoning board to rescind the laws protecting trees from anyone with a spot to pour a slab?

Here are some quotes from that post that show a bias towards toward property rights.

"to screw developers"

"leave no room for common sense"

"known for being picky about permits, etc..."

"NO WAY"

"he would be screwed"

"I hate red tape!!"

--Greg

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Ox, do you haev an opinion on this subject?