DOCSLIB.ORG

Teragan Division Transit Project Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Teragan Division Transit Project Report MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2019 TO: Marianne Zarkin (MZLA) FROM: Todd Prager, RCA #597, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist RE: Updated Tree Plan for the Division Transit Project, Gresham Summary This report provides updated recommendations for meeting the applicable tree preservation, removal, mitigation, and protection requirements in Section 9.1000 (Tree Regulations) of the Gresham Code for the Division Transit Project. Background The Division Transit Project is a transportation infrastructure improvement project that extends from SE 11th Avenue and Division Street in Portland to the Cleveland Avenue MAX Station in Gresham. While I assessed 398 total trees within the project corridor, 229 of the trees are within the City of Portland and 169 are within the City of Gresham. The purpose of this report is to provide updated recommendations for meeting the applicable tree preservation, removal, mitigation, and protection requirements in Section 9.1000 (Tree Regulations) of the Gresham Code based on revisions to the project since my January 8, 2019 report. Tree Assessment In October and December, 2018, I assessed the trees along the Division Transit Project corridor. I also completed additional assessments until June 2019 to review revisions to the project. The project consists of transportation infrastructure improvements and extends from SE 11th Avenue and Division Street in Portland to the Cleveland Avenue MAX Station in Gresham. I assessed 398 trees along the project corridor. Of the 398 trees, 229 are within the City of Portland and 169 are within the City of Gresham. This report addresses the 169 trees within the City of Gresham portion of the project. A separate report is provided for the trees in the City of Portland. Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: [email protected] Website: teragan.com Tree Plan for Division Transit Project, Gresham July 31, 2019 Marianne Zarkin, MZLA Page 2 of 26 Attachment 1 is the complete inventory data for the 169 City of Gresham trees and includes the species (common and scientific names), DBH, health condition, structural condition, whether the tree is a nuisance species, pertinent comments, treatment (remove or retain), whether arborist oversight is required during construction, mitigation required, whether the trees are on private property, and tree type (regulated tree, street tree, landscape tree, parking lot tree, etc.). The tree numbers in the inventory in Attachment 1 correspond to the tree numbers shown on the site plans by MZLA in Attachment 2. Tree Preservation, Removal, and Mitigation Of the 169 trees along the project corridor, 133 will be retained and 36 will be removed. Of the 36 removed trees, 32 are "protected" trees according to Section 9.1012 (Required, Regulated and Significant Tree Types) of the Gresham Code. The remaining 4 trees are not protected because they are either a dead stump (tree 101) or less than 8-inch DBH on private property and not landscape or parking lot trees (trees 144, 147, and 148). Note that shrub species (e.g. photinia) are not regulated as trees. The individual trees to be removed are listed in the tree inventory in Attachment 1. Table 1 is a summary of the proposed protected tree removals: Table 1: Summary of Proposed Protected Tree Removals Tree Type # to be Removed # to be Mitigated Comments Part of an approved Landscape Trees 1 1 landscape plan on private property In Cleveland MAX Parking Lot Trees 13 13 Station parking lot Street Trees 12 12 In public ROW No more than 3 trees Regulated Trees 6 6 per property Total 32 32 As shown in Table 1, 32 protected trees are proposed for removal. The proposed removals include 1 landscape tree, 13 parking lot trees, 12 street trees, and 6 regulated trees (over 8-inch DBH) on private property. All of the trees proposed for removal are less than 24-inch DBH. Note that tree 160 is now included in the list of trees to be retained and protected. Note that no more than 3 regulated trees will be removed per property. Therefore, these removals are exempt according to Sections 9.1021 and 9.1031 of the Gresham Code. Since all 32 trees are less than 24-inch DBH, they will be replaced with 32 trees in accordance with Sections 9.1025 and 9.1035 of the Gresham Code. The landscape plan by MZLA includes the mitigation tree sizes, species, and locations. Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: [email protected] Website: teragan.com Tree Plan for Division Transit Project, Gresham July 31, 2019 Marianne Zarkin, MZLA Page 3 of 26 Tree Protection During Development (9.1022 and 9.1032) The standard tree protection zone in the City of Gresham Code encompasses a radius around a tree that is equivalent to one foot per inch of DBH. For example, a tree with a 24-inch DBH would have a 24-foot tree protection zone radius. However, the City of Gresham allows an alternative tree protection zone if it is developed by a certified arborist. A typical alternative minimum tree protection zone utilized by our firm encompasses a radius around a tree of .5 feet per inch of DBH. For example, a tree with a 24-inch DBH would have a 12-foot minimum tree protection zone radius. It is a typical minimum setback used in the arboriculture industry as long as overall root zone impacts are limited.1 Note that this minimum setback is permitted by the City of Portland code and will be used for the portion of this project in the Portland city limits. Since this project is along a transportation corridor and most of the trees are adjacent to streets, curbs, and sidewalks, meeting the City of Gresham standard tree protection zone radius of one foot per inch of DBH is not practicable. Therefore, the alternative minimum tree protection zone radius of .5 feet per inch of DBH will be used to protect the trees in the Gresham portion of this project. The following tree protection measures will be required to adequately protect the trees to be retained: Tree Protection Fencing: Tree protection fencing shall be installed in the locations shown in Attachment 2 for the trees that are adjacent to proposed construction. For future drawings, include the total tree protection zones2 and critical root zones3 of the retained trees so we can evaluate locations where additional protection fencing may be needed. Demolition: Any demolition of pavement or other improvements within the critical root zones shall occur under project arborist supervision. Heavy equipment shall be positioned outside the critical root zones and care shall be taken not to disturb the existing soil surface within the critical root zones during demolition activities. This will be particularly important for trees 6 through 48 at the Cleveland MAX Station. Excavation: Excavation within the critical root zones of trees to be retained shall occur under project arborist supervision as follows: o Carefully excavate adjacent to the trees by pulling shallow layers of soil away from the trees with the project arborist probing the soil in between layer removal to identify roots greater than 2-inches in diameter. If roots greater than 2-inches in diameter are encountered 1 Costello, L.R., and K.S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. Cohasset, CA: Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2 Total tree protection zone per the City of Gresham is defined as a radius around a tree to be retained of 1 foot per inch of DBH. 3 Critical root zone is defined by our firm as a radius around a tree to be retained of .5 feet per inch of DBH. Teragan & Associates, Inc. 3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976 Email: [email protected] Website: teragan.com Tree Plan for Division Transit Project, Gresham July 31, 2019 Marianne Zarkin, MZLA Page 4 of 26 during excavation, they shall be hand excavated and retained in placed until the full extent of structural roots can be determined. o If the project arborist determines that certain roots are not critical to tree health and/or stability, they may be approved for removal with sharp pruning equipment. o If the roots are critical to tree health and/or stability, the improvements may need to be modified to retain the critical roots if possible and approved by the project team. o If modifying the improvements is not feasible, additional trees may need to be removed. Repaving: When repaving occurs within the tree protection zones where existing pavement was removed, reuse or carefully replace the existing base rock materials under project arborist supervision without excavating below the existing native soil grade. This will be particularly important for trees 6 through 48 at the Cleveland MAX Station. Stump Removal: The stumps of trees to be removed from within the critical root zones of retained trees will need to be carefully ground out or have their structural roots cut before pulling with an excavator to protect the root systems of the trees to be retained. Protect Tree Crowns: Care will need to be taken to not contact or otherwise damage the crowns or branches of retained trees that extend outside of the tree protection zones. Crown Pruning: Clearance pruning may be required for the trees directly adjacent to construction. All pruning shall be completed by a qualified tree service with an ISA Certified Arborist on site. All pruning shall be in accordance with ANSI A300 pruning standards and Z133.1 safety standards.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Planting Schemes Advice Note 2021
    Natural Environment Team East Dorset Environment Partnership Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol Advice Note Planting scheme recommendations Introduction This advice note was written with the East Dorset Environment Partnership and is intended primarily to assist ecological consultants and developers when submitting Biodiversity Plans (BPs) and Landscape & Ecological Management Plans (LEMPs) to DC NET for review under the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol (DBAP) by describing how to maximise the biodiversity potential of good planting schemes designed to deliver multiple benefits and contribute to achieving biodiversity net gain. Making the most of existing habitats strengthened through strong eco-tones; sound planting composition; connectivity to ecological networks within and beyond site boundaries and appropriate on-going management are all fundamental elements of an outstanding planting scheme. Submitted planting schemes for developments should seek to offer biodiversity benefit and comply with Dorset Council’s Pollinators Action Plan and Green Infrastructure Strategies. Schemes should demonstrate how they will contribute to addressing the Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy (Draft 2020). Currently, many schemes appear to be generic designs that do not take account of local conditions and are based on widely available and low-cost shrubs; many of which are invasive, potentially invasive or nuisance plants known as ‘garden thugs’. This is of particular concern where new sites for development are on the rural fringe and pose a significant risk of spreading damaging alien plant species into the wider countryside and sensitive semi-natural habitats. Recent published work by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) and others has focussed on lists of plants that attract pollinators rather than broader biodiversity considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Standards 11
    LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 11 Section 11 describes the landscape guidelines and standards for the Badger Mountain South community. 11.A Introduction.................................................11-2 11.B Guiding Principles..............................................11-2 11.C Common Standards Applicable to all Districts......11-3 11.D Civic and Commercial District Standards................11-4 11.E Residential Standards........................................11-4 11.F Drought Tolerant and/or Native/Naturalized Plant List ......................................................11-5 - 11-11 11.G Refined Plant List....................................11-12 - 11-15 Issue Date: 12-07-10 Badger Mountain South: A Walkable and Sustainable Community, Richland, WA 11-1 11.A INTRODUCTION 11.B GUIDING PRINCIPLES The landscape guidelines and standards which follow are intended to complement the natural beauty of the Badger Mountain Preserve, help define the Badger Mountain South neighborhoods and commercial areas and provide a visually pleasant gateway into the City of Richland. The landscape character of the Badger Mountain South community as identified in these standards borrows heavily from the precedent of the original shrub-steppe landscape found here. However that historical character is joined with other opportunities for a more refined and urban landscape pattern that relates to edges of uses and defines spaces into activity areas. This section is divided into the following sub-sections: Guiding Principles, which suggest the overall orientation for all landscape applications; Common Standards, which apply to all Districts; District-specific landscape standards; and finally extensive plant lists of materials suitable in a variety of situations. 1. WATER CONSERVATION WATER CONSERVATION continued 2. REGIONAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER a. Drought tolerant plants. d. Design for low maintenance. a.
    [Show full text]
  • (Lonicera L.) Genties Atstovų Genetinės Įvairovės Ir Filogenetiniai Tyrimai Dnr Ţymenų Metodais
    VILNIAUS UNIVERSITETAS Donatas Naugţemys SAUSMEDŢIO (LONICERA L.) GENTIES ATSTOVŲ GENETINĖS ĮVAIROVĖS IR FILOGENETINIAI TYRIMAI DNR ŢYMENŲ METODAIS Daktaro disertacija Biomedicinos mokslai, biologija (01 B) Vilnius, 2011 Disertacija rengta 2006 – 2010 metais Vilniaus universitete. Mokslinis vadovas: prof. dr. Donatas Ţvingila (Vilniaus universitetas, biomedicinos mokslai, biologija – 01 B) Konsultantas: dr. Silva Ţilinskaitė (Vilniaus universitetas, biomedicinos mokslai, biologija – 01 B) 2 TURINYS SANTRUMPOS ..................................................................................................... 5 ĮVADAS ................................................................................................................. 7 I. LITERATŪROS APŢVALGA ......................................................................... 13 1. Sausmedţio genties apţvalga ....................................................................... 13 1.1. Lonicera L. genties sistematikos istorija ir problemos .......................... 15 1.2. Lonicera L. genties kilmė ...................................................................... 21 2. Molekuliniai ţymenys ir augalų filogenetiniai tyrimai ................................ 24 2.1. RAPD metodo taikymas augalų sistematikoje ...................................... 26 2.2. Chloroplastų DNR nekoduojančių specifinių regionų tyrimas sekoskaitos metodu .............................................................................................. 31 2.3. Lonicera L. genties filogenetikos molekuliniai tyrimai
    [Show full text]
  • City of Cannon Beach Suggested Landscape Materials for Commercial and Public Projects
    CITY OF CANNON BEACH SUGGESTED LANDSCAPE MATERIALS FOR COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC PROJECTS This document is intended to provide the public with information on suitable plant materials for landscape plans required by the City's design review process. The diversity of trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, and perennials that are available is immense. The intent of the plant material list is not to be comprehensive, but rather to provide initial guidance on plants that are known to be reliable in the marine environment of Cannon Beach. The City's coastal location creates unique growing conditions that need to be considered in the design of any planting program. Because of the effects of wind and salt air, growing conditions can change substantially with the proximity of a parcel to the oceanfront. Further, there can be significant changes in micro-climatic conditions. Plants that may be successful one or two blocks away may have difficulty surviving at a particular location. The City's landscaped environment provides one means of maintaining a vital link with the City's historical past. For this reason, the City encourages the use of native plant materials when designing landscape plans. The City also encourages the incorporation of existing plant materials into the landscape design whenever possible. The removal of trees more than six inches in diameter, at chest height, requires a tree removal permit. The landscaping material list has been organized so that the following information is provided for each plant listed: common name, botanical name, size, description, growing conditions, a page reference number, and a Cannon Beach location where the plant can be seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name Scientific Name Type Plant Family Native
    Common name Scientific name Type Plant family Native region Location: Africa Rainforest Dragon Root Smilacina racemosa Herbaceous Liliaceae Oregon Native Fairy Wings Epimedium sp. Herbaceous Berberidaceae Garden Origin Golden Hakone Grass Hakonechloa macra 'Aureola' Herbaceous Poaceae Japan Heartleaf Bergenia Bergenia cordifolia Herbaceous Saxifragaceae N. Central Asia Inside Out Flower Vancouveria hexandra Herbaceous Berberidaceae Oregon Native Japanese Butterbur Petasites japonicus Herbaceous Asteraceae Japan Japanese Pachysandra Pachysandra terminalis Herbaceous Buxaceae Japan Lenten Rose Helleborus orientalis Herbaceous Ranunculaceae Greece, Asia Minor Sweet Woodruff Galium odoratum Herbaceous Rubiaceae Europe, N. Africa, W. Asia Sword Fern Polystichum munitum Herbaceous Dryopteridaceae Oregon Native David's Viburnum Viburnum davidii Shrub Caprifoliaceae Western China Evergreen Huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Shrub Ericaceae Oregon Native Fragrant Honeysuckle Lonicera fragrantissima Shrub Caprifoliaceae Eastern China Glossy Abelia Abelia x grandiflora Shrub Caprifoliaceae Garden Origin Heavenly Bamboo Nandina domestica Shrub Berberidaceae Eastern Asia Himalayan Honeysuckle Leycesteria formosa Shrub Caprifoliaceae Himalaya, S.W. China Japanese Aralia Fatsia japonica Shrub Araliaceae Japan, Taiwan Japanese Aucuba Aucuba japonica Shrub Cornaceae Japan Kiwi Vine Actinidia chinensis Shrub Actinidiaceae China Laurustinus Viburnum tinus Shrub Caprifoliaceae Mediterranean Mexican Orange Choisya ternata Shrub Rutaceae Mexico Palmate Bamboo Sasa
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Flora Checklist a Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium
    Washington Flora Checklist A checklist of the Vascular Plants of Washington State Hosted by the University of Washington Herbarium The Washington Flora Checklist aims to be a complete list of the native and naturalized vascular plants of Washington State, with current classifications, nomenclature and synonymy. The checklist currently contains 3,929 terminal taxa (species, subspecies, and varieties). Taxa included in the checklist: * Native taxa whether extant, extirpated, or extinct. * Exotic taxa that are naturalized, escaped from cultivation, or persisting wild. * Waifs (e.g., ballast plants, escaped crop plants) and other scarcely collected exotics. * Interspecific hybrids that are frequent or self-maintaining. * Some unnamed taxa in the process of being described. Family classifications follow APG IV for angiosperms, PPG I (J. Syst. Evol. 54:563?603. 2016.) for pteridophytes, and Christenhusz et al. (Phytotaxa 19:55?70. 2011.) for gymnosperms, with a few exceptions. Nomenclature and synonymy at the rank of genus and below follows the 2nd Edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest except where superceded by new information. Accepted names are indicated with blue font; synonyms with black font. Native species and infraspecies are marked with boldface font. Please note: This is a working checklist, continuously updated. Use it at your discretion. Created from the Washington Flora Checklist Database on September 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm PST. Available online at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/waflora/checklist.php Comments and questions should be addressed to the checklist administrators: David Giblin ([email protected]) Peter Zika ([email protected]) Suggested citation: Weinmann, F., P.F. Zika, D.E. Giblin, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold Injury in the Landscape: Georgia, 1983-841
    Michael A. Dirr ORNAMENTALS Sept.-Oct. 1988 Horticulture Dept., University of Georgia, NORTHWEST Vol. 2, Issue 5 and ARCHIVES Pages 5-9 Gerald Smith Ext. Horticulturist, University of Georgia COLD INJURY IN THE LANDSCAPE: GEORGIA, 1983-841 This past winter (1983-1984) proved extremely harsh on landscape plants, especially broadleaf evergreens. Temperatures in Athens were mild in November with only one day below 32°F (30°F). In December, only five days of below zero temperatures (31, 27, 31, 30, 30) preceded the records lows of 7, 3, and 9°F on December 24, 25, and 26, respectively. A few hours of exposure to low temperatures are not as severe as prolonged exposure. Plants did not fully acclimate this fall because of the mild temperatures preceding the "freeze." Cold acclimation occurs in two stages. The first is triggered by short days; the second by repeated exposure to low temperatures. Maximum plant hardiness is usually attained by January and obviously many plants were simply not "ready" in December for the cold. The low temperatures coupled with the drying winds produced ideal conditions for injury. Succulent growth, especially that resulting from high fertilization, is more susceptible to cold damage. The tissue simply never hardens. Container-grown nursery stock heavily fertilized in the fall was noted to be more severely injured. This coupled with the fact that the root systems are not protected makes container stock prone to tremendous injury. Considerable research has shown that roots are much more cold sensitive than above ground plant parts. For example, boxwood or Japanese holly roots (white root tips) are killed at about 20 to 25°F while the tops are hardy to -5 to -10°F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vandusen Garden 39Th Annual Plant Sale
    Welcome to the VanDusen Garden 39th Annual Plant Sale Celebrating Canada’s 150th Birthday Our 2017 Plant Sale Catalogue will help you explore the thousands of plants available at this year’s sale. Carefully assembled information on this vast array of plants will help you choose the perfect additions to your gardens, decks and patios. This year, we are celebrating Canada’s birthday! We want to encourage everyone to have their garden pop this year with Canada’s red and white colours. From the beautiful white Dicentra spectabilis ‘Alba’ (white bleeding heart) to Monarda didyma (scarlet flowered bee balm) there is something here for every patriotic gardener. Many thanks to over 400 hardworking volunteers who dedicate thousands of hours and all of their gardening wisdom to make this sale such a success. We are proud to continue our tradition of making a substantial financial contribution to VanDusen Botanical Garden. Let’s celebrate Canada’s birthday together! Margaret Lord, Plant Sale Chair 2017 We wish to thank our sponsors and vendors for their support: MedTech EMS Doug House; Nusa Coffee Co.; Pepsi Cola Canada Ltd.; Salmon’s Rentals Ltd.; Scouts Canada; Way To Grow. Alouette Nursery; Andrew Watson Snap Pea Catering; Brock House; Canadian Springs Co. Ltd.; Canadian Tire (Cambie & 6th); Crêperie La Bohème; DeVry Greenhouses Ltd.; Dovbush Perogies; Eli’s Serious Sausage; Erica Enterprises Ltd.; GardenWorks; Michael Welsh The Fruit Guy; Mr. Sharp, Tool Sharpening; Oriental Orchids Ltd.; Pops Predatory Plants; Savary Island Pie Company; Southlands Nursery; Taisuco Canada; The Bean Buggy Coffee Truck; The Mushroom Man Scott Henderson; Tropical Gardens Orchids; Van Noort Bulb Co.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Dataset on Cultivated and Spontaneously Growing Vascular Plants in Urban Gardens
    Data in brief 25 (2019) 103982 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Data in brief journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib Data Article A comprehensive dataset on cultivated and spontaneously growing vascular plants in urban gardens * David Frey a, b, , Marco Moretti a a Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland b Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Universitatstrasse€ 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland article info abstract Article history: This article summarizes the data of a survey of vascular plants in 85 Received 2 February 2019 urban gardens of the city of Zurich, Switzerland. Data was acquired Received in revised form 16 April 2019 by two sampling methods: (i) a floristic inventory of entire garden Accepted 1 May 2019 lots based on repeated garden visits, including all vegetation pe- Available online 23 May 2019 riods; and (ii) vegetation releves on two plots of standardized size (10 m2) per garden during the summer. We identified a total of 1081 Keywords: taxa and report the origin status, i.e., whether a taxon is considered Allotment BetterGardens native or alien to Switzerland. Furthermore, the origin of a plant or Home gardens garden population was estimated for each taxon and garden: each Lawn taxon in each garden was classified as being either cultivated or Neophytes spontaneously growing. For each garden, the number of all native, Urban biodiversity cultivated, and spontaneously growing plant species is given, along Vegetation releves with additional information, including garden area, garden type and the landscape-scale proportion of impermeable surface within a 500-m radius.
    [Show full text]
  • Temple Ambler Field Station Species List Figure 1. Animal Groups Identified to Date Through Our Citizen Science Initiatives at T
    Temple Ambler Field Station Species List Figure 1. Animal groups identified to date through our citizen science initiatives at Temple Ambler Field Station. Values represent unique taxa identified in the field to the lowest taxonomic level possible. These data were collected by field citizen scientists during events on campus or were recorded in public databases (iNaturalist and eBird). Want to become a Citizen Science Owlet too? Check out our Citizen Science webpage. Any questions, issues or concerns regarding these data, please contact us at [email protected] (fieldstation[at}temple[dot]edu) Temple Ambler Field Station Species List Figure 2. Plant diversity identified to date in the natural environments and designed gardens of the Temple Ambler Field Station and Ambler Arboretum. These values represent unique taxa identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Highlighted are 14 of the 116 flowering plant families present that include 524 taxonomic groups. A full list can be found in our species database. Cultivated specimens in our Greenhouse were not included here. Any questions, issues or concerns regarding these data, please contact us at [email protected] (fieldstation[at}temple[dot]edu) Temple Ambler Field Station Species List database_title Temple Ambler Field Station Species List last_update 22October2020 description This database includes all species identified to their lowest taxonomic level possible in the natural environments and designed gardens on the Temple Ambler campus. These are occurrence records and each taxon is only entered once. This is an occurrence record, not an abundance record. IDs were performed by senior scientists and specialists, as well as citizen scientists visiting campus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moisture-Loving Garden: Transform Mud to Beauty
    The Moisture-loving Garden: Transform Mud to Beauty By Everett Chu October 13, 2017 Transform mud to beauty To create a successful, sustainable garden requires the understanding of our local microclimates. That includes the hydrology – where water comes from, what it does on our land, and where it goes. We typically have excess rainfall in the fall and spring with the moisture lingering through the entire winter. Water-saturated soil can suffocate the roots of less moisture-tolerant plants. On the other hand, we have an almost total lack of rainfall in the summer. The bone-dry soil in the summer, where there is no supplemental irrigation, can kill another group of plants not sufficiently drought tolerant. You may ask: Is there a common ground between the two extremes? The answer is Yes! In our region full of hardpan soil with glacial till, the ground is often barely pervious. Therefore, unless significantly altered from its original makeup, our garden sites are more practically and suitably planted with moisture-tolerant plants. So, a moisture-loving “purposeful” garden, using plants adapted to both wet and dry conditions, is the answer. Drought-tolerant plants are often desirable, usually for perceived water-wise, low-maintenance reasons. But if those plants can be killed (or made unhappy) by excess soil moisture during our long, wet season. Such gardens really cannot be called low-maintenance. Some examples of drought-tolerant plants that are extremely sensitive to excess moisture are Choisya ternata (Mexican orange blossom), Cistus spp (Rock Rose), Lavandula spp. (Lavender), and most conifers such as Chamaecyparis obtuse (Hinoki cypress).
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Survey and Monitoring
    6. Survey and monitoring Survey and monitoring are essential components of good Surveying management. Surveys of the scrub itself give information on extent, species composition and structure, and are essential ‘Survey’ is the recording of qualitative or quantitative for planning management. By using standard, repeatable biological data using easily repeatable standardised techniques for the initial surveys, they become the techniques over a restricted period without preconception baseline against which further monitoring is done. of the results. Surveys of species associated with scrub provide ‘Monitoring’ is the comparison of repeated surveys. It is information on their distribution and status, which is critically important that initial (baseline) surveys are done essential when planning management. Many scrub to a standard, described method and that the results are dependent species are now rare, due to loss and fully documented so that they can be repeated. fragmentation of their preferred scrub habitat. Management decisions made without regard to rare Baseline information should be gathered to inform species could damage or extinguish them; for example, management decisions and ongoing monitoring is needed eradication of willow scrub to prevent succession on a to continuously refine management techniques. This is wet heath could cause the local loss of the rare Dingy especially important on sites designated for nature Mocha moth. conservation. In England and Wales, targets have been set to ensure that SSSIs are in, or moving towards, It is theoretically possible to survey everything within the favourable condition. It is the responsibility of the statutory scrub community but this would take a great deal of time nature conservation body to assess whether this is the and money.
    [Show full text]