Showing posts with label street trees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label street trees. Show all posts

Monday, August 18, 2014

Comptroller Faults Parks Dept. Mismanagement of Contractors In Street Trees Audit - Public Saftey Concerns, Wasting Tax Dollars

“Tax dollars are wasted, property is damaged and, worst of all, people are sometimes injured or killed. Time and time again in four of the five boroughs, the Parks Department failed to properly manage the work done by private contractors." - City Comptroller Scott Stringer






























Controller Scott Stringer’s office audit found that private contractors hired by the Parks Department were pruning Street trees that didn’t need to be while others that needed to be were not pruned at all. The Parks Department provided failed to give contractors lists of trees  that needed to be pruned, or inaccurate lists and they could not produce evidence that the work was inspected. (Photo: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on image to enlarge



City-Wide

By Geoffrey Croft

The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) has mismanaged the City’s street tree pruning program responsible for maintaining approximately 650,000 street trees citywide, increasing the risk of personal injury and property damage from falling branches, according to an audit released on Sunday by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer.

The report focused on the parks department’s borough forestry offices mismanagement of contractors who prune street trees.   

“When the Parks Department, with responsibility for 650,000 (street) trees, can’t figure out what the left hand and the right hand is doing, it causes a real danger to the community. It hurts the fiscal condition of our city,” said Stringer, who held a news conference on West 23rd Street near ninth Avenue in Chelsea on Sunday.  The announcement was made near where someone was hit in the forehead by a falling branch in 2011, which resulted in a $4,000 settlement by the city.

“People are injured and sometimes even killed when trees are not properly cared for.”  

 Over the last few years the city had paid $390,000 to $14.8 million to settle claims related to injuries from falling branches Stringer said.  

Manhattan and Staten Island were the two worst-performing boroughs while the comptroller singled out Queens as the only borough that emerged unscathed.

Read/View More



LEADS TO POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CONDITIONS ON CITY STREETS Parks’ negligence increases the risk that falling limbs will injure people and damage property


Contractors fail to prune trees, put public in danger: report
NY Post - August 17, 2014 - By Kate Briquelet  

WCBS - August 17, 2014  











Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Family Of Queens Man Killed By Tree During Sandy Plans To Sue City

"They tried to get this tree down for 25 years. They've been calling and calling and calling the city obviously did nothing about it and this is what happened."  - Father of victims' fiance.

image

The home of Tony Laino, 30, at 47-36 166th Street in Flushing Queens. Mr. Laino was killed on October 29th at  7:00pm when a large tree fell into his home during hurricane Sandy.  Police found the man pinned in his bedroom on the second floor.   (Photo: Pearl Gabel for The Wall Street Journal) 

Laino's parents and brother plan to sue the city for monetary damages to cover the funeral expenses and pain and suffering. They believe the city was negligent when it failed to properly maintain the tree outside their home. The family's attorney filed a filed a Noice Of Claim.  

Queens


The family of a Queens man crushed to death by a tree during superstorm Sandy has filed a notice of their intent to sue the city claiming the tree was overgrown, improperly pruned and should never have been planted on the sidewalk according to the Wall Street Journal. 

Tony Laino, a 30-year-old graduate student at St. John's University, was one of the first people to die during the storm when a large tree fell through the roof of his family's Flushing home on Oct. 29. 

On Wednesday, Rosemarie Arnold, the attorney for Mr. Laino's family, filed a notice of claim, the first step in bringing a lawsuit against the city.  It is believed that this is the first notice of claim against the city stemming from the storm, according to Ms. Arnold.

Forty-three city resident died during Sandy.  

A city Law Department spokeswoman said attorneys will evaluate the claim.

"We recognize that this incident involves a loss of life, which is tragic," she said. 


Tony Laino, 29,  (l) of Flushing Queens. Neighbors and relatives said that his family had pleaded with the city to remove the tree that wound up killing him — but that officials told them it was healthy enough to stay. (Photo: gofundme/tonylaino)


Ms. Arnold said that over the years, at least nine families on the block, including Mr. Laino's, had called the city's 311 complaint line reporting that the tree—which swayed drastically in the wind—was dangerous and needed to be taken down.  She said that on many occasions the city's reaction was to prune the tree. However, cutting the branches only made the nearly 100-foot-tall Eastern cottonwood tree more unstable, she claims.  

Ms. Arnold said the tree should never have been planted on the sidewalk in front of the Laino family's home because the concrete curb blocked half of the fast-growing tree's roots. This was one of the reasons that the tree came down, the lawsuit claims. 

Ms. Arnold said that unlike some of the other storm fatalities, Mr. Laino's death cannot be considered "an act of God" because that would require circumstances that were "unforeseen."  In this case, she contends, the city had long ago been put on notice that the tree posed a danger to the neighborhood. 

"There's so much wrong with this picture that it was basically an accident waiting to happen," Ms. Arnold said.


Tony Laino's brother Nicholas (r)  being consoled in front of the family house where his brother was killed by a tree a day earlier.  (Photo by Christina Santucci)

Read More:

Family of Sandy Victim Plans Suit

Wall Street Journal - January 2, 2013- By Sean Gardiner


NY1 News -  January 2, 2012


Multiple Tree Deaths As Huricane Sandy's Toll Rises
A Walk In The Park -  October 31, 2012

One Death - Numerous Injured By Fallen Trees As Hurricane Sandy Hits The City
A Walk In The Park -  October 30 2012



Monday, May 14, 2012

$ 4 Mil Latest Payout in Parks Tree Injuries - City Negligent In Tree Care - Lawsuits

"Rational jurors could conclude that the defendant City of New York was negligent in failing to discover the defective condition of the tree involved in the accident, and to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.," the New York State Appeals Court wrote in the death of a Brooklyn grandmother, Hinda Segal in 2003. The city was ordered to pay $1.6 million.

New York City paid $4 million to settle a suit after a falling tree limb seriously injured Alexis Handwerker, a 29-year-old woman in Stuyvesant Square Park on July 16, 2007. Ms. Handwerker survived the accident with grievous injuries, and sued. Her lawyers pieced together evidence that untrained parks workers had missed signs that the elm was rotting — even though the 80-foot tree, one of the biggest in New York City, had sent limbs crashing down before. Parks workers questioned by Ms. Handwerker’s lawyer, Sal Spano, said that they did not know how to assess a sick tree: The city settled on February 15th. (Photo: Richard Velasco)

The Parks Department has less than 100 Climber & Pruners for 2.6 million trees. The vast majority of their time is spent dealing with street trees. Long gone are the agency's preventive tree maintenance programs. The Mayor has proposed new funding cuts to the agency's horticulture budget.

Ms. Handwerker’s suit is just one of at least 10 stemming from deaths or injuries caused by falling limbs and branches in New York City that were quietly resolved over the last 10 years, or are now winding their way through the courts. The city has paid millions of dollars in damage claims, with far more expected. It all comes at a time of steep cutbacks in the amount of money the city dedicates to tree care and safety.

Her lawyers depicted "an overstretched and haphazard system of tree inspections and care, one in which the crucial job of spotting dangers can be left to untrained workers, and repairs and pruning are delayed to save money."

In court cases the City has argued they are not required to regularly conduct state-of-the-art inspections to determine whether trees were rotting or disease-ridden.

New York effectively has two tree-care systems, one for Central Park, with its mix of private and public financing, and one for the rest of the city.

In 2007, 17-year-old Sohaib Qureshi went to Riverside Park in Manhattan to play catch with his younger brother when a 24-foot limb of an oak hit him. He returned home months later in a wheelchair, brain damage, hearing and vision loss, seizures and memory problems.

In Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx, in 2006, a rotting tree covered in fungus that may have been dead for 10 years smashed across a bike path and pinned a cyclist. The cyclist, Rodolfo Guevara, sued. His lawyer, Richard T. Sules, questioned a parks supervisor, Bill Sackel, in 2009. The supervisor described a lackadaisical system of checking trees, even those right next to a bike path.

“We are a complaint-generated organization,” he testified. “So we only inspect any complaints that come in.”

In the five years ending in 2011, 51 people were injured, including two who were killed, on New York City streets and in parks.

According to the 2, 787 word front page above-the-fold New York Times article, Parks Commissioner Adrain Benepe accepts no responsibility.

“The only absolute correction,” Mr. Benepe said, “would be to have no trees at all, which would mean a city with much dirtier air, hotter temperatures, polluted water, and desertlike streets and public places — in short a city that would be neither healthful nor livable.” – Geoffrey Croft

City-Wide

The sharp and sudden crack! broke the summer calm.

Alexis Handwerker had been sitting on a bench beneath a towering elm in Stuyvesant Square Park in Manhattan — now she was pinned to the ground, bleeding, disoriented and smothered by leaves. One arm was rammed back unnaturally, broken. Panicked parkgoers struggled to free her from a huge tree limb that had plummeted 30 feet.

“I don’t want to die,” she screamed. “I don’t want to die.”

Ms. Handwerker, a 29-year-old social worker, survived the July 2007 accident with grievous injuries, and sued. Her lawyers pieced together evidence that untrained parks workers had missed signs that the elm was rotting — even though the 80-foot tree, one of the biggest in New York City, had sent limbs crashing down before. The city settled in February, paying $4 million.

Ms. Handwerker’s suit is just one of at least 10 stemming from deaths or injuries caused by falling limbs and branches in New York City that were quietly resolved over the last 10 years, or are now winding their way through the courts. The city has paid millions of dollars in damage claims, with far more expected. It all comes at a time of steep cutbacks in the amount of money the city dedicates to tree care and safety. Lawyers and investigators hired by the victims have gathered parks records, taken sworn testimony from city officials and parks workers, and hired tree-care experts to review city procedures. The collected evidence, taken together with public records and interviews with outside experts and parks officials, depicts an overstretched and haphazard system of tree inspections and care, one in which the crucial job of spotting dangers can be left to untrained workers, and repairs and pruning are delayed to save money.

At the center of many of the cases is a simple question: how much responsibility does the city have for protecting people who pass beneath its graceful elms, oaks and maples? Lawyers for the injured and dead have argued for more, while lawyers for the city have argued for less; in at least two recent cases, the city’s position has been rejected by appeals courts.

Naxhije Qyra holds a picture of her husband, Elmaz, who was killed by a falling branch on Literary Walk in Central Park. ( Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times)

City lawyers have aggressively fought several of the cases, denying blame in what they called tragic accidents. They argued that the city was not required to regularly conduct state-of-the-art inspections to determine whether trees were rotting or disease-ridden.

New York effectively has two tree-care systems, one for Central Park, with its mix of private and public financing, and one for the rest of the city. But the suits demonstrated safety problems in each:

¶ In two of the most high-profile Central Park cases — the life-altering injury of a young Google engineer in 2009 and the death of a restaurant worker seven months later — workers noted signs of dangers in trees but did not move fast enough. In the case of the engineer, a park official thought he had been told that workers “got” the dangerous limb before it hurt anyone; in fact, they simply “got” an e-mail warning of the danger.

¶ Workers did not detect that the huge tree that hit Ms. Handwerker had rotted to the point that its giant trunk was “gooey.”

¶ The parks department’s monitoring of trees in high-hazard areas like public squares, playgrounds and picnic areas has not caught up with an increasingly sophisticated science of managing the well-recognized risks of aging trees.

Tree-care experts say the testimony and records raise broad safety questions nationally. Preventive care of urban trees has been a budget casualty from Philadelphia to Chicago to San Jose. “It’s a problem here and everywhere,” said Douglas Still, the chief city forester in Providence, R.I. “Pruning programs are being cut, not increased.”

Some tree-care experts fear cuts will bring more accidents — and damage payouts. “It’s an old adage — an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” said Randall Swanson, a forestry professor at Paul Smith’s College in upstate New York. “Preventative measures can go a long way toward reducing the possibility of tree-related injuries.”

There are roughly 2.5 million trees in the city’s parks and on its streets. Adrian Benepe, the parks commissioner, noted that his department administered care to more than 70,000 of those trees a year with procedures that he said “prioritize public safety” while preserving and expanding the urban forest. “Unfortunately,” he said, “nature is unpredictable and limbs can fall even from healthy and well-pruned trees.

“The only absolute correction,” Mr. Benepe continued, “would be to have no trees at all, which would mean a city with much dirtier air, hotter temperatures, polluted water, and desertlike streets and public places — in short a city that would be neither healthful nor livable.”

No one argues that trees in remote park areas need to be inspected regularly. But tree-care experts say that a science has evolved in recent years in the “risk management” of trees in high-traffic urban areas like walkways. It includes formulas, checklists and rating scores that measure factors like the potential for injuries or deaths from disease or structural weakness and that calculate the numbers of people who are typically in the “target” area — like under the canopy of a big tree.

New York has not kept up. Parks employees are required to inspect trees in as many as 25 busy parks every two weeks, and the inspections are hardly thorough. Workers without special training look for dead limbs and other obvious risks as part of a 16-point inspection program that also requires them to evaluate play equipment, benches and fences; make sure animal waste and condoms are discarded; and check lawns and ornamental plantings. The parks department’s forestry division often sends trained arborists only after problems have been noted by the untrained employees.

Trees on city streets get pruning about every 15 years instead of every seven years, which was the practice only a few years ago, said the department’s deputy commissioner, Liam Kavanagh. The budget to trim them has dropped to $1.45 million from $4.7 million in the last five years.

Sosimo J. Fabian, of the city corporation counsel’s office, captured the city’s approach in the case of a Brooklyn grandmother killed by a falling limb on Avenue J in 2003. “It is an unfortunate event, but the City of New York did not cause it,” he told the jury.

The struggle will only get more challenging: New York City is more than halfway to its goal of planting a million more trees. The total number of tree injuries is relatively small — in the five years ending in 2011, 51 people were injured, including two who were killed, on New York City streets and in parks. But evidence strongly suggests that the most devastating accidents could have been avoided.

In the death of the Brooklyn grandmother, Hinda Segal, on Avenue J, jurors were told that city crews had been to the site eight times to remove a maple described as “half dead.” But in what Alan M. Greenberg, the lawyer for Mrs. Segal’s family, labeled “incompetence all the way through,” the city left another maple whose limbs hung over a bus stop. The tree suffered signs of rot, fungus, carpenter-ant infestation and decay, the jury was told. A cascade of the heavy branches struck and killed the woman.

The city was ordered to pay $1.6 million, including $350,000 assessed by the jury for the eight seconds of panicked anguish Mrs. Segal suffered between the audible crack and the instant she slipped into unconsciousness. The appeals court said that “rational jurors could conclude that the defendant City of New York was negligent in failing to discover the defective condition of the tree involved in the accident, and to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.”

Missed Warning Signs

On a clear summer day in 2007, Sohaib Qureshi, soon to start his senior year at Life Sciences High School, went to Riverside Park in Manhattan to play catch with his younger brother. He was an athletic 17-year-old with dreams of a college basketball scholarship.

Sohaib was reaching for the ball under the 24-foot limb of an oak when the crack came. He finally returned home months later in a wheelchair, with brain damage, hearing and vision loss, seizures and memory problems. The family has filed suit. His father, Waseem Qureshi, recently described how, when Sohaib meets someone new, he will introduce himself again and again because he forgets that he has just met his visitor.

The scene of the accident was Riverside Park’s Crabapple Grove. Overhead, the suit says, was a rotting limb that city parks workers had failed to spot. “There is no future for him anymore,” Sohaib’s father said.

Alexis Handwerker, the director of a drop-in center for teenagers, took her beagle to the dog run in Stuyvesant Square Park on East 15th Street on July 16, 2007. The sun was still up as it got close to 8 p.m. She gave the dog a treat and then took a seat on one of the benches under a 137-year-old elm.

Tree-care experts hired by her lawyers said the tree showed clear signs of structural weakness, a type of growth sprouts on its limbs that can be a sign a tree is in distress, and wounds from pruning, not to mention a history of falling limbs.

The limb that hit Ms. Handwerker was hollow from decay. The experts said that could have been detected by a parks worker with minimum training tapping it with an $8 mallet.

One of the parks workers testified that when the tree was taken down soon after the accident, she put her hand in the huge trunk and “it was all gooey.”

Parks workers questioned by Ms. Handwerker’s lawyer, Sal Spano, said that they did not know how to assess a sick tree: they mostly just looked for hanging branches. “It is a visual look from the ground,” testified one of them, Steven DiGiovanni. He said that he had no training at all in identification of tree disease and decay.

The scene in Central Park after Elmaz Qyra's death. (Photo: Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times)

Lawyers for the city sought to have Ms. Handwerker’s suit dismissed. They failed. On Feb. 15, they settled for $4 million.

In Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx, in 2006, a rotting tree covered in fungus that may have been dead for 10 years smashed across a bike path and pinned a cyclist. The cyclist, Rodolfo Guevara, sued. His lawyer, Richard T. Sules, questioned a parks supervisor, Bill Sackel, in 2009. The supervisor described a lackadaisical system of checking trees, even those right next to a bike path.

“We are a complaint-generated organization,” he testified. “So we only inspect any complaints that come in.”

Miscommunications

Experts agree that the tree monitoring and care within Central Park are more thorough:the Central Park Conservancy’s more than $40 million budget provides for regular inspections by trained arborists.

But in the highly publicized cases of the Google engineer and the restaurant worker, the expertise made no difference, because recommendations to take action were not acted on quickly enough. Suits have been filed in those cases, as well as in at least two others, including the death of an infant in her mother’s arms near the Central Park Zoo in 2010.

The conservancy declined to discuss those cases in detail. But in a statement, its president, Doug Blonsky, said tree crews inspect and prune Central Park’s 21,500 trees regularly and noted that the park has 38 million visitors a year. He echoed the parks department’s defense that the only way to assure safety would be to remove all the trees. “We take every precaution to manage this unique public space proactively and responsibly,” Mr. Blonsky said.

The Google engineer, Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, a fresh-faced father of two in hipster horn-rim glasses, has a computer-science Ph.D. from Columbia. On July 29, 2009, he went for a walk near 63rd Street, and a fungus-laden branch from an oak tree fell 37 feet. Mr. Blair-Goldensohn, then 33, suffered traumatic brain injuries, paralysis and damage to his lungs and spinal cord, according to his family’s suit.

Should the city settle, or a jury find for Mr. Blair-Goldensohn, the cold calculus of damage awards suggests that the amount paid to a young, well-educated high earner would probably dwarf other tree-related payouts.

Neither Mr. Blair-Goldensohn’s family nor lawyers would be interviewed, but testimony and evidence in their suit describes miscommunications and missed opportunities.

On July 9, 2009 — 20 days before Mr. Blair-Goldensohn’s walk — a Central Park Conservancy official and trained arborist named Bill Berliner spotted a dead 15-foot limb on an oak that hung over the path at the park’s 63rd Street entrance. He wrote a report.

Mr. Berliner sent a follow-up e-mail about the oak the next morning. “IA,” it said: immediate attention. One of the park’s top officials, Neil Calvanese, asked Russell Fredericks, the official who oversaw the park’s tree crew, “Did the tree crew get this?”

“Yes, the tree crew got it,” was the answer. Mr. Calvanese, now the conservancy’s vice president for operations, testified that he thought Mr. Fredericks meant that the crew “got” the branch. He learned later Mr. Fredericks simply meant the tree crew got the e-mail.

Josh Galiley, the tree crew supervisor who received the e-mail, testified that the crew was handling “several emergencies” and planned to get to the oak as soon as possible. Mr. Fredericks said the workers were busy with another task: they were making preparations to get the trees on the park’s edge ready for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, four months later.

Weeks passed. On July 29, the branch was still there, 37 feet up, when Mr. Blair-Goldensohn went for his walk.

A Fatal Delay

Elmaz Qyra was a 46-year-old recent American citizen who had brought his family from Albania to Dyker Heights in Brooklyn in 1998. He worked as a busboy at the New York Athletic Club on Central Park South.

Mr. Qyra’s wife, Naxhije, said through tears recently that, for some reason, they had not spoken on Feb. 25, 2010. Their teenage children were at school. She was at work as a dental assistant. So she can only guess that, after work on that snowy day, he went for a walk in the park because he felt peaceful there.

The bit of country in the city reminded him, she said, of his parents’ modest farm. “He loved the trees, he loved the flowers, he loved everything about the park,” she said.

A little after 3 p.m., Mr. Qyra’s walk took him beneath the Ghost Elm, so called for the eerie way it seemed to be bathed in light no matter the weather. He was on Literary Walk, a colonnade where visitors linger by the thousands in summer.

Mr. Qyra had no idea, but the Ghost Elm’s days were already numbered. It was on a list to be removed.

On Aug. 5 — just seven days after Mr. Blair-Goldensohn’s accident — a limb crashed down from the Ghost Elm and smashed a smaller tree to smithereens.

Arborists knew that the shedding of the big limb signaled the end of the Ghost Elm. The trunk was swollen from what turned out to be a five-foot cavity. The Ghost Elm also had fungus that can be a sign of festering disease. The tree was “a potential safety problem,” Mr. Calvanese testified.

Mr. Calvanese said parks officials had a “heightened awareness” of tree dangers after Mr. Blair-Goldensohn’s accident. He knew immediately that the Ghost Elm had to be removed. But it did not happen. Workers trimmed the Ghost Elm’s canopy but otherwise left it in place.

Under questioning by Alan M. Shapey, Mrs. Qyra’s lawyer, Mr. Galiley, the Central Park tree crew chief, said the tree was not taken down right away partly to save money. A one-tree job “would cost several thousand dollars,” he said, while a contractor could be hired for as little as $800 a tree if several could be removed at the same time. So they waited.

Summer turned into fall. In December, more than four months after its limb had crushed a tree on Literary Walk, someone put it on a removal list for an outside contractor to bid for the job.

On Feb. 25, the Ghost Elm was still there.

Elmaz Qyra, who loved the park in his adopted city, finished the lunch shift. He went into the park. He stepped onto the famous walkway.

If there was a crack, it is impossible to know if he heard it. He was found on Literary Walk with his head split open by a 15-foot limb from the Ghost Elm.

10 Cases Over 10 Years

Aug. 10, 2002 - Union Square Park. A tree limb crushes the legs of Hyman Schermer, a pedestrian. The city settled for $1.5 million in 2006.

July 22, 2003 - Avenue J in Brooklyn. The canopy of a maple collapses, killing Hinda Segal, a grandmother. A jury awarded $2.95 million in 2007; an appeals court approved $1.6 million in 2009.

July 20, 2004 - Union Square Park. A Manhattan woman, Betty Luh, is struck by a limb from a Siberian elm while sitting on a park bench. The city settled for $500,000 in 2009.

Aug. 2, 2006 - Pelham Bay Park, Bronx. A disabled cyclist, Rodolfo Guevara, is injured when a rotting tree falls across a bicycle path. The city settled for $92,500 in January 2012.

July 16, 2007 - Stuyvesant Square Park. Alexis Handwerker, a social worker, is seriously injured when a limb crashes from one of the city's largest trees. The city settled for $4 million in February 2012.

Aug. 30, 2007 - Riverside Park. Sohaib Qureshi, a senior in high school, sustains brain damage when a limb falls as he plays catch. Case pending.

July 29, 2009 -Central Park. Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, a computer engineer at Google, is badly injured when a dead limb from an oak overhanging a walkway falls more than 30 feet. Case pending.

Feb. 25, 2010- Central Park. Elmaz Qyra, a 46-year-old busboy and father of two, is killed when a branch snaps on a tree designated to be removed. Case pending.

May 31, 2010 - Central Park. Two women, Roberta Colores-Martinez and her daughter, Carmen Cardoso, are injured when an oak drops a big limb. Case pending.

June 26, 2010 - Central Park. Gianna Ricciutti, a 6-month-old girl, is killed by a falling branch outside the Central Park Zoo. Case pending.

Read More:

Neglected, Rotting Trees Turn Deadly
New York Times - May 13, 2012 - By William Glaberson and Lisa Foderaro





Friday, April 20, 2012

Trees Destroyed For Heineken/Tribeca Film Festival

Trees Blocking Billboard Chopped
A Heineken/Tribeca Film Festival billboard in SoHo was affixed to the façade of a building at 482 West Broadway at the southwest corner of West Houston Street and West Broadway. A couple of 10-year-old honey locust trees - left and center - were severally damaged when they were illegally pruned. The tree on the right - not blocking the building's facade - escaped the butcher.

Heineken denied the company was behind the tree mutilation, and said it plans to look into "whether or not the third-party installer of the sign has any knowledge of what happened."

According to the Parks Department it is illegal to damage trees on city property, and violations can be punishable by fines as much as $15,000 and a year in prison.

It's been a tough couple of weeks for trees on city property.

Manhattan

Just hours after the news broke that someone had illegally lopped off the tops of a pair of trees that obscured a giant Tribeca Film Festival and Heineken billboard, the beer company offered to replace the mutilated trees, accordng to DNAinfo.


A Heineken representative said the company was in no way behind the "reprehensible" pruning on the southwest corner of West Houston Street and West Broadway but would nonetheless shoulder the burden of replanting.


"We will replace the trees at our expense," a Heineken spokeswoman said Friday morning after DNAinfo broke the story on the trees, adding that the brewery will be advised by the New York Tree Trust, a program of the Parks Department.



Trees Blocking Billboard Chopped


SoHo Trees in Front of Billboard Illegally Cut. The trees would have blocked two out of three lines of text on a four-story billboard advertising Heineken and the Tribeca Film Festival.


"We will rely on the Tree Trust to advise us on the appropriate type and size of tree," she said.


The timing of the replacement of the 10-year-old honey locusts, which locals noticed earlier this month had been chopped, was not yet clear.


A Parks Department spokeswoman said she was unaware of Heineken's offer.


"NYC Parks wants to take this opportunity to remind the public that arborcide is a serious crime," she said. "We urge anyone who may have information leading to the arrest of the perpetrator or perpetrators to report it by calling 311."


It's illegal to damage trees on city property, and violations can be punishable by fines as much as $15,000 and a year in prison, according to the Parks department website.


Heineken will continue to look into whether a third-party installer of the four-story ad attached to the side of a building has any knowledge of what happened, the company spokeswoman said.


"In no way was this action sanctioned by us," she said. "We had nothing to do with it and we find it to be reprehensible."

Tribeca Film Festival previously said it had no knowledge of work performed on the trees, and billboard owner Fuel Outdoor did not respond to multiple calls for comment.


TriBeCa resident and certified citizen tree pruner Steve Boyce, 60, said he appreciated the replacement of the trees on high-traffic West Houston Street.


"It's definitely a gesture, and it's greatly appreciated," he said.


Boyce suggested the city pursue a long-term solution to conflicts with the owners of billboards in high-traffic areas. "This is a cat-and-mouse game," he said. "The city and billboard owners could either make sure trees [in front of billboards] are trimmed or that there are just no trees there."


Read More:

DNAinfo - April 20, 2012 - By Andrea Swalec

DNAinfo - April 20, 2012 - By Andrea Swalec

WPIX - April 20, 2012 - By Greg Mocker

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Queens Borough Hall Atrium Project Put On Hold Over Cherry Tree Concerns

















One Million Trees Minus Nine. Workers loaded heathy cherry trees into a wood chipper behind Queens Borough Hall last Tuesday. The trees were in full bloom when they were cut down a few days earlier to make way for an upcoming $ 17 million dollar construction project. $1.3 million was spent on design. (Photos: Geoffrey Croft/NYC Park Advocates) Click on image to enlarge.

An independent arborist who randomly inspected several adjacent flowering cherry trees at Queens Borough Hall noted they were invariably healthy with some pathogens, though not detrimental to overall tree health.

Queens

By Geoffrey Croft

The atrium at Queens Borough Hall has been put "on hold" until an arborist report on the existing trees can be completed according to the Queens Borough President's office.

After the controversial news broke last week that the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) had destroyed at least nine seemingly healthy cherry trees the Queens Borough President's office requested that the atrium portion of the project be halted.

Officials from DCAS and the Queens Borough Hall met two days after the controversy came to light last week to discuss the issues and had a "frank and productive" meeting.

"The project is effectively stopped," said Dan Andrews, a spokesman for Borough President Helen Marshall said last Thursday, "We met with DCAS and asked them to do a study of the remaining trees in the back."

"We are waiting for the study. "


















After the Destruction.


On Thursday DCAS officials walked the site with an arborist who was evaluating the trees.

Mr. Andrews said ancillary work would continue at the site until the arborist report is completed and decisions on what to do with the remaining trees can be properly addressed. This work includes creating an alternative exit for people getting married.

Last week Bloomberg's City Hall press office was anxious to get the word out that no stop work order had been issued on the project.

Numerous questions have been raised after the issue came to light. After initial media reports said the reason the trees were destroyed was because contractors needed to use the location as a staging area, DCAS went on the record to numerous media to say they were removed for health reasons.

After being questioned late last week however DCAS backed off stating now that only, "some" of the trees had fungal and bacterial diseases.

DCAS took the "shortest, quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to the site," Mr. Andrews said.

"We relied on their tree assessment. It was predicted that Helen was going to get blamed for taking down the trees," he added.

Questions have also been raised whether proper procedures were followed that allowed the destruction of the trees.

This incident has one again called to attention the critical need to address tree and landscape concerns within city infrastructure projects inhabited by irreplaceable trees critics say. They assert that effective tree and landscape protection protocols are readily available but are being ignored and excluded on these types of projects across the city with little accountability.

"If only the designers and planners of client agencies like DCAS, had an epiphany that projects can be successful without having to needlessly remove trees," said an independent arborist who requested anonymity.


The Blame Game

Under the Mayoral PlaNYC 2030 green and sustainable agenda several City agencies have developed infrastructure development guidelines that address methods and procedures for managing landscapes inhabited by trees during design and construction. NYC DDC has a manual on sustainable infrastructure development as does NYC DPR with their 2011 release of the High Performance Landscape Guidelines. The HPLG document serves as a template.

DCAS claimed the reason the trees were destroyed was due to disease.

By current arboricultural standards and protocol the DCAS project manager could have relied on a tree health report either performed by an in-house certified arborist or by an independent consultant arborist. The arborist report would have included the findings of a diagnostic laboratory analysis of a tree wood samples with assumed fungal pathogens and bacterial disease. And the arborist would then have fully assessed the magnitude of the plant disease, possible treatments, woody decay as well as tree related public safety concerns, that may have justified tree removal.

According to experts, most of our urban trees have disease pathogens and even pests, but that doesn't merit immediate tree removal. Overall sound tree health and vigor is an indicator of the how advanced the plant disease may be. What prompts tree removal is whether that disease is so advanced to have lead to advanced wood decay and loss of wood integrity, whereby public safety would be at risk.

Advance disease pathogens (such as canker) could have resulted in advanced wood decay within the trunk and branches. These were not evident in the pile of cut branches or through out the remaining trunk viewed last week at the site. The remaining adjacent flowering cherries at Queens Borough Hall are variably healthy with some disease, though not detrimental to overall tree health nor a matter for public safety. These trees though have received some marginal care by pruning, but by an unknown gardener or arborist.

DCAS was asked to provide information that shows the fungal and bacterial growth had posed an immediate heath threat to the trees and an assessment of life expectancy that necessitated their removal. They were also asked if the Borough Hall design plan involved the services of either an in-house Arborist or independent Consulting Arborist to address tree & landscape matters including assessing the health and conditions.

DCAS was unable to provide documentation addressing these issues.

After being questioned last week DCAS appeared to back off the health issue saying now that only, "some of the trees had fungal and bacterial diseases."

"The Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) is overseeing this project at the request of the Queens Borough President’s office," DCAS spokesperson Julianne Cho wrote in an email.

"The landscaping portion, which was required by the Public Design Commission, was designed by the landscape architecture firm of Abel, Bainston and Butz, and was subsequently approved by the PDC. Requests for copies of the master plan should be made through the Queens Borough President’s office.

As part of the project preparation, an arborist from the firm visited the site in 2009 and found that some of the trees had fungal and bacterial diseases. Another landscape architect confirmed that assessment in 2012. "

The spokesperson said the project should be completed in 2014.

Abel Bainston and Butz LLP was asked if they ever produced a tree health and condition assessment report by a certified arborist. And if so, did this report justify and or suggest the removals. They were also asked if they ever represented to DCAS or any other government agency that any disease found on the existing trees, including fungal and bacterial growth posed an immediate heath threat to the trees, and if they did, was an assessment of the life expectancy and concern for public safety of said trees done, which necessitated their removal.

Despite repeated attempts, Abel, Bainston, and Butz did not respond to requests for comment. A message left for Terri -Lee Burger, RLA, a principle in the firm was also not returned. On one occasion an employee who answered the phone said I should call DCAS.

RGR Landscape, the New York City-based landscape design firm was listed on the design plan drawings.

A company representative said they were informed of the cherry tree issue by the project's architect but they had no involvement with the destruction.

"We prepared the construction drawings," said Sid Burke of RGR Landscape.

Mr. Burke said they did not produce a tree health assessment report from an arborist.

"Whether or not one was done I'm not certain. That physical area was outside the scope of our work."

He suggested I contact DCAS.

Queens Borough Hall spokesperson Dan Andrews said they found out several months ago that they couldn't get a bull dozer, a crane and other construction material in without removing the trees. He said it was "really a shock" when they found out" the trees had be removed. "We were pretty upset."

He said they were notified via email that the trees were diseased and both fungal and bacterial growth were detected.

"They told us the trees were deceased and that they were too close together and pruning wouldn't help. Based on the email we received, that's what we relied on. We took them for their word, we're not tree experts. We relied on DCAS. Helen did not check the trees herself. We didn't even ask what the deceases were at the time.

"We did operate on what we were told," he continued. "We assumed what they said was accurate, we did not contest it. We didn't go out there with hard hats. This is not Helen's building it belongs to DCAS.

We regret the loss of the trees," he said.

Mr. Andrews said part of the plan includes planting new trees and improving existing drainage.

Critics point out that when the public raises objections to destroying trees administration officials time and time again attempt to muddy the issue by falling back on the tried and true 'we are planting new trees,' as justification.

"You can't replace a 30 inch caliber tree," a licensed landscape professional said, tired of the spin.


















Downed Cherry Trees. A number of concerns have also been raised regarding the protection of the root systems of a number of large mature Oak trees - like this one above - that are within the footprint of the construction project.

Critics have long complained that the wide spreading root systems of trees are often damaged during construction projects and are not being adequately protected. This results in the health of trees being severely compromised and often results in death.

Funds must be allocated to protect the existing large trees with the best and fullest protection protocols which enforcement. Should soils be compacted during the operation that trees should obtain soil remediation at the end of the project.

More Trees Are Going - Possible Delays?

Last week the Queens BP's office confirmed that a number of additional trees located in the courtyard and along the perimeter will also need to be removed according to the plans.

The office has has raised the issue of transplanting the trees instead of destroying them and are looking for locations they can removed to.

"One way or another they can't stay there," said Dan Andrews. "We gotta figure something out. We are looking at ways to save those trees."

According to experts though it's not that easy. There are a number of criteria needed to ensure a successful transplant. Transplanting can only be done when trees are dormant, either late fall or early spring. Transplanting is very costly especially with necessary long-term follow up care needed for the trees to successfully establish themselves. The city typically performs these transplants without the necessary follow up (irrigation, care and maintenance) that too often results in the trees eventually dying. Transplanting is a nice gesture but without the proper follow up protocol and oversight for maintaining the trees during a period of establishment, their chances of long-term survival are unlikely.
Under a Tree & Landscape Management Plan:

I. Transplanting trees with full consideration for their success.

A. Project designers and planner to consider tree transplant:

• The Consulting Arborist to evaluate tree condition, size and/or worthiness for transplantability
• Consideration of overall transplant costs.
• Consider tree transplant success for approved new transplant location(s).
• Consideration on long-term follow up watering and care mandatory at each the new transplant location.
• Transplanting is a seasonal operation to occur only when trees are dormant.
• Large established trees require planning one calendar year in advance for necessary tree root pruning strategy that reduces and minimizes transplant shock.

B. Transplanting of Trees:
• Small trees (2-in caliper) transplant the best and the easiest.
• Transplanting by hand digging and ball and burlap method.
• For larger established trees (4 - 8-in caliper or greater) requires planning far in advance with consideration of new transplant site conditions, treatment and and long term aftercare.

Our trees are invaluable public assets. They are part of our only natural resource, the city's living infrastructure. For the long-term health and vitality of the City’s urban forest and street trees a full public review process (at the very least a reporting mechanism) needs to be established for major decisions by designers, planners and engineers who pursue the removal of the public tree asset within the public right of way.

Read More:

Queens Chronicle - April 5, 2012 - By Michael Gannon

Marshall: Chopped Cherry Trees Diseased
Queens Tribune - April 5, 2012 - By Domenick Rafter

New York Daily News - April 3, 2012 - Lisa L. Colangelo

Walk In the Park - April 3, 2012

My Fox - April 2, 2012 - By Linda Schmidt

WPIX - April 2, 2012 - By Narmeen Choudhury

Metro NY - April 2, 2012 - Alison Bowen

A Walk In The Park - April 1, 2012 - By Geoffrey Croft