Study: DeKalb bike trail impacted trees
February 10, 2009 at 10:17 am by Thomas Wheatley in News
A study commissioned by DeKalb County as part of a settlement with residents near Medlock and Mason Mill Parks shows that many trees were impacted by the construction of a controversial bike trail in the area.
The study, conducted by a private arborist and released last week, analyzed the health of 157 trees along the boardwalk and concrete trail north of downtown Decatur. According to the study, many trees in the vicinity of the trail were impacted. Of the 157 trees inspected, 59 were in “fair” condition, 97 were in “poor” condition, and one was determined to be “hazardous.” (You can download the study here.)
After the jump, a bit of background on the trail, as well as what happens moving forward.
Last summer, Three Forks Heritage Alliance, a neighborhood environmental group, bitterly opposed the joint project between the county and PATH Foundation, a nonprofit organization that has built more than 1,000 miles of bike trails throughout North Georgia. In August, DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams ruled that the county didn’t follow its own bidding and zoning laws and stopped the project in its tracks. In December, the county settled with the environmental group and the judge allowed work to continue, albeit without PATH and the private contractor it hired to build the trail.
Ed McBrayer, executive director of PATH, says the organization and the contractor tried to work with residents who opposed the trail and save as many trees as possible. But after the judge halted work on the trail, he says, PATH’s hands were tied because it was prevented from implementing its remediation plan..
“The methodology we used when we put the trail in was based on what the neighbors were telling us, particularly the Three Forks Group, which was to save as many trees as possible,” McBrayer says. “We went there and tried our best to not take down any more trees than we had to. I’d expect there were trees we impacted that we didn’t take down. But it’s based on trying to not be like a [state department of transportation] and clear everything that could possibly be damaged.”
A county spokeswoman says the study is part of an agreement it made with nearby residents. Next, she says, the arborist will recommend remediation work if necessary. He or she will then work with a landscape architect to design a plan which the county will share with residents. If approved, new trees will be planted in the spring.
(Photo by Thomas Wheatley)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:03 am
So is it fair to say that with a few exceptions that PATH left 150+ trees standing that might otherwise have been cut down?
Not to say that proper remediation was applied to the affected trees, but it seems like a study of this sort is destined to come across as “The PATH Foundation negatively impacted 150+ trees” rather than “The PATH Foundation leaves 150+ trees that otherwise would have needed to be cut down.”
I’m not getting into their construction practices, but “Good” and “Fair” does not necessarily mean “dead” or “will die”.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Sorry that should have said “Fair” and “Poor”.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Another case of “be careful what you wish for.”
I wonder how the trail would have turned out if PATH and their contractor were allowed to do the work. Some busy body had to get involved and instead of cutting down an extra thirty trees their interference impacted 157 trees.
Way to go Three Forks Alliance!
February 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
@ Hmmm
“So is it fair to say that…”
Not if PATH was kicked off the project.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The trees in the arborist’s study were the lucky ones. There are hundreds of others that were cut down including specimen trees of many different varieties. MANY trees were cut down that were not even close to the trail. Mr. McBrayer has never seen a tree that he wouldn’t cut down. One of his favorite tactics is to cut trees just for spite when neighborhoods are attempting to save them.
The main objection of Three Forks and others who opposed the trail was that it was unnecessary and would never be able to be used as a transportation link. Now it has been proven that we were correct. The latest plans for Mason Mill Park show the “multi-use trail” ending at a pedestrian bridge over the CSX tracks – a bridge that will be 23′ above the tracks.
What the people of Dekalb County received for their $750,000 spent so far is a 10′ wide concrete walking trail – not a transportation link that would “take cars off the streets and reduce pollution” as PATH and the county tried to make everyone believe.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Hmmmm,
The first few pages of the study explain the meaning of “poor” and “fair.” It’s attached in the post.
I also wasn’t trying to cast blame in the post. I just wanted to present readers with a county-commissioned study about what’s happening with public land.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
As a resident of the area, I am thrilled with the path. Of course trees were impacted it’s naive to think they wouldn’t be. But the end result is that people are using & enjoying the park.
A bunch of trees being happy together wasn’t the best use of this greenspace. Now this land is used everyday by families, residents of the local retirement facility, dogs, bikers, etc. I love seeing all the people actively using this path, meeting one another and enjoying this green oasis in the city.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
hey good thinking decaturdawg!!! let’s cut ALL the trees down (because “they’re not the best use of greenspace”) and let’s put the few left into a ‘tree museum’ and charge people to see them. and let’s just pave over ALL the greenspace so as not to inconvience those of use who enjoy(ed) walking among the natural elements appreciating the sights, sounds and smells of the earth beneath our feet. And by the way, who died and left you in charge of deciding what is the best use of greenspace- especially considering the ugly ‘carbon footprint’ this will leave in the area!
February 20th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Actally Hmmmm it is not fair to say that Path left 150+ trees standing that would otherwise have been cut down.
It is fair to say that these healthy trees were damaged by Path, many severely. This in addition to the scores cut down. For an unnecessary road that few outside the concrete industry wanted.
Anyone who has walked an atlanta sidewalk knows that tree roots will buckle concrete, so to protect his precious concrete road McBrayer does not want a tree anywhere near it. Hence the cutting of trees up to 50 feet from the road.
As a lobbyist for the concrete industry, Path refuse to consider any other material for their roads. Even their boardwalk design ends up using 30% more concrete in footers than their road.
And decaturdawg, long before McBrayer arrived with a bulldozer [and a pocketful of my dollars] this land was being used everyday by families, residents, bikers etc.
There was ample public access from McConnell drive, Desmond drive and Willivee place and other points. There were many natural trails there like the appalachian trail. Not the wide concrete road that you walk on and imagine yourself to be ‘in a green oasis’
February 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am
@naturelover:
Do you live in a treehouse? If not you are being hypocritical seeing as trees had to be cut down to build your abode.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
O – he’s like so many so-called “green” people – if you don’t do it his way you are a carbon-belching rapist of Mother Earth. Or a SUV-fatass-yuppie… oh wait wrong thread hahaha
February 20th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
It’s instructive to note that the few citizens of Dekalb County who supported construction of this trail get real quiet about the illegality of the trail location, the illegality of the County’s actions in constructing the trail without permits, the illegality of continuing trail construction after 2 decisions against the trail by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the illegality of contruction of this trail and numerous others in Dekalb County without going through the required bidding process.
They also don’t have much to say about the stealing and destruction of petitions that were being used to gather names of trail opponents (petitions which finally collected more than 500 names).
What they like to do instead is make personal attacks on the people who tried to uphold the law.
As for the following quotation from Mr. McBrayer: “The methodology we used when we put the trail in was based on what the neighbors were telling us, particularly the Three Forks Group, which was to save as many trees as possible,”, Mr. McBrayer never had any contact or conversations with Three Forks during the trail building process. Besides, we were not trying to “save as many trees as possible” – we were trying to save ALL the trees.
For trail supporters, this whole situation is like cheating on your income taxes and being thrilled that you didn’t get caught.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Ya know, I’ve learned recently that the county and PATH did not follow proper procedure when building this trail. And for that they should be held accountable. However, as someone who has been enjoying this trail lately, I must say that I don’t understand some of the continued opposition. Sure, we can all agree that trees were cut down which could have been left standing, but I must agree with a previous post that this is a wonderful use of greenspace. I can only been back to this part of the park on 2 other occasions before the trail, neither time could I take my mother or father or my daughter because they were either too young or too old to traverse the terrain. So while I encourage groups like three forks to hold the county accountable, what is the point of the continued opposition to this particular trail? If the argument is that now we cannot feel the ground beneath our feet, well, that’s a qualitative argument which can be argued on both sides till everyone is blue in the face…there is no right or wrong with that statement because it is dependent on point of view. However, that argument is also quite selfish. Quantitatively, many more people probably have access to this park now compared to before the trail was installed, which is a much more reasonable way of looking at things. Indeed, I would support the three forks organization now if they would cut out the vitriol and start trying to do something good for their neighborhood, say, like helping to revegitate the area.