tree management plan for the demolition of hightower building · building in order to construct a...

Tree Management Plan

for the Demolition of

Hightower Building

November 8, 2001

Capital Planning

& Space Management Office

Proposed Georgia Tech Quadrangle after Hightower is razed

and the Innovative Learning Resource Center is constructed

Tree Management Plan

for the Demolition of

Hightower Building

November 8, 2001

Capital Planning

& Space Management Office

Proposed Georgia Tech Quadrangle after Hightower is razed

and the Innovative Learning Resource Center is constructed

PAUL J. VANDER HORST

CAPITAL PLANNING & SPACE MANAGEMENT

MASTER PLANNING DIVISION

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0690

[email protected]

3

CPSM/pjvh

Tree Management Planfor the demolition of Hightower Building

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Executive Summary1.2 Purposes of this Plan1.3 Background & Campus

Master Plan Guidance1.4 Trees’ Value1.5 Issues

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Conditions2.2 Tree Inventory & Evalua-

tion2.3 Tree Summary & Con-

clusions3.0 TRANSPLANTING

3.1 Analysis & Cost Estimate3.2 Potential Sites

4.0 DEMOLITION SITE MANAGEMENT &

METHODS

4.1 Tree Care4.2 Construction Limit Line

& Tree Save Fencing4.3 Drainage4.4 Below-Grade Demoli-

tion Requirements4.5 Construction Access

Routes5.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN

6.0 SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS

7.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS PLAN

4

CPSM/pjvh


1. INTRODUCTION

5

CPSM/pjvh


1.0 INTRODUCTION:

1.1 Executive Summary

The 1997 Campus Master Plan identifiesthe need to demolish the HightowerBuilding in order to construct a newbuilding called the Innovative LearningResource Center. This new signaturebuilding will define the eastern edge ofa central campus open space, namedthe Georgia Tech Quadrangle.

This Tree Management Plan evaluatesthe trees near the Hightower buildingdemolition activities, defines methods tosave significant trees and identifies treesthat are transplantable to other sites onCampus.

A total of 60 trees are in the Hightowerdemolition impact area. Of the 14 treesthat are to be saved, 6 are specimenwater oak trees ranging between 28” &44” diameter breast height. These 6 arelocated either adjacent to the buildingor adjacent to the Demolition Limit Line.These trees are magnificent 60-90 yearold monarchs that add considerablevalue to the quality of life in this area ofcampus. Therefore, all necessary pre-cautions should be taken to preservethese trees from adverse impacts ofdemolition and future development. Fi-nally, 7 Southern Magnolias and 1 Sau-cer Magnolia are worthy to save. These8 trees could be transplanted if futuredesign development for Yellow JacketPark suggests they are inappropriatelylocated for long-term benefit.

There are 28 ornamental trees that arevaluable to transplant to other sites oncampus if appropriate locations can befound where they will complement theexisting landscape architecture. The re-maining 18 trees are not worth saving ortransplanting; therefore they are identi-fied to be removed.

In order to retain nearly a century’sworth of mature shade tree develop-ment and the environmental quality thatthey currently provide and can continueto provide for decades more, demoli-tion of the Hightower building must beconducted according to This Plan. It isessential to keep the demolition con-tractor within the Demolition Limit Linedefined in the enclosed TREE MANAGE-MENT PLAN illustration and require thecontractor to follow the demolition re-quirements specified in this Plan by in-cluding relevant portions in their con-tract.

Successive execution of this Plan will pre-serve the benefits of Georgia Tech’s sig-nificant environmental resources in thepedestrian heart of campus for futuregenerations.

Georgia Tech Quadrangle (proposed)

Hightower Building - south facade

6

CPSM/pjvh


1.2 Purposes of this Plan

The purposes of this Tree ManagementPlan are to:

• Inventory and evaluate trees onthe Hightower building site,

• Define appropriate site man-agement and specify demoli-tion methods of the Hightowerbuilding that will protect theenvironmental resources on thissite for the long-term benefit ofthe campus environs.

• Advance the practice of sus-tainable implementation of theCampus Master Plan.

1.3 Background & Campus Master Plan

Guidance

The Board of Regents building numberfor the Hightower Building is #44. This fa-cility is located at 725 Atlantic Drive, N.W.

Both the 1991 & 1997 Campus MasterPlans and the 1995 Facilities ConditionStudy identified the Hightower buildingas the #1 candidate for demolition dueits poor condition and the excessive costof adaptive reuse.

The Hightower building site is located inan area that has been identified to be-come a large central open space inseveral master plans. It is located in thepedestrian heart of the academic coreof campus. The beginnings of creatingthis large central open space started inthe 60’s and early 70’s by the removalof Campus Drive and Hemphill Avenue.The Georgia Tech Plaza’s campanileand fountain, completed in 1996 in re-sponse to the need to create an Inter-national Zone for the Centennial Sum-mer Olympic Games Village, is the fo-cal point of this open space.

The vision of the 1985, the 1991 & the1997 Campus Master Plans is forHightower to be removed and the foot-print area to be added to the existing

open space to create a 10 acre centralcampus green. The Student Servicesbuilding, the Bookstore, Skiles Building,the GT Theater for the Arts and theBunger Henry building define the north,west and part of the eastern edge ofthis proposed open space. The pro-posed Innovative Learning ResourceCenter, to be constructed in the nearterm, will form the remaining easternedge of this space. When Hightower israzed, the Van Leer Building will definea portion of the northern edge. Subse-quent studies and projects have namedthis area as the ‘Georgia Tech Quad-rangle’ of which the Georgia Tech Plaza

1997 Campus Master Plan

Enlargement of Central Acacemic Core

with proposed Geogia Tech Quadrangle

in the center

7

CPSM/pjvh


and Yellow Jacket Park are compo-nents. Demolition of the Hightower build-ing is a key to achieving the CampusMaster Plan goals in the academic core.

1.4 Trees’ Value

This section is included to provide rel-evant information in order to justify inpart the saving or transplanting of trees.

Humans derive far more than simplysingle-user value from community treesand forests. Trees provide a multitude ofbenefits. Trees significantly mitigate theaffect of the urban heat island. Theyprovide cooling by transpiration andshading, absorb heat, convert toxic CO2gases to life sustaining O2, providecleaner air by filtering out particulatematter, and clean up city pollutants likesulfur dioxide. According to Nature’sServices, Daily 1997 “One 20 metershade tree can mitigate 900,000 BTU’sof heat, worth 3 tons of air conditioning

costing $20/day in the USA (1994 data).Trees within the city limits of Atlanta, inthe residential areas alone, save$4,600,000 a year in summer energy sav-ings.” In addition, trees prevent soil ero-sion, aid in aeration and build soil. Inshort, trees sustain life.

According to Dr. Kim Coder the follow-ing is a partial selected series of goods,services, and environmental benefitsthat community trees across the nationprovide:

Temperature and Energy Use

• Community heat islands exist because

of decreased wind, increased high-den-

sity surfaces, and heat generated from

human associated activities, all of

which requires additional energy ex-

penditures to offset. Trees can be suc-

cessfully used to mitigate heat islands.

Shade

• Trees reduce temperatures by shading

surfaces, dissipating heat through

evaporation, and controlling air move-

ment responsible for advected heat.

• 20°F lower temperature on a site from

trees.

• 35°F lower hard surface temperature

under tree shade than in full summer

sun.

• 27% decrease in summer cooling costs

with trees.

Wind Control

• 50% wind speed reduction by shade

trees yielded 7% reduction in heating

energy in winter.

• $50 per year decrease in heating costs

from tree control of wind.

Active Evaporation

• 65% of heat generated in full sunlight

on a tree is dissipated by active evapo-

ration from leaf surfaces.

• 17% reduction in building cooling by

active evaporation by trees.

Georgia Tech Plaza

Yellow Jacket Park (proposed)

8

CPSM/pjvh


Air Quality

Trees help control pollution through acting as

biological and physical nets, but they are also

poisoned by pollution.

Oxygen Production

• One acre of trees generates enough

oxygen each day for 18 people.

Pollution Reduction

• Community forests cleanse the air by

intercepting and slowing particulate

materials causing them to fall out, and

by absorbing pollutant gases on sur-

faces and through uptake onto inner

leaf surfaces.

• Pollutants partially controlled by trees

include nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides,

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide (re-

quired for normal tree function), ozone,

and small particulates less than 10 mi-

crons in size.

• Pollen and mold spore, are part of a

living system and produced in tree ar-

eas, but trees also sweep out of the air

large amounts of these particulates.

• In one urban park (212 ha), tree cover

was found to remove daily 48 lbs par-

ticulates, 9 lbs nitrogen dioxide, 6 lbs

sulfur dioxide, and ½ lbs carbon mon-

oxide. ($136 per day value based upon

pollution control technology).

• 60% reduction in street level particu-

lates with trees.

• One sugar maple (one foot in diameter)

along a roadway removes in one grow-

ing season 60 mg cadmium, 140 mg

chromium, 820 mg nickel and 5200mg

lead from the environment.

• Interior scape trees can remove organic

pollutants from indoor air

Carbon Dioxide Reduction

• Approximately 800 million tons of car-

bon are currently stored in US commu-

nity forests with 6.5 million tons per

year increase in storage ($22 billion

equivalent in control costs).

• A single tree stores on average 13

pounds of carbon annually.

• A community forest can store 2.6 tons

of carbon per acre per year.

Hydrology

• Development increases hard, non-

evaporative surfaces and decreases soil

infiltration — increases water volume,

velocity and pollution load of run-off

— increases water quality losses, ero-

sion, and flooding.

• Community tree and forest cover inter-

cepts, slows, evaporates, and stores

water through normal tree functions,

soil surface protection, and soil area

of biologically active surfaces.

Water Run-Off

• 18% of growing season precipitation

intercepted and evaporated by all trees.

• 17% (11.3 million gallons) run-off re-

duction from a twelve-hour storm with

tree canopies in a medium-sized city

($226,000 avoided run-off water con-

trol costs).

Water Quality / Erosion

• Community trees and forests act as fil-

ters removing nutrients and sediments

while increasing ground water re-

charge.

• 37,500 tons of sediment per square mile

per year comes off of developing and

developed landscapes — trees could

reduce this value by 95% ($336,000

annual control cost savings with trees).

• 47% of surface pollutants are removed

in first 15 minutes of storm — this in-

cludes pesticides, fertilizers, and bio-

logically derived materials and litter.

• 10,886 tons of soil saved annually with

tree cover in a medium-sized city.

Noise Abatement

• 7db noise reduction per 100 feet of for-

est due to trees by reflecting and ab-

9

CPSM/pjvh


sorbing sound energy (solid walls de-

crease sound by 15 db)

• Trees provide “white noise,” the noise

of the leaves and branches in the wind

and associated natural sounds that

masks other man-caused sounds.

Glare Reduction

• Trees help control light scattering, light

intensity, and modifies predominant

wavelengths on a site.

• Trees block and reflect sunlight and

artificial lights to minimize eyestrain

and frame lighted areas where needed

for architectural emphasis, safety, and

visibility.

Animal Habitats

• Wildlife values are derived from aes-

thetic, recreation, and educational uses.

• Lowest bird diversity is in areas of

mowed lawn — highest in area of large

trees, greatest tree diversity, and brushy

areas.

• Highest native bird populations in ar-

eas of highest native plant populations.

• Trees are living systems that interact

with other living things in sharing and

recycling resources — as such, trees are

living centers where living thing con-

gregate and are concentrated.

Economic / Social / Psychological Benefits

Economic Stability

• Community trees and forests provide

generate business and a positive real

estate transaction appearance and at-

mosphere.

• Increased property values, increased

tax revenues, increased income levels,

faster real estate sales turn-over rates,

shorter unoccupied periods, increased

recruitment of buyers, increased jobs,

increased worker productivity, and in-

creased number of customers have all

been linked to tree and landscape pres-

ence.

• 9% increase in property value for a

single tree. (1981)

Property Values — Tree Value Formula (CTLA

8th edition)

• Values of single trees in perfect condi-

tions and locations in the Southeast

range up to $100,000.

• $100 million is the value of community

trees and forests in Savannah, GA

• $386 million is the value of community

trees and forests in Oakland, CA (59%

of this value is in residential trees).

Product Gernation

• Community trees and forests generate

many traditional products for the cash

and barter marketplace that include

lumber, pulpwood, hobbyist woods,

fruits, nuts, mulch, composting materi-

als, firewood, and nursery plants.

Aesthetic Preferences

• Conifers, large trees, low tree densities,

closed tree canopies, distant views, and

native species all had positive values

in scenic quality.

• Large old street trees were found to be

the most important indicator of attrac-

tiveness in a community.

Visual Screening

• The most common use of trees for utili-

tarian purposes is screening undesir-

able and disturbing sight lines.

• Tree crown management and tree spe-

cies selection can help completely or

partially block vision lines that show

human density problems, development

activities, or commercial / residential

interfaces.

Recreation

• Contact with nature in many commu-

nities may be limited to local trees and

green areas (for noticing natural cycles,

seasons, sounds, animals, plants, etc.)

Health

• Stressed individuals looking at slides of

nature had reduced negative emotions

and greater positive feelings than when

10

CPSM/pjvh


looking at urban scenes without trees

and other plants.

• Stressed individuals recuperate faster

when viewing tree filled images.

• Hospital patients with natural views

from their rooms had significantly

shorter stays, less pain medicine re-

quired, and fewer post-operative com-

plications.

• Psychiatric patients are more sociable

and less stressed when green things are

visible and immediately present.

• Prison inmates sought less health care

if they had a view of a green landscape.

Human Social Interactions

• People feel more comfortable and at

ease when in shaded, open areas of

trees as compared to areas of

hardscapes and non-living things.

• People’s preferences for locating areas

of social interactions in calming, beau-

tiful, and nature-dominated areas re-

volve around the presence of commu-

nity trees and forests.

• Trees and people are psychologically

linked by culture, socialization, and co

adaptive history.

“Identified Benefits of Community

Trees and Forests” by Dr. Kim D.

Coder, Professor, Silvics/Ecology,

Warnell School of Forest Resources,

The University of Georgia - Litera-

ture Review for the QUANTITREE

computer program — “Quantifiable

Urban Forest Benefits and Costs;

Current Findings and Future Re-

search.” In a white paper entitled

Consolidating and Communicating

Urban Forest Benefits. Davey Re-

source Group, Kent, OH. 1993.

pp.25.

1.5 Issues

Sustainable development is an over-arching concept of the 1997 CampusMaster Plan (CMP). Environmental im-pacts due to implementation of theCMP are of concern to the Administra-tion. Therefore, Georgia Tech seeks toconduct the demolition of Hightowerbuilding in an environmentally respon-sible way and to appropriately manageour urban forest and other physical re-sources.

Demolition of the Hightower buildingmay impact a significant number oftrees ranging from mature shade treesto dispensable ornamental trees. Thereare several mature shade trees in closeproximity to the building that are a valu-able resource to the campus. There aremany ornamental trees that are in ex-cellent condition and quality that shouldbe transplanted to other parts of thecampus.

The Atlanta urban heat island is grow-ing in both area and temperature. From1978-1993 65% of the urban forest wasdestroyed by development. Atlantatemperatures rose 9-12 degrees moreduring that time period than in the sur-rounding countryside. Consequently, airpollution rose 30% rendering Atlanta’s airquality as non-compliant with the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency Clean AirAct.

Therefore, saving trees, especially largeshade trees, is an environmentally sus-tainable way to manage our urban for-est resources that optimally benefits thequality of campus life.

Spread of Atlanta Urban Heat Island1978-1993

11

CPSM/pjvh


2. EXISTING

CONDITIONS

12

CPSM/pjvh


2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Conditions

The Hightower building is located in adepression contour. The only site drain-age is via a storm water drop inlet north-east of the building.

There are a significant amount of veg-etation on site including specimen largetrees, medium trees, small trees, orna-mental trees, large shrubs, mediumshrubs, small shrubs, ground covers andlawns. Inventory of the tree species andsummary statements are found in follow-ing sections.

2.2 Tree Inventory & Evaluation (see

spreadsheet)

The tree inventory includes trees only. Itdoes not include shrub categories,ground covers or lawn areas that areconsidered of relatively less importancein creating a sustainable environment.

This inventory correlates the TREE #’s withindividual trees located on-site asmapped on the enclosed TREE MAN-AGEMENT PLAN. It further identifies theBOTANICAL NAME and a COMMONNAME for each tree and categorizeseach tree into three broad TYPES; de-ciduous shade trees, evergreen shadetrees & deciduous ornamental trees. Italso evaluates each tree’s CONDITIONand VALUE as a park tree. Conditioncategories are ‘excellent, good, fair orpoor.’ Value categories are ‘high, me-dium and low.’ Trees that are in excel-lent condition, have high value as a parktree and have exceptional dendroformscharacteristic of the species grown inideal conditions are also identified as‘specimens.’ Each tree is also measuredaccording to the American Standard forNursery Stock. Diameters breast high(DBH) of large shade trees, height andspread of ornamental trees and whereappropriate, numbers of trunks (canes)are noted. Finally, this inventory andevaluation recommends ACTION to betaken on each tree, whether they are

to be saved, transplanted or removed.

Long-term benefits of all the character-istics of each tree are considered in rec-ommending action to be taken. There-fore, some trees that rate ‘good’ condi-tion may be recommended for removalbased upon the quality of the speciesfor intended use, ability to provide long-term benefits and factors other thancondition. For example, Acersaccharinum (Silver Maple) trees are

structurally weak-wooded and have in-herent weak crotch geometry in theirdendroform. Therefore these trees arehighly susceptible to cracking and fall-ing in wind and ice storms. This propen-sity to fall increases as the trees matureand add mass to their crowns. Therefore,to more effectively manage risk topeople, vehicles, features in the builtenvironment, and to other trees, all Sil-ver Maples are recommended for re-moval, regardless of their current condi-tion.

The tree inventory and evaluation of thetrees is presented in the following 2-pagespreadsheet:

SilverMaple

Silver Maple

13


TREE # BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE

CONDITION

& VALUE

DBH/CALIPER

HT./SPRD. ACTION

1 Quercus nigra Water Oak DS A/S/H 30" S

2 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple DS B/L 20" R

3 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple DS B/L 16" R


5 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple DS D/L 24" R

6 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple DS D/L 17" R

7 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia ES B/L 6" R

8 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO A/H 10' / 9' T

9 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO A/H 12' / 15' T

10 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO D/L 5' / 4' R

11 Quercus nigra Water Oak DS A/H 28" S

12 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia ES C/L 24" R


14 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO A/H 6" T

15 Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia ES A/H 12 -24" cal. - 36' / 30' S



18 Magnolia soulangeana Saucer Magnolia DO A/S/H 22" cal.-24' / 21' S

19 Acer rubrum Red Maple DS A/H 3.5" T

20 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO A/S/H 5 cane-20' / 15' T

21 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO A/H 3-5 cane-12-14'/10-12' T



24 Lagerstroemia indica Biloxi Biloxi Crape Myrtle DO A/H 3-7 cane-18-20'/12-15' T












36 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO C/L 5-9 cane-10-15'/10-15' R

37 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO B/M 5-9 cane-10-15'/10-15' T





42 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO A/H 2 cane-10-15'/10-15' T


Hightower Building DemolitionTREE INVENTORY & EVALUATION

14





47 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle DO D/L 5-9 cane-10-15'/10-15' R





52 Acer rubrum Red Maple DS D/L R

53 Acer rubrum Red Maple DS C/L R

54 Acer saccharum 'Green Mt.' Green Mt. Sugar Maple DS C/L R



57 Acer rubrum Red Maple DS C/L R

58 Acer saccharum 'Green Mt.' Green Mt. Sugar Maple DS D/L R



TYPE CODE: VALUE CODE:

DS - DECIDUOUS SHADE H - HIGH

ES - EVERGREEN SHADE M - MEDIUM

DO - DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL L - LOW

CONDITION CODE: ACTION CODE:

A - EXCELLENT S - SAVE

B - GOOD T - TRANSPLANT

C - FAIR R - REMOVE

D - POOR

S - SPECIMEN

Tree locations in the spreadsheet inventory are shown on the illustration entitledHIGHTOWER BUILDING DEMOLITION / TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN on the following page.

TREE # BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE

CONDITION

& VALUE

DBH/CALIPER

HT./SPRD. ACTION

15


16

CPSM/pjvh


2.3 Tree Summary & Conclusions

A total of 60 trees are inventoried in thisPlan.

There are 14 trees worth saving, 6 arespecimen water oak trees. Three ofthese trees measure 44”, 40” & 34” di-ameter breast high (DBH) with 50’-70’crowns and are within 15 feet of thebuilding.

The other three trees measure 30”, 30”& 28” DBH with 40’-60’ crowns. They arewithin 30 feet of the building and are ad-jacent to the proposed Demolition LimitLine. Therefore are at risk of being de-stroyed.

Tree #1 - 30” DBH Water Oak


Tree #31 - 40” DBH Water Oak Tree #11 - 28” DBH Water Oak


17

CPSM/pjvh


These six Water Oaks are magnificent 60-90 year old monarchs that add consid-erable value to the quality of life in thisarea of campus. They provide a statelypresence, abundant shade and ecosys-tem services that cannot be replacedin a normal human lifetime. These sixtrees total a significant 238 caliperinches; nearly 20 feet of total diameter.The Water Oaks mitigate approximately5,400,000 BTU’s of heat and reduce tem-perature beneath their branches 10-15degrees on a July day with a slightbreeze. Transplanting these trees wouldinvolve a 2 year lead-time for horticul-tural preparation of the root system andthe crown. Transplanting to nearby lo-cations is estiamted at $1,000,000+. It isnot likely that the Administration willchoose to fund the transplanting 6 treesat this cost. Since these trees greatlybenefit the quality of life in the heart ofcampus, every reasonable effort shouldbe made to protect them from the ad-verse impacts of demolition.

Seven of the trees to be saved are South-ern Magnolias that are large, healthyspecimens.

Southern Magnolias


Tree #33, 32, 34 & 35 - Southern Magnolias

18

CPSM/pjvh


One tree to be saved is a Saucer Mag-nolia; one of the largest and best speci-mens of its kind that the author has seenin Georgia. It is truly a magnificent treethat makes its most dramatic display ofpink and white tulip-like flowers in Feb-ruary; the first ornamental tree to an-nounce the arrival of Spring. Its existencewas successfully defended against theNBC Today Show team that wanted toremove it to film the 1996 Summer Olym-pic Games.

These specimen trees may add signifi-cant environmental value to future Yel-low Jacket Park; however, future designdevelopment is required to determinelong-term value in this location. Due tothe size and quality of these trees, duediligence in design should be given tomake use of these trees where they are.If design dictates a better location else-where, they could be transplanted withone years advance preparation.Whether these trees are to be saved intheir current location or transplanted, allnecessary precautions should be takento preserve these trees from adverseimpacts of demolition.

There are 28 ornamental trees that arejudged to be worthy of transplanting toother sites on campus if appropriate lo-cations can be found where they willcomplement the existing landscape ar-chitecture. Tree #’s 24-29 are matchedBiloxi Crape Myrtles.

The remaining 18 trees are not valuableenough to save due to inappropriatespecies, misshapen crowns, and otherphysiological reasons, therefore they arescheduled to be removed.

Tree #18 - Saucer Magnolia

Tree #18

Saucer Magnolia

19

CPSM/pjvh


3.0 TRANSPLANTING

20

CPSM/pjvh


3.0 TRANSPLANTING

3.1 Analysis & Cost Estimate

There are 28 crape myrtle trees and onered maple tree that are worth trans-planting to other sites on campus if ap-propriate locations can be found wherethey will complement the existing land-scape architecture.

Tree # 24-29 - Biloxi Crape Myrtles

Tree #44 - Typical

Tree #59 - Typical

In addition, 7 Southern Magnolias and 1Saucer Magnolia could be transplanted,but the cost would be more than othertrees since they could not be moved bya 90” tree spade.

The cost of transplanting the 28 orna-mentals can be accomplished at rea-sonable cost compared to the cost ofreplacing these trees. The size of thesetrees requires a 60 or 80-inch tree spadethat can be rented for $800-1,200 perday. Two-four days rental should sufficeto accomplish the transplanting. Thecost of purchasing the ornamental treesat a Nursery and having them plantedby a landscape contractor is estimatedat $26,000+/-. Therefore, transplantingis far more cost effective than buyingand planting new trees.

It is important to include a liability clausein the transplanting contract so thatdamages to the campus are coveredunder the contractor’s liability insurance.

3.2 Potential Sites

Potential transplanting sites include theremaining streetscape around the NWhousing area, the I75/85 corridor, andother in-fill areas of campus. In order todetermine how many of the potentialtransplants can be incorporated into theexisting campus landscape, representa-tives from Capital Planning, Facilities,POD/Landscape Services and Housingshould conduct field staking prior to in-corporating transplanting requirementsinto the Hightower demolition contract.

21

CPSM/pjvh


4.0 DEMOLTION

SITE MANAGEMENT

& METHODS

22

CPSM/pjvh


4.0 DEMOLITION SITE MANAGEMENT &

METHODS

In order to save the trees that are to re-main in place several tasks must be in-cluded in the Hightower building demo-lition contract. They are:

4.1 Tree Care

Arborguard, Inc., or a similar high qual-ity professional arborist service should beretained to develop and implement aplan to protect the specimen trees tobe saved, to monitor transplanting ac-tivities, and to provide tree care servicesduring transplanting and after demoli-tion. The tree care plan should havesimilar components to the recent Tech-nology Square transplanting contract,including fertilization, watering, pruning,and disease control. In addition, itshould include penalty clauses to thecontractor to cover damage to trees tobe saved like Arborguard specified inthe Olympic tree management plans.

Trees to be removed should include re-moval of the stumps, except for tree #3& 5 which are to be cut level with theground surface only.

4.2 Demolition Limit Line Fencing & Tree

Save Fencing

Demolition Limit Line Fencing is the linewithin which the demolition contractormust work. Only the arborist or the trans-planting contractor may work outsidethis fence line in order to transplant, saveor remove trees. This means that the westwall of Hightower must be pulled east-ward to demolish. The location of thisfence is illustrated on the enclosed planentitled HIGHTOWER BUILDING DEMOLI-TION – TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Thefence shall be an 8-foot high chain linkfence with posts driven into the ground3 feet minimum (not set in concrete foot-ings).

Tree Save Fencing is to be installed toprotect trees to be saved. Its location isalso illustrated on the enclosed Plan. In

some sections, the tree save fencing isthe same as the demolition limit linefencing, in other sections it is separate.It is the same type of fence as the demo-lition limit line fencing.

Both the demolition limit line fencing andthe tree save fencing shall have a 6-footwide international orange web fabricattached, and where the fence is up-hill of trees to be saved, a 4-foot widesilt fence is to be attached to the fenceon the up-hill side with 6 inches buried inthe ground.

Locations of both fences must be fieldlocated by GIT and the Contractor. Allfencing must be installed and approvedby GIT before any building demolitionoccurs.

4.3 Drainage

Storm water drainage from the site mustbe managed by the contractor to pre-vent siltation within the dripline of treesto be saved. Filter fabric, siltation pondsand other devices must be installed andmaintained in operating condition untilsite restoration is complete.

4.4 Below-Grade Demolition Require-

ments

Demolition of the Hightower buildingpresents a serious risk to, and ironicallyat the same time, an opportunity for,three specimen trees to be saved.Specimen trees #13, 31 & 32 are within15+/- feet of Hightower. As a conse-quence, approximately 25% of the thesetree’s root system development havebeen severely restricted by the buildingfoundation wall. Demolition of the foun-dation wall and its footing may causesevere physical damage to the tree #31& 32 root systems and may also under-mine the soil beneath the trees. This ac-tion may cause soil-bearing structuralfailure, which, with an encouragingwind, could cause the trees to fall put-ting life and property at risk.

23

CPSM/pjvh


One opportunity that the Hightowerbuilding demolition presents is that thisrisk condition can be significantly im-proved if demolition is executed ac-cording to this Plan. Followed carefully,the result will be increased root zone forexpansion of the trees’ root systems. Anexpanded root system will producehealthier and more structurally stabletrees.

To achieve these goals, it is required thatdemolition of the building near thesetrees be accomplished by pulling thebuilding eastward, away from the trees.Also, the foundation wall must be saw-cut horizontally 4 feet below existinggrade and the top section removed.The portion of the foundation wall andfooting below the 4-foot level can re-main in place. Finally, it is critical that thebasement floor slab be broken up torestore the ground water hydrologiccycle.

4.5 Construction Access Routes

The construction access route for thedemolition activity is to be restricted toeither Atlantic Drive or 4th Street as de-termined by the GT Facilities Office. Theaccess route should be chosen basedupon minimizing impact on GeorgiaTech’s academic and research missionsand after considering other constructionactivity schedules and access needs.

24

CPSM/pjvh


5.0 SITE

RESTORATION PLAN

25

CPSM/pjvh


5.0 SITE RESTORATION PLAN

There are two phases of site res-toration required; interim andpermanent.

The interim site restoration in-cludes backfilling the site with fri-able, clean mineral soil com-pacted to 80% standard proctorcompaction to within 3 feet ofthe finished grade. The final 3 feetof backfill should be back filledwith friable top soil compactedto 80% standard proctor com-paction. The site should begraded at 2-4% to the existingdrop inlet in this depression con-tour area of campus. The siteshould be seeded with annualrye at 12#/1,000sf from Septem-ber-March, or with common Ber-muda at 2#/1,000sf from April-August.

The permanent site restorationwill be in the form of YellowJacket Park (YJP). Georgia Techcurrently has a preliminary de-sign for YJP. Additional designdevelopment needs to occur inconcert with the design of the In-novative Learning Resource Cen-ter. A consultant will be commis-sioned to develop this design. Thedesign should accommodatethe ANAK Society’s plans to installswings in this part of the campus.The ANAK plans are being devel-oped with the Capital PlanningOffice as of this writing.

26

CPSM/pjvh


6.0 SCHEDULE

CONSIDERATIONS

27

CPSM/pjvh


6.0 SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS:

The best planting season to insure sur-vivability of most shade trees is from No-vember through February depending onseasonal weather variations. However,there are some important variations.Specifically, maples transplant best fromNovember-January, magnolias trans-plant best in June-July, and oaks, zelko-vas, hornbeams, tulip poplar, andsweetgums transplant best in February.

The current Hightower demolition isscheduled for the first quarter of 2002.Transplanting of most of this sites’ trees isbest accomplished from Novemberthrough February. However, successfulplanting of these relatively hardy speciescan be accomplished almost any sea-son of the year, providing adequatemaintenance is supplied. Summer trans-planting of most species will increasemaintenance cost significantly.

If the future Yellow Jacket Park designcalls for the Southern and Saucer Mag-nolias to be transplanted, they should behorticulturally prepared one year priorto transplanting.

28

CPSM/pjvh


7.0 PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PLAN

29

CPSM/pjvh


7.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS PLAN:

Tree removal has been a very sensitiveissue in the Tech community.

The Hightower site has an unusual num-ber of large specimen trees that Techfamily members have enjoyed for gen-erations. The central campus locationof this project gives it a high profile inpeople’s consciousness. Therefore, awell strategized and presented PublicRelations Plan is essential.

Public announcements should not onlyinform the community of the Hightowerbuilding demolition, but shouldempahsize plans to improve this sectionof campus with the future constructionof the Innovative Learning ResourceCenter and Yellow Jacket Park. An-nouncements should also highlight plansto care for the environmental resourcesof the site for long-term benefit and thesustainability principle that the Adminis-tration is following in implementing theCampus Master Plan. These factors com-bined will result in a constantly improv-ing quality of campus life as the CamusMaster Plan is implemented. The articleannouncing this project should be writ-ten by the Communication Office writ-ers and reviewed by Captial Planning &Facilities.

Announcements should be made in theTechnique, The Whistle, Tech Topics andposted on the Georgia Tech website.

END OF REPORT

tree management plan for the demolition of hightower building · building in order to construct a...

Documents