Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Municipal/Utility Cooperation Benefits Both

David F. De Voto
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) December 1991, 17 (12) 335-336; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1991.074
David F. De Voto
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, 3800 By rant Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55409
Roles: Director of Forestry
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

For many years municipalities and utility companies have had strong feelings that neither was helping the urban forest accomplish the things it should. Utility companies argue that trees that reach a height that place them near utility lines should not be planted. Urban foresters argue that many of these trees are already there and that utility companies are “butchering” these trees during line-clearance. Further, they argue that taller trees are needed to provide shade in cities and that utility lines should be placed underground. Recently, however, there have been many instances of changes in attitudes on both sides and that consideration is being given to mediating and resolving these issues.

The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota is friendly, beautiful, and tree covered. Northern States Power (NSP) Company, is efficient, powerful but cooperative. In fact, the Minneapolis Forestry Division and the NSP Line Clearance Division get along so well that even the trees feel good.

We have recently conducted two major cooperative programs. The first was an experimental project using a growth regulator. A few years ago, NSP approached the Minneapolis Forestry Division and said that they wanted to conduct some research using a new growth regulator. It would be injected into trees growing under their lines. What they hoped to do was to extend their trimming cycle to reduce expenses. They wanted permission to use the Minneapolis trees.

Frankly, the Division was somewhat reluctant because I had personal concerns about injecting trees for any reason. After some discussion, however, a compromise was reached that allowed injection but only in certain species of trees of not less than 10 inches in diameter, and only in limited areas of the city. Injections were not allowed in very small trees for fear of serious damage to the cambial layer. Soil applications for the smaller trees, would have been allowed but the pesticide label did not permit that use.

In this particular study, the results were poor and there was serious weeping from injection sites in some trees. The project is on hold but may be tried again if soil application approval can be gained. At least we sat down, worked out a compromise and cooperated.

The second project came about when the citizens of certain neighborhoods in Minneapolis requested ornamental street lighting in place of the standard tall luminaire type poles and fixtures. The original plan developed by the City Planning Division called for between-pole trenching down the boulevard (parkway, tree lawn) for burying the electric cable. When the trenching started, neighborhood home owners became concerned about serious root damage to trees. The Forestry office placed a temporary hold on the project except in areas where no trees were involved.

In a public meeting the Director of Forestry distributed a guide developed by the municipal foresters of northeast Illinois entitled: Parkway Tree Augering Specifications (1). There was silence for a couple of minutes while the homeowners and the construction people absorbed what they had read. The NSP spokesperson responded, “Is this all you want? That’s no problem at all”. The NSP construction workers are now following the procedure of trenching as specified. The “pseudogopher” (an air powered, cylindrical shaped ram) is being used to tunnel under the tree. The electric wire is pulled through the tunnel and the trench is begun again on the other side.

The lesson learned from these two experiences is that when each side listens to the other and when they work out mutual compromises, everyone benefits and the job gets completed to everyone’s satisfaction.

Footnotes

Listen
  • 1 Presented at the annual conference of the International Society ot Arboriculture in Philadelphia in August 1991.

  • © 1991, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    1. Morell, John D.
    1984. Parkway tree augering specifications. J. Arboric. 10(5):129–132.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 17, Issue 12
December 1991
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Municipal/Utility Cooperation Benefits Both
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Municipal/Utility Cooperation Benefits Both
David F. De Voto
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1991, 17 (12) 335-336; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1991.074

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Municipal/Utility Cooperation Benefits Both
David F. De Voto
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1991, 17 (12) 335-336; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1991.074
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Assessing Biodiversity Associated with Four Monumental Trees in Madrid Region (Spain)
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire