Trees Drowned as Sides Argue Over Cause

After three years of headaches over dead and dying birch trees planted along the Arc of Statehood pathway in Heritage Park, the state Department of General Administration has decided to pull them out and start over with a different tree species -- and different tree advice.

No longer is the state agency using The Portico Group, the Seattle-based landscape architect that designed the park, to guide tree selection and plantings.

"The species Portico selected was not the right tree for the site," said GA senior planner Dave Schilperoort. "It was a design error."

Portico president Mike Hamm declined to be interviewed on the falling out with the state agency over the birch trees.

First planted in April 2001 at a cost of about $17,500, many of the 69 birch trees fared poorly. Many died and some were replaced or replanted two or three times, often under contract warranty, which means the state so far has spent only a few thousand dollars.

But the state faces roughly $10,500 in additional cost to replace the trees with a species to be selected this fall. The state agency has chosen not to hold Portico accountable for the replacement costs, said Lenore Miller, who has served as park project manager for GA.

"Portico has performed well within the accepted standard of error for a design project," Miller said. "They are a good firm."

In the same breath, Miller said the state's $1.8 million contract with Portico has run its course, but not because of the birch tree problems. She said the park design work that remains is simple stuff. It would be overkill to retain Portico, she said.

Tree choice questioned

But Portico's choice of birch trees along the promenade flies in the face of several South Sound arborists, landscape architects and plant maintenance experts who said the trees were doomed from the start because of the high water table, poor soils and lack of drainage.

"It was a terrible choice," said Neal Wolbert, owner of Wolbert's Landscape Healthcare in Olympia.

"Birch are a high altitude tree used to free-draining soils," said Bob Barnes, a landscape architect with the state Department of Transportation. "Heritage Park is in a flood plain with a high water table and severely deficient soils."

Portico was relying in part on drainage improvements in the park after the trees were planted, but the state has yet to fund the work, according to The Olympian's review of GA internal documents, consultant reports and correspondence between the state agency and Portico.

The public records review also revealed that:

- GA stuck by Portico for more than two years before actively seeking independent advice in late 2003.

- Portico was unwilling to admit the trees were the wrong ones for the site, and found plenty of others to blame for the trees' demise.

Park users have noticed the dead and dying birch trees.

"The tree situation kind of bothers me," said Olympia resident Julie Johnston, who has watched from her downtown office as crews dug up dead trees and replanted them only to have them die again. "I think Portico should pay to replace those trees."

Olympia architect Sheila Swalling is a little more sympathetic to the Seattle-based firm. She likes the Portico tree landscape design and wants a similarly shaped tree used to replace the birch.

"It's not that big of a deal," she said. "They should replace the trees and be done with it."

The die was cast for the birch trees late in 1996 as Portico put the finishing touches on the design of the park's Arc of Statehood along the northern shores of Capitol Lake.

The landscape architect, with the blessing of the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee, picked Chanticleer pear trees for the inner row along the pedestrian walkway along the lake and Jacquemontii birch trees for the outer row.

"The tree is striking as it exhibits a beautiful white bark and is attractive in autumn color," Portico president Hamm said in a Dec. 9, 1996, letter to GA project manager Richard Price. "The tree form is upright with an oval crown growing to a 40 foot height with a 16-foot spread.

"The tree requires low maintenance, is disease resistant and does well in high water table conditions," Hamm said at the time.

Portico ruled out the use of cherry trees that adorned the old lake park because they would require herbicide spraying too close to Capitol Lake.

GA officials didn't question Portico's claim that the birch trees could handle the high water table. The state agency did no peer review work and sought no second opinions.

"Portico has done a lot of good work for us," said Miller, Heritage Park project manager, last week. "There is credibility in what they said."

But in hindsight, Miller said, it would have been useful to get peer reviews and second opinions on the selection of trees to plant in Heritage Park.

The 69 birch trees were planted in April 2001. By summer 2002, it was clear many of the trees were unhealthy, even dying.

Blame game begins

Then began a round of finger pointing as to who was to blame.

Portico blamed Controlled Rain LLC, of Lacey, saying it planted the trees too deep.

Controlled Rain and other contractors associated with the purchase and planting of the trees disagreed, blaming the trees' ill health on saturated soils and poor drainage.

By then, GA officials were starting to question Portico's choice of birch trees.

"The birch trees, in their current condition, are an embarrassment for the Heritage Park project," GA project planner Dave Schilperoort said in an undated e-mail to Portico in the summer of 2002. He suggested it was a serious design error on the part of Portico.

After many negotiations, GA, Portico, Controlled Rain and Ohno Construction, a park construction contractor, agreed in August of 2002 to split the more than $15,000 cost of replacing 32 trees and lifting and replanting 27 others. The work occurred in December 2002.

But the problem with the birch trees didn't go away.

The 2003 growing season rolled around, and the birch trees still struggled to survive at Heritage Park.

In June 2003, GA decided it was time to get an independent professional on board to figure out what was going on.

On July 10, 2003, Bainbridge Island plant pathologist Olaf Ribeiro visited the park to inspect the trees. He said the trees were drowning in wet soils.

"Replacing trees without correcting the drainage problem were (sic) doomed to failure," he said in his July 23 report to GA.

Contacted last week, Ribeiro said the birch trees were the wrong tree for the water-saturated park.

"Birch trees can't stand just sitting in water," he said.

Portico continued to cast blame elsewhere, suggesting the trees supplied by E and F Nursery in Portland were defective. Hamm also said in a July 21, 2003, letter to Schilperoort that park drainage projects delayed due to lack of funding contributed to the trees' failure.

GA next went to work designing a drainage plan to save the birch trees. On the eve of putting a $35,000 drainage project out to bid, Schilperoort talked to the state Department of Transportation's Barnes, who said the birch trees were the wrong trees for the site.

"Bob believes that even if we put in a drainage system that this will be a 'band aid' solution that will also ultimately fail," Schilperoort said in an Oct. 15, 2003, e-mail to his supervisor, Gary Larson.

GA changes course

"That was the turning point for me," Schilperoort said Thursday of the decision to start listening to Barnes and stop listening to Portico.

The drainage plan was placed on hold and GA gave thought to minimizing the political and public fallout from the failed birch tree project.

"I also recommend we develop a creative 'news release' to beat The Olympian to the punch of the news," Larson said in a Nov. 26, 2003, e-mail to Miller. No such press release surfaced.

Next came a tree summit on Dec. 15, 2003, where GA invited five arborists and landscape architects, including Hamm, to weigh in on the tree fiasco.

All but Hamm agreed that the birch trees were not suited for the site.

All but Hamm recommended a switch to the London plane tree, a taller, more long-lived tree with a canopy spread twice that of the birch tree and the ability to live in wet soils.

On Dec. 23, Portico asked for $3,160 from General Administration to conduct a tree replacement study. It got $1,225 to do the first phase of work, but no more.

On Jan. 13, 2004, Portico reported that the London plane is a boulevard and park tree found throughout Seattle and could be a viable replacement tree with a few drawbacks. For example, the tree has extensive surface roots that could pose a tripping hazard. That was the last time Portico weighed in on the tree flap on behalf of its former client, GA. In May, the state agency acknowledged it was giving up on the birch trees.

In recent months, GA has turned to Barnes for advice. An interagency agreement to use Barnes as a tree consultant for Heritage Park is in the works at a cost not to exceed $20,000.

"I try to think long-term," Barnes said in favor of the London plane tree, which should live 100 years or more, compared with 50 years for the birch tree. "It's a legacy park, so it should be a legacy tree. London plane are very adaptable and a world class tree."

Barnes said he's looked at native trees for the site, but species that could handle the wet conditions are too short-lived.

Barnes agreed with GA's decision to turn to local experts for advice on future park tree plantings.

"We have experts in this community -- GA should use them," he said. "This is our community, and we want to do it right."