Moratorium On Artificial Grass 07-07-15

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
July 7, 2015
To:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
From:
Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director
Subject:
Moratorium on Artificial Grass and Similar Groundcover
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Ordinance No. ____, an Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Artificial Grass and
Other Similar Synthetic Turf or Foliage Materials
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In response to several recent installations of artificial grass, synthetic turf, and the like, the
Planning Commission and Forest and Beach Commission requested a review of the
appropriateness of such installations. Both Commissions held public workshops on this topic,
and both recommended that the City Council enact a prohibition on installation of artificial
grass and similar groundcover, given concerns with the aesthetics of artificial grass as well as
potential habitat impacts. Staff has provided a draft urgency ordinance prohibiting such
installations for the Councils consideration. Pursuant to California Government Code Section
65858, the urgency ordinance would be effective immediately after adoption and in place for a
maximum of 45 days unless extended by the Council in a subsequent public hearing.
__________________________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
In part because of the high cost of water and the ongoing drought, the City has seen an
increase in the number of installations of and requests for artificial grass, synthetic turf, and
the like in landscape applications. Such installations, as with any change in landscaping,
require prior approval of a Design Study permit from the Community Planning and Building
Department. Planning staff review any such applications for compliance with City Municipal
Code and the Citys Design Guidelines. The Citys Design Guidelines encourage maintaining
the forested character of the community and discourage grass lawns if visible from public view
points. The Design Guidelines do not specifically address artificial grass or synthetic turf;
however, such installations are seen as inconsistent with maintaining the forest character, as
well as the Citys emphasis on natural, authentic materials throughout the design guidelines.
While artificial grass installations use much less water than in used for irrigation of natural turf,
there are other impacts of artificial grass and synthetic turf, including the loss of habitat and
decreased water infiltration. There are other low-water demand landscaping alternatives
Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 1
which are more consistent with the Citys design guidelines such as drought-tolerant plantings
and mulch.
Given the uptick in the number of installations of and requests for artificial turf and similar
synthetic groundcover, the Planning Commission and Forest and Beach Commission recently
requested a review of such installations. The Planning Commission discussed this topic on
June 10, 2015, and provided the following two recommendations to the City Council:
1) Hold permitting on synthetic turf until a policy on such requests is developed
2) Reaffirm support for Design Guidelines with respect to lawns and overly-manicured
landscaping
The Forest and Beach Commission considered this topic on June 11, 2015, and also provided
recommendations to the City Council. The Forest and Beach Commission took action on
several motions including the following:
1) Reaffirm current Design Guidelines for lawns to be avoided in the public view.
2) Consider artificial turf to be site coverage - perhaps permeable.
3) Reinforce the Commission's concerns about trees and if installation of artificial turf
damages tree roots from soil compaction, it should not be allowed.
4) The Walker Tract may be considered differently as it is in other areas.
5) Other options for lawn replacement should be encouraged.
6) More study is needed.
Should the urgency ordinance be adopted, it would take place immediately, and would be in
effect for a maximum of 45 days, unless subsequently extended by the City Council. Any
extension would be for a maximum of 10.5 months, and would need to occur at a duly-noticed
public hearing.
__________________________________________________________________________
ALTERNATIVES:
An urgency ordinance has been drafted for the City Councils consideration. The City Council
may make revisions to the ordinance should any such revisions be desirable. The City
Council may also decline to adopt the urgency ordinance. In this alternative, the Council
should provide direction to staff on other approaches to take in reviewing requests for artificial
grass and similar installations.
__________________________________________________________________________
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Enactment of an Urgency Ordinance is not a project subject to CEQA review. Any extension
of the ordinance would be subject to CEQA analysis and documentation.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
The staff-time costs to prepare and process the urgency ordinance are paid out of the City's
General Fund.
Budgeted (yes/no)
Funding Source( general fund , grant,

state)
General Fund
Yes
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY: Artificial grass installations were

discussed by the Planning Commission on 6/10/15, and by the Forest and Beach Commission
on 6/11/15. Both Commissions expressed concerns with artificial turf installations and
recommended that the Council prohibit such installations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 -Ordinance No. _, Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Artificial Grass and
Other Similar Synthetic Turf or Foliage Materials
Attachment 2 - 6/10/15 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 3 - Recent Correspondence Received Regarding Artificial Grass
APPROVED:
Doug~mitz,
Date:
City Administrator
A ~7 /.r
T'
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ARTIFICIAL GRASS
AND OTHER SIMILAR SYNTHETIC TURF OR FOLIAGE MATERIALS
Recitals/Findings
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique coastal community wherein the traditional
forest landscape is one of the most important features of the community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code Section 17.58 "Design
Review", design review by the City is required in pertinent part for specified physical improvements as
established throughout CMC Chapter 17 .58, and any landscaping associated with construction, alterations
or additions set forth in CMC Chapter 17.58; and
WHEREAS, due to the severe, on-going California drought the City has seen an increase in the
installation of artificial grass in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District and other areas ofthe
City, which is in direct conflict ofthe City's Residential Design Guidelines Final Details Review procedures
adopted by the City Council on May 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to prohibit the installation of artificial grass and other similar
synthetic turf or foliage materials in the Single-Family Residential (R-1} Zoning District and other areas of
the City; and
WHEREAS, this Urgency Ordinance is authorized by California Government Code Section 65858 in
order to protect the public safety, health, and welfare prohibiting uses that may be in conflict with the
City's Residential Design Guidelines Final Details Review dated May 1, 2001, which the planning
commission or the planning department is studying; and
WHEREAS, for initial adoption of an urgency ordinance no public hearing is required and the
urgency ordinance can take effect immediately upon adoption with no second reading or waiting period.
Adoption of an urgency ordinance requires a four-fifth vote ofthe City Council and expires 45 days after
adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1.
There shall take effect immediately a prohibition against the installation of artificial grass
and other similar synthetic turf or foliage materials in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
and other areas of the City which is in direct conflict with the City's Residential Design Guidelines Final
Details Review procedures adopted by the City Council on May 1, 2001.
A.
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon four-fifths vote ofthe City Council. This
ordinance shall expire in forty-five days unless readopted, or readopted with amendments, at a public
hearing prior to the expiration. This is declared to be an urgency measure as authorized by California
Government Code Section 65858.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 4
B.
Severabilitv.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereofto any person or circumstance
is held invalid, the remainder ofthe Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this
end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
C.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be held unconstitutional,
invalid or unenforceable.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCil OF THE CITY OF CARMEl-BY-THE-SEA this __ day of July,
201S, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JASON BURNETT, Mayor

ATTEST:
lEE PRICE, Interim City Clerk

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 5
Attachment 2
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
June 10, 2015
To:
Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
From:
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Subject:
Discussion of the review process for proposals to install natural and

artificial lawns on properties in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning
District and other areas of the City
Recommendation:
Discuss the review process for proposals to install lawns and artificial grass in the City and
provide direction to staff.
Executive Summary:
The City has seen an increase in requests to install grass lawns, and has also seen an increase in
installations of natural and artificial grass, some of which permitted and others unpermitted.
Artificial grass, in particular, has grown in popularity with the on-going drought. The City has
also seen an uptick in interest in alternative driveway and parking area surfaces, including
grass-crete and other similar designs.
lawns in the front yards or other areas visible from the public Right-of-Way (ROW) and other
public locations are strongly discouraged in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The
primary guidance is in Residential Design Guideline 10.3, which states:
Planting in areas visible from the street or other public places should continue the forest
character.
The fourth bullet point in Residential Design Guideline 10.3 states:
Lawns visible from the street are inappropriate to the forest setting and should be
avoided.
Two Commissioners requested that a discussion item on lawns and artificial grass be placed on
the Planning Commission agenda. Staff will provide an overview of recent requests and

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 6
installations, and will seek direction from the Planning Commission on any appropriate changes
to the Citys process for such requests.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 7
ATTACHMENT - 3
Rob Mullane
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FPLioyd@redshift.com
Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:23 AM
Barbara Livingston
Donald Goodhue; Michael LePage; Rob Mullane; Doug Schmitz; Jason Burnett; Ken
Talmage Council; Victoria Beach Council; Steve Dallas Council; Carrie Theis; Lucinda
Lloyd; Karen Ferlito
Re: Plastic grass
Hello all:
I heartily agree with Barbara.
The introduction to the Land Use and Community Development section of Carmels general plan provides good general
background on what is behind the village character, respecting the natural environment. The most pertinent reference is
re: Site Design:
11
A respect for trees, preserving natural drainages and carefully integrating new landscaping with belts of existing native
11
vegetation are all good examples of the good site design principles that are characteristic of Carmel.
Artificial grass doesnt fit in with these concepts. The drought is temporary, so natural planting will eventually recover.
Skip
On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Barbara Livingston wrote :
> Dear Don & Michael,
>
> I understand that plastic grass will be on the planning commission agenda, June 10th.
>
> ~view of the concerns for aesthetics, adherence to design guidelines, need for water, and information that plastic
grass cooks tree and other plant roots, I am asking for a moratorium on any further approvals for installation of this
material.
>
>We have to come from the basic understanding that lawns, whether rea l or fake, play no role in the landscape of our
rustic, rural village. The design guidline against installlation of lawns stems from the early understanding that Carmel
should not look like any-town suburbia. We have only to look at Mission Fields neighborhoods which are attractive in
their own way, but are certainly the antithesis of what we have worked so hard, over so many years, to develop for
Carmel-by-the-Sea. We have to work from the assumptioin that lawns of ANY kind are not appropriate here. When we
drive down the streets of Carmel, we like to see a natural right-of-way with rustic grapestake fences, a garden of native
draught-resisitant plants, and a mixture of upper and lower canape trees; the garden floor is carpeted in wood chips,
pine needles and oak leaves. THAT 1S the Carmel we know and love. THATs the Carmel we have got to protect.
>
> If this takes a moratorium until you can figure out an ordinance, then lefs do it! Approving plastic grass across the
counter has to stop.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Barbara
JUN 0 4 201~
>
>Barbara Livingston
> P.O.Box 6025
>Carmel, CA 93921

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 8
> E. green.gardens@att.net
> P. 831.626.1610
>
>
>

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 9
Rob Mullane
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ferlito <ferlito@pacbell.net>
Thursday, June 04, 2015 6:13 PM
Rob Mullane; Donald Goodhue; Michael LePage; Doug Schmitz
Steve Dallas Council; jason burnett; Carrie Theis; Ken Talmage Council; Council Member
Beach
Planning Commission Review of Artificial Turf
Artificial Turf.docx
Please read the attached letter and include in Agenda Packet for May 1Oth meeting.
Regards,
Karen Ferlito
!l.l['oi
h4
/[Jl~
rty
rr
h . e
P!annino- &Buildino
Deot
.....
"Live well, do good work, keep in touch" .... Garrison Keillor

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 10
To: Rob Mullane, Planning Director

Planning Commissioners
D
JUN 0 4 20'1:~
Re: Planning Commission Review of Artificial lawns/turf, May 10, 2015. -;tyofCarmei-IJy-the-Sea
>!annina
11 !ng Dept
I have recently observed an increase in the amount of artificial turf being installed in
Carmel by the Sea. This is a situation that must be curtailed immediately before it
becomes the norm throughout the village. There are many reasons not to allow the
installation of artificial turf beginning with the fact that it is not in accordance with
the design guideline 10.3 that says that ulawns are not appropriate and are to be
avoided." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Artificial turf is
meant to be a lawn replacement and as such is also not in line with 10.3.
Additionally, there are many other reasons to stop the installation of artificial turf.
The City of Toronto, Canada commissioned a study (that was released April2015) to
compare artificial turf and natural turf and the pros and cons of each for use on
playing fields. While I realize we are not contemplating artificial or natural turf
playing fields here in Carmel, I have included below some of the environmental
concerns about artificial turf and possible uharms" that were cited in the study. This
study can be found at wwwl.toronto.ca or at http://www.toronto.ca/health.
Here are some of the comments and conclusions from the study. I have paraphrased
them.
Artificial turf is made from material that creates emissions and off gases. This
produces a net increase in releases of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate
change. Natural surfaces are an important part of an urban landscape. They
provide important environmental services. They absorb rainwater; they cool the air
and remove carbon dioxide from the air. Decaying leaves feed the trees. Artificial
turf or plastic grass does none of this.
Artificial turf requires a compacted base and a rubber pad and this could damage
tree roots and suffocate them as well. Our trees are already under stress from the
drought. Oaks need and want to have nothing more than there own leaves on the
ground where they are growing. Redwoods create their own rain from the fog and
this vital moisture will not penetrate all the layers required for artificial turf. It is
like putting a plastic rug over the root systems. Trees are not power poles. They
have a living, breathing root system that must be protected.
Artificial turf is made of several heat retaining materials and could increase the
temperature of the soil. This may destroy beneficial elements vital to trees. It can
create heat islands. With loss of canopy, more sunshine and increased solar
exposure do to climate change this increased heat could be very damaging to tree
root systems.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 11
Artificial turf causes more storm water runoff when there is rain. Less water is
absorbed on site. Plastic grass contributes nothing to the ecological health or
diversity of the site. This can be expected to negatively affect trees and plants on the
site and could cause more pollution to our ocean. Hazardous substances from the
crumb rubber could leach into surface or ground water. There are potentially
adverse impacts on aquatic life from contaminates in the leachate over the long
term.
There have been concerns that artificial turf may be toxic to children. More studies
need to be done before this can be ruled out.
Having artificial turf in your yard is actually creating more maintenance than you
would think. It would be like having a carpet to keep clean. More blowers around
town might be required to keep the artificial turf free of needles and leaves thus
causing even more noise.
Artificial turf does wear out after about 10 years and requires replacement. This
creates debris that must go to a landfill. Worn out and decaying artificial turf would
be unsightly and could require city inspectors to go around tagging it for removal.
Artificial turf is a suburban look and is just not in keeping with Carmel's rustic,
natural landscape.
Please. just say NO to artificial turf based on the exsting design guidelines and these
additional environmental concerns. End this practice before it runs rampant
throughout the village. Please recommend the discontinuance of any more permits
for installation of artificial turf. The installation of artificial turf is a knee-jerk
reaction to drought that could have serious and long lasting implications.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Ferlito

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 12
Artificial turf causes more storm water runoff when there is rain. Less water is
absorbed on site. Plastic grass contributes nothing to the ecological health or
diversity of the site. This can be expected to negatively affect trees and plants on the
site and could cause more pollution to our ocean. Hazardous substances from the
crumb rubber could leach into surface or ground water. There are potentially
adverse impacts on aquatic life from contaminates in the leachate over the long
term.
There have been concerns that artificial turf may be toxic to children. More studies
need to be done before this can be ruled out.
Having artificial turf in your yard is actually creating more maintenance than you
would think. It would be like having a carpet to keep clean. More blowers around
town might be required to keep the artificial turf free of needles and leaves thus
causing even more noise.
Artificial turf does wear out after about 10 years and requires replacement. This
creates debris that must go to a landfill. Worn out and decaying artificial turf would
be unsightly and could require city inspectors to go around tagging it for removal.
Artificial turf is a suburban look and is just not in keeping with Carmel's rustic,
natural landscape.
Please. just say NO to artificial turf based on the exsting design guidelines and these
additional environmental concerns. End this practice before it runs rampant
throughout the village. Please recommend the discontinuance of any more permits
for installation of artificial turf. The installation of artificial turf is a knee-jerk
reaction to drought that could have serious and long lasting implications.
Karen Ferlito

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 13
RECE \lED
To: Rob Mullane, Planning Director

Planning Commissioners
JUN 0 4 2015
Re: Planning Commission Review of Artificial lawns/turf, May 10, 2015. ';] tyo:ca&rmei-Oy~theaSea
, annmg
Building Dept.
I have recently observed an increase in the amount of artificial turf being installed in
Carmel by the Sea. This is a situation that must be curtailed immediately before it
becomes the norm throughout the village. There are many reasons not to allow the
installation of artificial turf beginning with the fact that it is not in accordance with
the design guideline 10.3 that says that "lawns are not appropriate and are to be
avoided." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Artificial turf is
meant to be a lawn replacement and as such is also not in line with 10.3.
Additionally, there are many other reasons to stop the installation of artificial turf.
The City of Toronto, Canada commissioned a study (that was released April 2015) to
compare artificial turf and natural turf and the pros and cons of each for use on
playing fields. While I realize we are not contemplating artificial or natural turf
playing fields here in Carmel, I have included below some of the environmental
concerns about artificial turf and possible "harms" that were cited in the study. This
study can be found at wwwl.toronto.ca or at http://www.toronto.ca/health.
Here are some of the comments and conclusions from the study.
them.
have paraphrased
Artificial turf is made from material that creates emissions and off gases. This
produces a net increase in releases of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate
change. Natural surfaces are an important part of an urban landscape. They
provide important environmental services. They absorb rainwater; they cool the air
and remove carbon dioxide from the air. Decaying leaves feed the trees. Artificial
turf or plastic grass does none of this.
Artificial turf requires a compacted base and a rubber pad and this could damage
tree roots and suffocate them as well. Our trees are already under stress from the
drought. Oaks need and want to have nothing more than there own leaves on the
ground where they are growing. Redwoods create their own rain from the fog and
this vital moisture will not penetrate all the layers required for artificial turf. It is
like putting a plastic rug over the root systems. Trees are not power poles. They
have a living, breathing root system that must be protected.
Artificial turf is made of several heat retaining materials and could increase the
temperature of the soil. This may destroy beneficial elements vital to trees. It can
create heat islands. With loss of canopy, more sunshine and increased solar
exposure do to climate change this increased heat could be very damaging to tree
root systems.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 14
Rob Mullane
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FPLioyd@ redshift.com
Thursday, June 04, 2015 6:54PM
Ferlito
Rob Mullane; Donald Goodhue; Michael LePage; Doug Schmitz; Steve Dallas Council;
jason burnett; Carrie Theis; Ken Talmage Council; Council Member Beach
Re: Planning Commission Review of Artificial Turf
I might add that artificial turf is not even a "lawn" as contemplated by the ordinance, which is composed of
live, growing, organic grass . If lawns are to be avoided, it goes without saying that whatever artificial "lawns"
are called, they violate the ordinance in letter and, far more, in the spirit of Carmel and its general plan. I
looked at one in passing on a trip around town today and it was jarring to the eye, completely out of keeping
with the village character, really cheapening it.
Skip
On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:13PM, Ferlito wrote:
ll.H~
'
<Artificial Turf.docx>
CormeH.:>y-rhe-Seo
!)Janning
0 4 20EJ
Building Dent

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 15
Rob Mullane
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
AI Fasulo
Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:40AM
Rob Mullane
Fwd: Santa Rita and ocean
IMG_3922.JPG
Begin forwarded message:

From: Karen Ferlito <ferlito@pacbell.net>
Date: June 4, 2015 at 7:45:11 AM PDT
To: AI Fasulo <afasulo@ci.carmel.ca.us>
Subject: Santa Rita and ocean
What ever happened with this one?
Karen F erlito
Sent from my iPad.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 16

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 17
h> { I ~t '""'
H i'
~ /fO/ f{ flO\"'~~~
June
?th
To: Planning Commissioners

From: Sue McCloud
Subject: Santa Lucia 3SW Rio Road
Background:
JUI'J 0 ~
20b
.. lty ot Carmei-by-the-Seo
& Building Dept
l~Hanning
I have been working on plans to replace my front and back lawns for almost 10 years--first estimate was
2007 (but didn't have time as too much going on in the City) and then again 2013 (put on a new roof
which was more urgent) and then current estimates of 27 May and 3 June.
When the estimators came this year, it was for separate estimates for the front and back as well as if
done together which is much more economical.
My discussions started with Sean and have been on and off since then (see para 1 above) and at no
time was I told that I needed a permit for the rear yard--all that had been said was that it was OK as it
wasn't visible from the street--true and it is 293 sq. feet in exactly the same kidney shaped footprint as the
lawn is at present. I have also had estimates for the 923 sq. feet in the front yard.
I met with Rob Friday 5 June to see about approval for the front yard for it is more economical to do both
at the same time. That's when I learned that Barbara Livingston had asked that artificial turf be
agendized for the Commission Wednesday June 10. This past Wedneday June 3, I signed a contract
with a deposit for the whole project provided I had approval for the front portion as was recently done for
a home on San Antonio (see para 4 below).
Facts:
1. My home is historic. On Kent Seavey's DPR form he notes that the house and landscaping are
essentially the same as when it was built in 1939. I live in what was the Walker tract, the last land to be
annexed to the City from the County in I think 1966. It is very different from the "birth" city in that the lots
are larger (6-8,000 sq. ft. and no forest.)
2. I have photographs of what the back lawn looked like before the renovation of both the guest house
and main house. The rear lawn is probably now about one sixth the size of what it was. I do need a little
space where the dog can safely run in a fenced in area--the rest of the back yard is all on drip and
mulched.
3. The front yard on the other hand is in a vulnerable spot in that when it rains (hopefully) the water
rushes down San Carlos and turns east on Santa Lucia, while that coming down Mission is a similar
quantity and turns west on Santa Lucia--the two combine and then the water rushes down the open
culvert between my home and the house to the east and that then goes all the way down to Lasuen
where it then flows into the Bay. The culvert and quantity of water that rushes down can come above my
knees when I stand in the culvert to clear debris during a heavy rain; therefore in hard rains it overflows
the lawn. In Jan 1995 it actually rolled the lawn back like a carpet the water force was so great. During
the earlier drought in the 70's or early 80s' (I don't recall the exact date) my parents did put in a ground
cover in the front yard but the water easily tore up the shallow rooted ground cover and then dirt and
plants were washed into the culvert and down to the ocean.
4. The packet for the June 2 Council meet included the fact that a permit was given a home 3SW of
Ocean on San Antonio for a front lawn as it could not be seen from the street. I would submit that my
dense boxwood hedge not only shields the front lawn from view, but when you consider the speed with
which drivers pass I bet that they could not tell what is on the ground in that nanosecond they might look
at the house.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 18
5. I have been forwarding regularly to Rob a number of articles of what other California cities are doing-and there are increasingly mentions of permitting artificial turf. Some people are letting their lawns die
and then they spray paint them, in fact a recent article in the Herald explained how to do just that!
Technology now provides many options not made by nature that are being used for roofs, and various
other major parts of buildings both inside and out.
6. Given all the above which I shared with Rob, I did ask that since he is now saying that I need a staff
permit for the rear yard that he go forward with approval for the back yard, but he would not. I feel like I
have no option here given all the above facts, except to continue to use water on the lawns ... a sorry
commentary on the drought and at a time when the Water District is offering enticing rebates to get rid of
lawns!! Because of the topography and location of the culvert and the two streets that funnel water to the
south, I also feel we have tried other options and that the only viable solution is real grass or artificial turf.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 19
to_,-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[J,L...... Hi
p, '\lo\.~,:1
Rob Mullane
c.-~,~S\G"'\
Mary Condry <carmelcondrym@comcast.net>

Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:08 PM
Rob Mullane
Artificial turf
j U~~ l~ t;
PLEASE don't allow us to start looking like 11 Anywhere USA 11 !

Thank you,
Mary Condry
2[J I
City ot Carmel-oy-the-Seo
Planning &Building Den
Sent from my iPad

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 20
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Karen FERLITO
Rob Mullane; Mike Branson; LePage Michael; Goodhue Don; David; Doug Schmitz
Root system info regarding compaction
Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:53:21 AM
for00-008.pdf
Please,
Let's schedule a joint meeting to really get info about tree root systems. Our construction practices could be vastly
improved. And let's have staff from both planning and forestry and public works be involved so we all learn best
management practices.
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/publications/PDF_files/for00-008.pdf
Karen Ferlito
Sent from my iPad.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 21
Soil Compaction
Impacts On Tree Roots
by Dr. Kim D. Coder, University of Georgia
July 2000
Compaction impacts trees in many ways. Generally, compaction associated physiological

dysfunctions cause systemic damage and decline, as well as failures in dealing with additional environmental changes. Physical / mechanical constraints negatively modify responses in the tree resulting in
inefficient use of essential resources. The symptoms we see in trees under compacted soil conditions
have causes stemming from disruptions of the internal sense, communication, and response process.
Biological Disruptions
Compaction disrupts respiration processes which power every function of the tree. Growth
regulators are destroyed prematurely or allowed to buildup, causing wild changes in tissue reactions.
Carbon allocation patterns, following highly modified growth regulation patterns, change food production, storage, use, and transport processes. Defensive capabilities with degraded sensor functions,
associated growth regulator communications, and ineffective food use, is slow to react and incomplete in
response. With compaction, short-term fluctuations in resource quality and quantity must be effectively
dealt with and resulting chronic stress must be tolerated.
The presence of toxic materials can be highly disruptive to soil health. As oxygen concentrations
decline, more reduced compounds (only partially oxidized) are generated by the tree roots and associated soil organisms. These reduced compound can buildup and damage organisms and move the soil
toward anaerobic conditions. In normal soils, these materials (if produced at all) are quickly oxidized or
removed from near tree roots. In compacted soil, normally produced materials, materials produced
under low oxygen conditions, and anaerobically produced compounds are not oxidized nor removed
from where they are produced. The longer the residence time of some of these materials, the more
damage.
Structural Disruptions
The structure of the tree can also be directly and indirectly impacted by compacted soils. Root
decline and death can lead to catastrophic structural failures. Tissue death and subsequent compartmentalization processes can compound mechanical faults. Growth regulation and carbon allocation changes
can modify stem and root collar taper and reaction wood development. Whole tree stress can result in
tissue shedding internally to heartwood and externally. Top and root dieback as well as branch drop can
be the result. Reduced rooting volume mechanically destabilizes the whole tree.
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE COOPERATING . THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SERVICE OFFERS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, ASSISTANCE AND MATERIALS TO ALL
PEOPLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
AGE, SEX OR HANDICAP STATUS.
A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ORGANIZATION
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA WARNELL SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES EXTENSION PUBLICATION FOR00-8

WEB Site = WWW.FORESTRY.UGA.EDU/EFR
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 22
Compaction Effects
Major soil compaction effects on trees are defined below:
Reduced elongation growth As compaction increases, roots are physically prevented from elongating
into the soil by lack of O2, by decreasing pore size, and by increased soil strength. As roots are put
under greater than 1.2 MPa of pressure, elongation slows and stops. Figure 1.
Reduced radial growth Trees begin to generate thick and short roots with many more lateral roots as
surrounding soil pressure exceeds 0.5 MPa. O2 shortages and soil strength are major limitations.
Essential element collection and control problems With less colonizable soil volume, there is less
physical space to collect resources from and less resources within that space. With declining respiration
processes, energy requiring steps in active element uptake (i.e. N, P, S) fail. Part of the difficulty in
collecting essential resources is a buildup of toxics which pollute any existing essential resource supply.
Shallow rooting As roots survive in a steadily diminishing aerobic layer, and as the anaerobic layer
expands toward the surface, the physical space available for living roots declines. The consequences of
having smaller volumes of colonizable space at the surface of the soil means roots and their resources
are subject to much greater fluctuation in water, heat loading, and mechanical damage. Drought and heat
stress can quickly damage roots in this small layer of oxygenated soil.
Constrained size, reach, and extent of root systems Compaction limits the depth and reach of tree root
systems leading to greater probability of windthrow and accentuating any structural problems near the
stem base / root collar area. Limiting the reach of the root system also prevents effective reactions to
changes in mechanical loads on the tree and concentrates stress and strain in smaller areas.
Stunted whole tree form As resources are limited by soil compaction and more effort is required to
seek and colonize resource volumes, trees are stunted. The disruption of growth regulation produces
stunting as auxin / cytokinin ratios shift resource allocations and use. In addition, carbohydrate and
protein synthesis rates enter decline cycles interfering with nitrogen and phosphorous uptake, which inturn disrupts carbohydrate and protein synthesis. The result is a tree with a small living mass and with
limited ability to take advantage of any short-term changes in resource availability.
Seedling establishment and survival problems Micro-site variability in compaction levels and a
limited resource base constrain young and newly planted trees. Less of a bulk density increase and
crusting effect are needed for failure of new trees compared with older, established trees.
Root crushing and shearing-off The mechanical forces generated in compacting a soil can crush roots,
especially roots less than 2 mm in diameter. Larger root can be abraded and damaged. Rutting can
shear-off roots as soil is pushed to new locations. The amount of crushing is dependent on root size and
depth, weight of the compacting device, soil organic material, and depth to the saturated layer (for
rutting). Figure 2.
Fewer symbionts / codependents Soil compaction puts selective pressure against aerobes and favors
low O2 requiring organisms, like Pythium and Phytophthora root rots, or anaerobes. Because of the
destruction of the detritus energy web coupled with successional changes, recovery of soils to pre2
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 23
compaction conditions may not be possible. Management must move forward to new solutions for
resource availability and deal with new patterns of pest management since returning to the soil microbiology and rhizosphere of pre-compaction is impossible.
Renovation of Sites
Principles -- A summary of this discussion of soil compaction lies with those general principles
and renovation techniques managers must use to reclaim a part of the ecological integrity of the site, as
well as soil and tree health. General soil compaction renovation principles are listed below in a bullet
format:
Soil compaction should be considered permanent. Studies demonstrate that after one-half century,
compaction still afflicts soils under natural forest conditions. Recovery times for significant compaction
is at least two human generations. Soils do not come back from compaction.
Every soil used by humankind has a representative compacted layer, zone, area, or crust. Changing
management may not change the current compacted zone but may well add an additional compacted
zone in a new position.
Management activities should concentrate on moving forward to increased aeration space and reduced
soil strength as best you can, rather than trying to recover past ecological history.
Measure bulk density, penetration force, O2 diffusion rates, and tree available water. These are the
best proxy measures we have to understand soil compaction and its impacts on trees. More careful and
direct measures of soil compaction constraints on tree growth are expensive and difficult to make.
Alleviation of soil compaction is part of a good soil health management plan.
Use extreme caution in management of water over and in compacted soils. Compaction provides little
margin for error for drainage, aeration, infiltration, and water holding capacity of tree available water.
(Wet soil / dry tree problems).
Seek the assistance of a tree and soil specialist to avoid tree-illiteracy problems on compacted soils.
Techniques Once the general principles of working with compacted soils are digested, the
next requirement is to identify some techniques for renovating compacted soils. These recommendations are generic across many situations and soil types. General techniques are listed below in a bullet
format:
Restrict site access to the soil surface as soon as possible with fences and fines (legal penalties). Try
to be the first one on the site and setup anti-compaction protection.
Defend the ecological foot print of the tree rooting area. Select working conditions (dry, dormant
season, surface mulch, etc) that minimizes compaction.
3
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 24
Restrict where possible vibrational compaction.

Carefully design tree growth areas using biology-first design processes rather than the common (and
damaging) aesthetics-first design processes.
Try to soften and distribute compaction forces with temporary heavy mulch, plywood driving pads,
and soil moisture content awareness planning.
-- Restart or improve the detritus energy web in the soil including addition of organic matter and living
organisms, as well as trying to change soil physical properties by increasing aeration pore space.
Conclusions
Soil compaction is a hidden stressor which steals health and sustainability from soil and tree
systems. Causes of compaction are legion and solutions limited. Without creative actions regarding the
greening of inter-infrastructural spaces in our communities, we will spend most of our budgets and
careers treating symptoms and replacing trees. Understanding the hideous scourge of soil compaction is
essential to better, corrective management.
For more information on this subject review papers listed in the following reference: Coder,
Kim D. 2000. Trees and Soil Compaction: A Selected Bibliography. University of Georgia School of
Forest Resources Extension Publication FOR00-1. 2pp. (Download at WEB site www.forestry.uga.edu/
efr under tree health care.)
4
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 25
Dr. Kim D. Coder, 2000
rate
elongation
3
2
1
.5
1.5
soil resistance
(MPa)
Figure 1: Soil penetration

resistance and root elongation
rate. (after Rendig & Taylor 1989)
(1 MPa =100 kPa . 1 bar)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 26
weight of
machine
(tons)
20
15
10
5
0
0ft
1ft
2ft
3ft
compaction depth
Figure 2: Depth of soil

compaction under machines of
various weights. (after Randrup 1999)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 27
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Karen FERLITO
Rob Mullane; Mike Branson; Doug Schmitz; Michael LePage; Goodhue Don; jason burnett
Soil compaction and tree health
Friday, June 12, 2015 2:06:37 AM
for00-003.pdf
Perhaps it would be helpful for both planning commission and forest and beach commission and city council and
staff in forestry, public works and planning to have this important information. It might help explain why the
compaction that is part of artificial turf installation is so detrimental to trees and why tree root zone protection
during construction is vital for our urban forest to survive.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/publications/pdf_files/for00-003.pdf
Karen Ferlito
Sent from my iPad.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 28
Soil Compaction & Trees:

Causes, Symptoms & Effects
by Dr. Kim D. Coder, University of Georgia
July 2000
Introduction
The health and structure of trees are reflections of soil health. The ecological processes which
govern tree survival and growth are concentrated around the soil / root interface. As soils, and associated resources change, tree systems must change to effectively utilize and tolerate changing resources
quantities and qualities, as well as the physical space available. Soil compaction is a major tree-limiting
feature of community forest managers and arborists.
Soil compaction is the most prevalent of all soil constraints on shade and street tree growth.
Every place where humans and machines exist, and the infrastructures that support them are built, soil
compaction will be present. There are few soil areas without some form or extent of soil compaction.
Soil compaction is a fact of life for trees and tree managers. Unfortunately, prevention and correction
procedures are not readily used nor recognized for their value.
This paper is a summary of soil compaction processes and tree growth effects. In addition, some
general renovation principles are proposed. Understanding how soil compaction occurs, developing
more accurate and precise definitions of soil compaction effects, and recognizing tree growth effects
stemming from compaction problems will be the primary emphasis here. This paper will concentrate
entirely on the negative growth constraints of compaction. Figure 1.
Infrastructure Ecology
The small amounts of land where we concentrate many thousands of people do not represent the
true carrying-capacity of the natural resources on the site. We are forced to concentrate natural resource
inputs and outputs from a large surrounding area in order for our cities to exist. The means of concentrating resources is through building and maintaining engineered infrastructures such as streets, pipes,
wires, curbs, buildings, parking lots, water collections and treatment systems, and environmental management devices for building interiors. The infrastructure waste-spaces (not needed for building or
maintaining infrastructures) are delegated to green things.
Living systems which remain are containerized and walled into small spaces adjacent and intertwined with massive infrastructure systems. The ecology of infrastructures involve resource and process
constraints to such a degree that living systems are quickly damaged and exhausted. A summary of the
resource attributes around infrastructures are: many humans and machines functioning as sources for
disturbance and stress problems (both chronic and acute); fragmented and diminished self-regulating
ecological states and processes (declining living things, organic matter, biotic interactions); and, less
open soil and ecologically active surfaces.
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE COOPERATING . THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SERVICE OFFERS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, ASSISTANCE AND MATERIALS TO ALL
PEOPLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
AGE, SEX OR HANDICAP STATUS.
A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ORGANIZATION
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA WARNELL SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES EXTENSION PUBLICATION FOR00-3

WEB Site = WWW.FORESTRY.UGA.EDU/EFR

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 29
As infrastructures requirements increase and generate more ecological impacts, the associated
building, maintenance, demolition, and renovation processes cause natural resource quality and usability
to decline. Key components of this decline are complex soil resource alterations including water, gas
exchange, mechanical impedance, and pore space alterations. Soil compaction is a primary measurable
feature of the ecological damage with which we are surrounded.
Defining Soil Compaction
Ideal Soil Features Soil resources are always changing. Pore space, water and gas contents,
and the electron exchange environment are dynamically changing in a soil every moment. Chemical,
biological and physical soil features are always under change. Within this continuing changing environment, tree roots must develop growth and survival solutions.
An ideal soil has 50% pore space, divided among air-filled pores and water-filled pores. In
addition, 45% of an ideal soil is composed of mineral materials with 5% composed of living and dead
organic materials. Within ideal soils, structural units and specific horizons develop. Because an ideal
soil does not exist around infrastructures, tree managers must work with soils which are fill-derived,
trenched, cut, compacted, polluted, excavated, unstructured, crusted, and poorly developed.
Pore Spaces -- Pore space exists around: individual particles (texture units) such as sand, silt,
and clay; individual structural units (soil aggregates); and, gaps, cracks, and the interfaces of infrastructure and soils. There are a series of trade-offs across pore spaces. Large sized soil pores are usually
filled with air, and so provide good aeration but poor water holding capacity. Small soil pores are
usually filled with water, and so have large water holding capacity but poor aeration. Soils dominated
by small soil pores have more total pore space than soils dominated by large pores. For healthy soils,
coarse textured soils dominated by large air-filled pores need more water availability. Fine textured
soils dominated by small water-filled pores need more aeration for good root growth. Figure 2.
There are three primary forms of pore spaces in a soil: aeration pores filled with air at or below
field capacity; and, capillary pores filled with water. Figure 3 provides semantic and size definitions.
Capillary pores are further divided among two size subgroups: tree-available water-filled pores; and,
tree-unavailable water-filled pores. The tree-unavailable water resides in the smallest soil pores where
the tree can not exert enough force through transpiration to remove the pore water. Water is being held
so tightly that the tree is unable to pull water into the roots. Figure 4.
Other Attributes -- Along with pore space volumes, there are three additional attributes of soils
which must be appreciated. The first is resource changes with soil depth. With increasing soil depth
there is a natural increase in CO2 concentrations and a decrease in O2 concentrations. The balance
between these two gases change with water content and biological activity. The soil gas atmosphere
directly impacts tree root growth.
A second attribute critical to soil and tree health is organic matter. Organic matter, as it decays,
provides cation and anion exchange capacity, water hold capacity, mineralized essential elements, a
substrate and fuel for the detritus food web, and pore space. Organic matter in natural soil systems is
deposited on the surface as plant litter or near the soil surface as root breakdown / turnover. The decomposing materials then move downward through the soil and pass the absorbing roots.
A third soil attribute critical to tree root growth is a developed structure. Structural units, or soil
aggregates, are the next order of particle yielding pore space. The basic soil particles (sand, silt, and
clay) are held together in clumps, clods, or structural units. These structural aggregates are held together
2
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 30
with metallic, organic, and/or colloidal coatings. Between structural aggregates are soil pore spaces
utilized by tree roots. Because of pore size and availability, tree roots heavily utilize pore space derived
from structural aggregate development.
Compaction Definition(s)
To properly discuss soil compaction as seen in the field which limits and damages tree health, a
clearer definition is needed regarding soil compaction. A more precise and accurate definition is needed
in order to discuss tree symptoms and managerial solutions. In this discussion the word compaction
will be used as a composite, generic, negative impact on tree growth and soil health. My composite
compaction concept will include soil compression, soil compaction, and soil consolidation.
Compression -- The process which damages soil around infrastructures called compaction starts
with soil compressibility or loss of soil volume. Soil compression leads to a loss of total pore space and
aeration pore space, and a increase in capillary pore space. In other words, large air-filled pore spaces
are crushed leading to more small water-filled pores. Compression is most prevalent in soils under wet
conditions.
Compaction -- The next process soil undergoes is true compaction. Compaction is the translocation and resorting of textural components in the soil (sand, silt, and clay particles), destruction of soil
aggregates, and collapse of aeration pores. Compaction is facilitated by high moisture contents.
Consolidation -- The third primary component of soil compaction is consolidation. Consolidation is the deformation of the soil destroying any pore space and structure, and water is squeezed from
the soil matrix. This process leads to increased internal bonding and soil strength as more particle to
particle contacts are made and pore space is eliminated.
The three components of the generic term soil compaction listed above do not necessarily
occur in order, or on any given soil. A general summary of compaction as applied to tree and soil health
problems would be a soil which has: loss of soil aggregates; destroyed aeration pore spaces; crushed or
collapsed pore spaces; and, undergone extensive resorting and packing of soil particles.
The depth to which a soil is compacted is determined by the compacting agent or process. Every
type of management which requires soil contact has a characteristic compaction zone / layer either at the
surface or at some given depth below the surface. Cultivation or management pans or layers form from
soil cultivation, packing of soil fills or lifts, and various types of traffic patterns. New compaction
requirements may be developed over the top of past compaction problems.
Additional Components In addition to the 3Cs of compaction listed above (compression,
compaction, consolidation), generic compaction problems can often also include crusting, puddling, and
rutting. These latter components represent the extent and depth of a damaged top surface layer of the
soil or a top seal on a soil column. In addition to compaction, these components can generate soil
conditions difficult for tree health maintenance and for effective remediation. Crusting, puddling and
rutting generate soil and tree damage similar to applying a plastic sheet to the soil surface.
Crusting is the dislocation and packing of fine particles and organic matter on the soil surface. In
addition, natural products and pollutants can be associated with the surface making a hydrophobic
surface, and preventing water and oxygen infiltration. Primary causes of crusting is the impact of rain
drops on open soil surfaces, irrigation impacts, and animal and pedestrian traffic. Small local impacts on
the soil surface help facilitate crusting.
3
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 31
Puddling and rutting develop a dense, thick crust or cap on the soil surface. The primary mechanism of damage is from destruction of soil aggregates and aeration pores through particle movements
caused by hydraulic pressure. In saturated soils under a top load, there is no place for non-compressible
water to go except to the side, squashing structure and pores. Foot and vehicle traffic under saturated
soil conditions, and equipment movement on the soil surface over shallow saturated soil layers facilitate
puddling and rutting.
Measuring Compaction
Tree health management is limited in how easily and effectively we can measure absolute and
relative soil compaction. The primary resources critical to tree growth in the soil are O2 availability, gas
exchange with the atmosphere or circulation, and soil strength values. Because of the difficulty in
simultaneously measuring these items quickly in the field, we have developed a number of approximate
measures for soil compaction. The two measure most commonly used are bulk density and soil penetration force. Unfortunately both are soil moisture content and organic matter dependent. Additionally,
bulk density and soil penetration force are not measures of the same features in the soil, and so, are not
closely correlated.
Bulk density, when collected under the right soil conditions in the right soils can provide a great
deal of information. Bulk density is the weight of the soil per unit volume (usually in g/cc). As bulk
density increases, total pore space declines and aeration pore space is destroyed. In one soil for example, a 20% increase in bulk density initiated a 68% loss of aeration pores and an increase in 7%
capillary pore space. Bulk density as a measure of soil compaction rapidly increases with the first few
impacts on the soil surfaces then levels-off. Soils can be compacted to 90-95% of what they can be
compacted to in as little as 3-4 trips over a single site. In other words, it is not years of traffic, but the
first 4 trips that does the majority of compaction.
Table 1 provides bulk densities for selected construction materials and associated pore space.
Some compacted soils have higher measured bulk densities than some common construction materials.
It is possible to find soils around infrastructures which are more dense than the wall of the building they
adjoin. Table 2 provides the formula calculation and table of values for the amount of pore space in a
soil with a given bulk density.
Tree Root Survival & Growth
Roots utilize space in the soil. The more space controlled the more potential resources controlled. The volume of soil space controlled by tree roots is directly related to tree health. The resources
required are water, oxygen, physical space for growth processes, and open soil surface area for replenishment of essential resources. Tree roots occupy the spaces and gaps around, under, and between
infrastructures. In heavily compacted sites, roots will be concentrated around the edges of infrastructures and filling any moist air space. The soil matrix is only a significant concern for essential elements,
surfaces holding biological cooperators, and frictional and inertial forces for structural integrity.
Figure 5.
Tree roots and the soil surrounding them are an ecological composite of living, once-living, and
abiotic features facilitating life. Compaction initiates many negative impacts in the soil including:
decreases the volume of ecologically active space available; tree rootable space is decreased and made
more shallow; the detritus food web, the ecological engine responsible for powering a healthy soil, is
disrupted and modified; the diversity of living things decline, beneficial associates are eliminated, and
a few ecological niche generalists succeed; and, pests favored by the new conditions (i.e. Pythium &
4
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 32
Phytophera) consume organisms and roots not able to defend themselves. Tree roots become more
prone to damage and attack at a time when sensor, defense, growth regulation, and carbon allocation
processes are functioning at reduced levels.
Root Requirements
Growth in trees may not be a positive increase in living mass, but does represent expansion of
tissues into new spaces. For roots, the tips elongate and the tissues thicken in diameter. Lateral roots
are developed adventitiously and allowed to elongate and radially thicken. Root density, mass, and
activity vary with internal and external conditions. Resources required for root growth are summarized
in Table 3.
Table 3: Brief list of root growth resource requirements.

requirements
root resource
minimal
maximum
oxygen in soil atmosphere (for root survival)

air pore space in soil (for root growth)
3%
12%
21%
60%
soil bulk density restricting root growth (g/cc)
1.4 clay
1.8 sand
penetration strength (water content dependent)
0.01kPa
3MPa
water content in soil
12%
40%
root initiation (O2% in soil atmosphere)

root growth (O2% in soil atmosphere)
progressive loss of element absorption in roots
(O2% in soil atmosphere)
12%
5%
21%
21%
10%
21%
temperature limits to root growth
40o F/4oC
94o F/34oC
pH of soil (wet test)
pH3.5
pH8.2
Roots utilize soil spaces for access to water and essential element resources, and to provide
structural support. Roots grow following pathways of interconnected soil pores. Pore space can be the
result of the space between textural units (sand, silt, and clay particles), between structural units (blocks,
plates, grains, prisms, etc.), along fracture lines (shrink / swell clays, frost heaving, pavement interfaces,
etc.), and through paths of biological origins (decayed roots, animal diggings, etc.).
Roots survive and grow where adequate water is available, temperatures are warm, and oxygen is
present. Roots are generally shallow as limited by oxygen contents, anaerobic conditions, and water
saturation in deeper soil. Near the base of the tree, deep growing roots can be found, but they are oxygenated through fissures and cracks generated as a result of mechanical forces moving the crown and
stem under wind loads (sway).
5
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 33
Growth Forces
The ability of primary root tips to enter soil pores, further open soil pores, and elongate through
soil pores is dependent upon the force generated by the root and the soil penetration resistance. Root
growth forces are generated by cell division and subsequent osmotic enlargement of each new cell .
Oxygen for respiration, and adequate water supplies are required. Figure 6. Tree roots can consume
large amounts of oxygen during elongation. At 77o F (25o C) tree roots will consume nine times their
volume in oxygen each day, at 95o F (35o C) roots can use twice that volume per day. The osmotic costs
to cells of resisting surrounding forces and elongating can be significant.
In response to increased compaction, roots thicken in diameter. Compaction also forces roots to
generate increased turgor pressures concentrated farther toward the root tip, to lignify cell walls quicker
behind the growing root tip, and to utilize a shorter zone of elongation. Thicker roots exert more force
and penetrate farther into compacted soil areas. Figure 7. As soil penetration resistance increases in
compacted soils, roots thicken to minimize their own structural failure (buckling), to exert increased
force per unit area, and to stress soil just ahead of the root cap which allows for easier penetration.
For effective root growth, pore sizes in the soil must be larger than root tips. With compaction in
a root colonization area, pore space diameters become smaller. Once soil pore diameters are less than
the diameter of main root tips, many growth problems can occur. The first noticeable root change with
compaction is morphological. The main axis of a root becomes thicker to exert more force to squeeze
into diminished sized pores. As roots thicken, growth slows and more laterals are generated of various
diameters. Lateral root tip diameters are dependent upon initiation by growth regulator and the extent of
vascular tissue connections. If laterals are small enough to fit into the pore sizes of the compacted soil,
then lateral growth will continue while the main axis of the root is constrained. If the soil pore sizes are
too small for even the lateral roots, root growth will cease. Figure 8.
Tree Species Tolerance
Across the gene combinations which comprise tree forms, there is a great variability in reactions
to soil compaction. As there are many different soils and associated responses to compaction, so too are
there many gradations of tree responses to compaction. A trees ability to tolerate compacted soil
conditions is associated with four primary internal mechanisms: reaction to mechanical damage is
effective and fast; continuation of respiration under chronic O2 shortages; ability to continue to
turnover, reorient, and adjust absorbing root systems; and, ability to deal with chemically reduced
materials (toxics).
A list of trees meeting the above criteria for soil compaction tolerance can be found in: Coder,
Kim D. 2000. Compaction Tolerant Trees. University of Georgia School of Forest Resources Extension Publication FOR00-2. 1pp. (Download at WEB site www.forestry.uga.edu/efr under tree health
care.)
Causes of Compaction
In order to understand and visualize soil compaction more completely, the underlying causes
must be appreciated. Soil compaction is primarily caused by construction and development activities,
utility installation, infrastructure use and maintenance, and concentrated animal, pedestrian, and vehicle
traffic. Below are listed individual components of how soil is compacted.
Conducive Moisture Contents For every soil type and infrastructure situation there is a soil
moisture content at which the soil can be severely compacted with minimal effort. These moisture
content levels can be used to compact a soil for construction activities, but should be avoided when
6
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 34
defending tree and soil health. Both direct impacts and vibrational energy will cause compaction when
the soil is at or near its compaction moisture content maximum. Figure 9.
Pedestrian & Animals The pounds per square inch of force exerted on the soil surface by
walking, grazing, standing, and concentrated humans and other animals can be great. Problems are most
prevalent on the edges of infrastructures such as fences, sidewalks, pavements, and buildings. Holding,
marshaling, or concentration yards allow significant force to be delivered to soil surfaces. Paths and
trails provide a guided journey of soil compaction.
Vehicles Conveyances with tracks, wheels, and glides provide a great deal of force on the soil
surface. Narrow rubber tires can transfer many pounds of compaction force to the soil. The classic
example are in-line skates and high pressure bike tires. These wheels can impact soils beyond 60lbs per
square inch. Broad, flat treads can dissipate compaction forces across more soil surface than tires, and
reduce forces exerted per square inch.
Soil Handling The movement, transport, handling, and stockpiling of soil destroys aeration
pore spaces and disrupts soil aggregates. Soil cuts, fills, and leveling compacts the soil. Soil handling
equipment can be large and heavy allowing compaction many inches deep.
Vibrations & Explosions Any mechanical energy that impacts individual soil particles can
cause compaction. Car and truck traffic can cause vibrations which compact soils effectively at higher
moisture contents. One solution to compaction in the past was use of explosives to fracture soils. The
end result was the explosive energy fractured the soil in areas but heavily compacted the soil in other
areas. Explosives damaged the soil to a degree not offset by aeration pores formed.
Intentional Manipulations In order for infrastructures to be built and maintained, the supporting soil must be properly compacted. Because of how forces in soil are distributed beneath infrastructures, a compacted pad with slanted base sides must be build. This process assures that infrastructure
edges, bases, and lifts (compacted fill layers) are heavily compacted. The only space available for tree
root colonization are fracture lines and coarse building materials where large air spaces occur. The
greater the compaction, the closer to the surface the soil anaerobic layer develops, decreasing effective
rooting volume.
A note needs to be made here regarding pavements. Soil is a complex material with a unique
thermal and moisture expansion and contraction pattern. Soil expands and contracts over a day, season,
and year at different rates than adjacent pavement or hard infrastructures. As a result, fissures and
fracture lines filled with air occupy the interface between soil and infrastructures. These aeration pore
spaces can be effectively colonized by tree roots. If infrastructures are not ecologically-literate in their
construction, tree roots can generate enough mechanical force to accentuate any faults present.
In addition to the aeration pore space from structure / soil interfaces, the coarse sub-grade and
paving bed materials can provide moist aeration pore space for tree root colonization. The interface
between pavement and its bedding material can be a well aerated and moist growing environment.
Compaction may have caused anaerobic condition to be found close to the surface under pavement while
the pavement bed may provide a secure colonization space for tree roots. Physical or chemical root
barriers may be needed to prevent root colonization of infrastructure aeration spaces.
Water Interactions Water influences soil conditions conducive for compaction as well as
providing energy directly to the soil surface for compaction. Direct irrigation impacts from sprinklers or
7
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 35
rainfall hitting the soil surface can cause crusting and compaction. Piling of snow in winter when the
soil is frozen compacts little, but large snow drifts remaining on-site as soils begin to thaw can lead to
compaction from direct contact as well as from maintaining high moisture concentrations allowing for
long periods of compaction susceptibility.
Soil saturation allows for hydraulic pressure to destroy soil aggregates and move fine particles
into aeration pore spaces. Flooding events can lead to dissolved aggregate coatings and aggregate
stability loss. Erosional processes across the surface of the soil and particle movement within the top
portions of the soil (dislocated fine particles) can lead to aeration pore space loss and crusting.
Organic Matter Loss Organic matter is the fuel, short-term building blocks of soil structure,
and supply warehouse for living things in the soil. As organic matter decomposes and mineralizes
without adequate replacement, soil becomes more compacted. Bulk density increases and aggregate
stability declines as organic matter is burned out of the soil.
Functional Results of Compaction
Having reviewed the primary means by which soils become compacted, the results of compaction can be estimated for tree and soil health.
Destruction of soil aggregates and large pore spaces The pore spaces from cracks, interface surfaces,
biotic excavations, organic particle decomposition, and normal soil genesis processes help oxygenate the
soil matrix. By definition, compaction results in the destruction of soil aggregates and aeration pore
spaces. Pore spaces filled with O2 and interconnected with other aeration spaces exchanging gases with
the atmosphere are critical to a healthy soil and tree root system. The destruction of aeration spaces
surrounding soil aggregates can be unrecoverable.
Resorting / redistribution of particles (Change in particle distribution) Particles of soils are redistributed into new locations, many of which are open pore spaces in the soil matrix. Through processes
of packing, erosion, and cultivation many fine particles can fill-in the spaces surrounding other particles,
as well as the spaces between structural aggregates. Some soil types can be compacted more easily
through this process than others. Mid-textured soils with a mix of particle sizes can be strongly compacted due to particle size availability to fill any size of pore space.
Total pore space changes (Change in pore space distribution) Compaction initiates a redistribution
of pore sizes within the soil matrix. Large pores are destroyed and small pore are generated. The total
pore space of the compacting soil initially increases as more capillary pores are created as aeration pores
are lost. With increasing compaction, soil strength increases and pore space declines. Figure 10.
Aeration pore space destruction The crushing collapse of aeration pores facilitates the upward
movement of the anaerobic layer. There are always anaerobic and aerobic micro-sites in and around
soils aggregates within the surface layers of soil. The dynamic proportions of each type of micro-site
changes with each rainfall event and each day of transpiration. Compaction shifts proportional dominance in the soil to anaerobic sites. With further compaction, aerobic sites are concentrated closer and
closer to the surface until little available rooting volume remains. Table 4 lists root-limiting aeration
pore space percentages in soils of various textures. Air pore space less than 15% is severely limiting.
8
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 36
Table 4.
Root growth limiting air-pore space values by soil texture.
soil texture
root-limiting
% pores normally
filled with air
sand
fine sand
sandy loam
fine sandy loam
24%
21
19
15
loam
silt loam
clay loam
clay
14
17
11
13
Increased mechanical impedance Compaction brings soil particles into closer contact with each other
(less moisture and/or greater bulk density). Closer contact increases surface friction and soil strength.
As soil strength increases and pore sizes decrease, the ability of roots to grow and colonize soil spaces
declines rapidly. With compaction, soil strength reaches a level where roots can not exert enough force
to push into pore spaces. Pore space average diameters significantly smaller than average root diameters
are not utilized by tree roots. Figure 11. Table 5 lists root-limiting bulk densities by soil texture. The
texture and bulk density must be known to estimate compaction impacts.
Table 5.
Root growth limiting bulk density values by soil texture.
soil texture
root-limiting
bulk density
(g/cc)
sand
fine sand
sandy loam
fine sandy loam
1.8 g/cc
1.75
1.7
1.65
loam
silt loam
clay loam
clay
1.55
1.45
1.5
1.4
Connectivity of aeration pores decreased The aeration pathway (lifeline) from the atmosphere to the
root surface through all the interconnected aeration pores declines quickly with compaction. As the
9
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 37
tortuosity of the oxygen supply path increases, the closer to the surface the anaerobic layer moves. As
pore sizes become smaller with compaction, more of the pore space is filled with water. Water-filled
pores diffuse O2 at rates 7,000 to 10,000 times slower than air-filled pores. With all the other aerobes
and roots in the soil competing for the same oxygen, oxygen limitations become severe. Figure 12.
Poor aeration Compaction constrains O2 movement in the soil and shifts soil toward anaerobic
conditions. Less O2 diffusion into the soil leads to a chemically reducing soil environment (both the soil
solution and soil atmosphere). Under these conditions, toxins and unusable essential element forms are
generated. In addition, organic matter is not mineralized or decomposed.
A soil anaerobic respiration sequence is initiated among bacteria starting with nitrogen and
moving through manganese, iron, and sulfur, ending with carbon (fermentation of roots). Tree roots are
aerobes as are root symbionts and co-dependent species of soil organisms. Less oxygen prevents
growth, defense, and survival in aerobes. Roots use available food 20 times more inefficiently under
near anaerobic conditions. Less oxygen also allows common pathogenic fungi which have oxygen
demands must less than tree roots to thrive. As O2 concentration falls below 5% in the soil atmosphere,
severe root growth problems occur. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15.
Poor gas exchange with atmosphere Compaction prevent gas exchange with the atmosphere. Compaction prevent O2 from moving to root surfaces, but also prevents CO2 and toxics (both evolved and
resident) from being removed from around the roots and vented to the atmosphere. Poor gas exchange
allows the anaerobic layer to move closer to the surface and reduce rooting volume. As CO2 comprises
more than 5% of the soil atmosphere, problems of aeration become compounded. As CO2 climbs above
15% in soils, root growth dysfunctions accelerate. Figure 16.
Less tree available water / Less water holding capacity One of the most ignored result of compaction
is it effects on soil water availability. Soil compaction reduces the tree available water held in the large
capillary pores and increases the volume of small capillary pores which hold water unavailable to trees.
With the decreasing number of large capillary pores and increasing number of small capillary pores, the
total water holding capacity of the soil declines. Irrigation scheduling and monitoring becomes critical
around trees in compacted soils. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20.
Decreased infiltration rates / Increased surface erosion Compaction leads to smaller pore spaces and
slower infiltration rates. With increasing residency time at the soil surface, water can horizontally move
across the surface of the soil initiating erosion. Over the top of compacted soil, water can reach faster
velocities (more erosion potential) than in areas where it infiltrates easily.
Poor internal drainage Compaction prevents effective drainage of soils. Poor internal drainage limits
tree available water, prevents O2 movement, and increases production and residence time of CO2 and
toxics.
Increased heat conductance Compaction changes the energy and water balance near the surface of the
soil. With more particle to particle contact, heat transfer is greater into the soil. Results include burning-out of organic matter quicker, acceleration of evaporative and transpirational water loss, and increased respiration of roots and soil organisms. As temperature increases, respiration responds along a
doubling sequence path for every 18o F (10o C) increase in temperature, respiration doubles.
10
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 38
Tree Root Impacts of Compaction

Compaction impacts tree in many ways. Generally, compaction associated physiological dysfunctions cause systemic damage and decline, as well as failures in dealing with additional environmental changes. Physical / mechanical constraints negatively modify responses in the tree resulting in
inefficient use of essential resources. The symptoms we see in trees under compacted soil conditions
have causes stemming from disruptions of the internal sense, communication, and response process.
Biological Disruptions
Compaction disrupts respiration processes which power every function of the tree. Growth
regulators are destroyed prematurely or allowed to buildup, causing wild changes in tissue reactions.
Carbon allocation patterns, following highly modified growth regulation patterns, change food production, storage, use, and transport processes. Defensive capabilities with degraded sensor functions,
associated growth regulator communications, and ineffective food use, is slow to react and incomplete in
response. With compaction, short-term fluctuations in resource quality and quantity must be effectively
dealt with and resulting chronic stress must be tolerated.
The presence of toxic materials can be highly disruptive to soil health. As oxygen concentrations
decline, more reduced compounds (only partially oxidized) are generated by the tree roots and associated soil organisms. These reduced compound can buildup and damage organisms and move the soil
toward anaerobic conditions. In normal soils, these materials (if produced at all) are quickly oxidized or
removed from near tree roots. In compacted soil, normally produced materials, materials produced
under low oxygen conditions, and anaerobically produced compounds are not oxidized nor removed
from where they are produced. The longer the residence time of some of these materials, the more
damage.
The structure of the tree can also be directly and indirectly impacted by compacted soils. Root
decline and death can lead to catastrophic structural failures. Tissue death and subsequent compartmentalization processes can compound mechanical faults. Growth regulation and carbon allocation changes
can modify stem and root collar taper and reaction wood development. Whole tree stress can result in
tissue shedding internally to heartwood and externally. Top and root dieback as well as branch drop can
be the result. Reduced rooting volume mechanically destabilizes the whole tree.
Compaction Effects
Major soil compaction effects on trees are defined below:
Reduced elongation growth As compaction increases, roots are physically prevented from elongating
into the soil by lack of O2, by decreasing pore size, and by increased soil strength. As roots are put
under greater than 1.2 MPa of pressure, elongation slows and stops. Figure 21.
Reduced radial growth Trees begin to generate thick and short roots with many more lateral roots as
surrounding soil pressure exceeds 0.5 Mpa. O2 shortages and soil strength are major limitations.
Essential element collection and control problems With less colonizable soil volume, there is less
physical space to collect resources from and less resources within that space. With declining respiration
processes, energy requiring steps in active element uptake (i.e. N, P, S) fail. Part of the difficulty in
collecting essential resources is a buildup of toxics which pollute any existing essential resource supply.
11
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 39
Shallow rooting As roots survive in a steadily diminishing aerobic layer, and as the anaerobic layer
expands toward the surface, the physical space available for living roots declines. The consequences of
having smaller volumes of colonizable space at the surface of the soil means roots and their resources
are subject to much greater fluctuation in water, heat loading, and mechanical damage. Drought and heat
stress can quickly damage roots in this small layer of oxygenated soil.
Constrained size, reach, and extent of root systems Compaction limits the depth and reach of tree root
systems leading to greater probability of windthrow and accentuating any structural problems near the
stem base / root collar area. Limiting the reach of the root system also prevents effective reactions to
changes in mechanical loads on the tree and concentrates stress and strain in smaller areas.
Stunted whole tree form As resources are limited by soil compaction and more effort is required to
seek and colonize resource volumes, trees are stunted. The disruption of growth regulation produces
stunting as auxin / cytokinin ratios shift resource allocations and use. In addition, carbohydrate and
protein synthesis rates enter decline cycles interfering with nitrogen and phosphorous uptake, which inturn disrupts carbohydrate and protein synthesis. The result is a tree with a small living mass and with
limited ability to take advantage of any short-term changes in resource availability.
Seedling establishment and survival problems Micro-site variability in compaction levels and a
limited resource base constrain young and newly planted trees. Less of a bulk density increase and
crusting effect are needed for failure of new trees compared with older, established trees.
Root crushing and shearing-off The mechanical forces generated in compacting a soil can crush roots,
especially roots less than 2 mm in diameter. Larger root can be abraded and damaged. Rutting can
shear-off roots as soil is pushed to new locations. The amount of crushing is dependent on root size and
depth, weight of the compacting device, soil organic material, and depth to the saturated layer (for
rutting). Figure 22.
Fewer symbionts / codependents Soil compaction puts selective pressure against aerobes and favors
low O2 requiring organisms, like Pythium and Phytophera root rots, or anaerobes. Because of the
destruction of the detritus energy web coupled with successional changes, recovery of soils to precompaction conditions may not be possible. Management must move forward to new solutions for
resource availability and deal with new patterns of pest management since returning to the soil microbiology and rhizosphere of pre-compaction is impossible.
Renovation of Sites
Principles -- A summary of this discussion of soil compaction lies with those general principles
and renovation techniques managers must use to reclaim a part of the ecological integrity of the site, as
well as soil and tree health. General soil compaction renovation principles are listed below in a bullet
format:
Soil compaction should be considered permanent. Studies demonstrate that after one-half century,
compaction still afflicts soils under natural forest conditions. Recovery times for significant compaction
is at least two human generations. Soils do not come back from compaction.
Every soil used by humankind has a representative compacted layer, zone, area, or crust. Changing
management may not change the current compacted zone but may well add an additional compacted
zone in a new position.
12
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 40
Management activities should concentrate on moving forward to increased aeration space and reduced
soil strength as best you can, rather than trying to recover past ecological history.
Measure bulk density, penetration force, O2 diffusion rates, and tree available water. These are the
best proxy measures we have to understand soil compaction and its impacts on trees. More careful and
direct measures of soil compaction constraints on tree growth are expensive and difficult to make.
Alleviation of soil compaction is part of a good soil health management plan.
Use extreme caution in management of water over and in compacted soils. Compaction provides little
margin for error for drainage, aeration, infiltration, and water holding capacity of tree available water.
(Wet soil / dry tree problems).
Seek the assistance of a tree and soil specialist to avoid tree-illiteracy problems on compacted soils.
Techniques Once the general principles of working with compacted soils are digested, the
next requirement is to identify some techniques for renovating compacted soils. These recommendations are generic across many situations and soil types. General techniques are listed below in a bullet
format:
Restrict site access to the soil surface as soon as possible with fences and fines (legal penalties). Try
to be the first one on the site and setup anti-compaction protection.
Defend the ecological foot print of the tree rooting area. Select working conditions (dry, dormant
season, surface mulch, etc) that minimizes compaction.
Restrict where possible vibrational compaction.
Carefully design tree growth areas using biology-first design processes rather than the common (and
damaging) aesthetics-first design processes.
Try to soften and distribute compaction forces with temporary heavy mulch, plywood driving pads,
and soil moisture content awareness planning.
-- Restart or improve the detritus energy web in the soil including addition of organic matter and living
organisms, as well as trying to change soil physical properties by increasing aeration pore space.
Conclusions
Soil compaction is a hidden stressor which steals health and sustainability from soil and tree
systems. Causes of compaction are legion and solutions limited. Without creative actions regarding the
greening of inter-infrastructural spaces in our communities, we will spend most of our budgets and
careers treating symptoms and replacing trees. Understanding the hideous scourge of soil compaction is
essential to better, corrective management.
For more information on this subject review papers listed in the following reference: Coder,
Kim D. 2000. Trees and Soil Compaction: A Selected Bibliography. University of Georgia School of
Forest Resources Extension Publication FOR00-1. 2pp. (Download at WEB site www.forestry.uga.edu/
efr under tree health care.)
13
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 41
Figure 1: Cause and effect processes under

soil compaction.
1
2
continued use and / or

periodic heavy use on site
compaction
(+25-33% BD)
change in soil health
change in tree health
accelerates ecological
exhaustion
(biotics & resources)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 42
small
pores
%
0% sand
100% clay
50
40
50% sand
50% clay
30
20
100% sand
0% clay
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
large pores %
50
Figure 2: Large and small pore

space percentages in various
sand / clay mixtures.
(after Harris et.al. 1999)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 43
Figure 3:
Pore size definitions.
I. AERATION PORES
aeration pores
>60
m diameter
macro-pores
II.CAPILLARY PORES
1. available water pores
0.2 -- 60
m diameter
meso-pores
2. unavailable water pores
<0.2
m diameter
micro-pores
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 44
macro-pore
percent in soil
30
29%
20
10
7%
sand
sandy
loam
loam
clay
loam
clay
soil texture
Figure 4:
Macro-pore space by
soil texture.
(after Craul 1999)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 45
Table 1: Physical attributes of

selected construction materials.
(from Patterson)
material
BD
particle
density
cinder
block
1.70
2.64
36%
clay
brick
1.75
2.72
36%
asphalt
2.19
2.35
7%
concrete
2.26
2.47
9%
g/cc
g/cc
%
volume
units
pore
space

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 46
Table 2: Calculation of pore space from bulk

density and avaerage mineral density.
% pore space = (1 - BD / 2.65) x 100

BD (g/cc)
% pore space
0.9
1.0
1.1
66
62
58
1.2
1.3
1.4
55
51
47
1.5
1.6
1.7
43
40
36
1.8
1.9
2.0
32
28
25
2.1
2.2
21
17

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 47
soil surface
high O2,
low CO2,
low strength,
high aeration pores
ROOTING
AREA
DEAD
ZONE
low O2,
high CO2,
high strength,
low aeration pores
compaction
Figure 5: Graphical representaion
of compaction effects on soil.
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 48
m
g
10
oxygen
15
20
(%O 2 )
Figure 6: Maximum root growth

force expressed by seedlings at
various oxygen concentrations.
(after Souty & Stepniewski 1988)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 49
maximum
root growth
force (N)
2.0
1.6
1.2
.8
.4
.5
.9
1.3
1.7
2.1
root tip diameter (mm)

Figure 7: Maximum root growth
force by root tip diameter.
(after Misra et.al. 1986)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 50
root
elongation (%)
100
80
60
40
20
.2 .4
.6 .8 1.0
pressure applied (bars)
Figure 8: Pressure applied to roots
that limit elongation.
(after Rendig & Taylor 1989; Russell,
1977)
(1 MPa =100 kPa . 1 bar)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 51
bulk
density
2.1
2.0
(g/cc)
sand
+
+
1.9
sandy
loam
+ clay
1.8
1.7
loam
+
1.6
1.5
4
12
16
20
clay
loam
24
moisture content (%)

Figure 9: Maximum compaction
capacity by moisture content.
(after Craul 1994)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 52
relative
pore
volume
0.2m
60m
10
non-compacted
8
6
4
compacted
2
0
0
1
10
100
pore diameter (
m)
Figure 10: Soil pore diameters and

relative volumes under
non-compacted (1.4 g/cc) and
compacted (1.8 g/cc) conditions.
(after Jim 1999)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 53
relative
soil
strength
4
3
2
1
0
.75
1.0
1.25
1.5
bulk density (g/cc)
Figure 11: Relative soil strength

with increasing bulk density values.
(after Craul 1994)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 54
soil
depth
(cm)
0
relative O2 diffusion rates

0
1
2
3
4
5
5
10
25
t
r
30
20
15
Figure 12: Relative oxygen (O2)

diffusion rates with increasing soil
compaction. (after Kelsey 1994)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 55
soil
depth
(in)
treatments
-C
+O2
-C
-O2
+C
+O2
0-1
1-5
5-10
+C
-O2
+
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
+ = average
depth
Figure 13: Compaction (+ 28%) and

oxygen (- 5%) impacts on tree
rooting depths. (after Gilman et.al. 1987)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 56
1.3 g/cc
1.5 g/cc
6
5
4
1.6 g/cc
root
3
2
1.7 g/cc
1.9 g/cc
12 16
oxygen %
20
Figure 14: Percent oxygen and

bulk density effects on root
penetration. (after Rendig & Taylor 1989)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 57
root
growth
pressure
(MPa)
4
3
2
1
5
10 15
20
oxygen (%)
Figure 15: Root growth pressure

by oxygen concentration.
(after Souty & Stepniewski 1988)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 58
root
growth
100%
75%
1.3BD
50%
1.5BD
25%
1.6BD
1.7BD
0%
0
12
16 20
24
soil CO2 conc. %
Figure 16: Carbon dioxide (CO2)

concentrations in the soil
and bulk density impacts
on root growth. (after Patterson)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 59
relative
water
content
(per foot of soil)
field
capacity
4
3
tree available
water
2
1
tree unavailable
water
0
sand
sandy
loam
loam
clay
loam
clay
soil texture
Figure 17: Tree-available water

present at different soil textures.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 60
relative
water
content
tree available
water
(per foot of soil)
4
3
2
1
tree unavailable
water
0
sand
sandy
loam
loam
clay
loam
clay
soil texture
Figure 18: Tree-available water

present at different soil textures
under compaction.
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 61
percent
in soil
30
total storage
capacity
air
pores
20
tree available
water
10
coarse
sand
sand
sandy
loam
loam
soil texture
clay
loam
clay
Figure 19: Water storage capacity

in normal soil. (after Craul 1999)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 62
percent
in soil
total storage
capacity
30
air
pores
20
10
tree available
water
coarse
sand
sand
sandy
loam
loam
soil texture
clay
loam
clay
Figure 20: Water storage capacity

under compaction. (after Craul 1999)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 63
rate
elongation
3
2
1
.5
1.5
soil resistance
(MPa)
Figure 21: Soil penetration

resistance and root elongation
rate. (after Rendig & Taylor 1989)
(1 MPa =100 kPa . 1 bar)
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 64
weight of
machine
(tons)
20
15
10
5
0
0ft
1ft
2ft
3ft
compaction depth
Figure 22: Depth of soil

compaction under machines of
various weights. (after Randrup 1999)

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 65
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Karen FERLITO
Rob Mullane; Doug Schmitz
Walker tract term
Friday, June 12, 2015 9:05:21 AM
Just a note to say that care should be taken when using the walker tract as a possible exception to policy with regard
to lawns. I believe that my home and the homes along Junipero, Mission, and Ridgewood are also in the Walker
Tract and are quite wooded. They, too were annexed. While a few have lawns existing, many do not. The area
South of Santa Lucia is also a mix of various degrees of wooded area. The McCloud residence is along Santa Lucia
and some of the homes in that part of the Walker Tract have fewer trees, but not all have lawns either. So as the
city develops policy it may be good to explore it by neighborhoods rather than use the blanket term Walker Tract.
We don't really want to encourage big changes in landscaping just because they are in Walker Tract.
As you have surmised, I favor a complete ban on plastic lawns anywhere in Carmel. They are bad for the
environment in every phase of their existence from manufacturing to landfilling. They could be the death of trees
and habitat in cbts.
We desperately need a summit on trees, tree root zones, construction impacts and BMP with regard to the urban
forest.
Thanks for listening.
Karen Ferlito
Sent from my iPad.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 66
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Ferlito
Rob Mullane; LePage Michael; Don Goodhue
Hugo Ferlito
good article about lawn removal, etc.
Monday, June 15, 2015 3:40:14 PM
WebPage.pdf
http://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/174

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 67
43885 SOUTH GRIMMER BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 5110, FREMONT, CALIFORNIA 94537-5110
(510) 668-4200 FAX (510) 770-1793 www.acwd.org
Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Water-Efficient Landscape Rebate Program

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
How much is the rebate?
The rebate is one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of lawn converted. The maximum rebate for
residential single family residential sites is $1,500 and for multi-family residential and nonresidential sites is $20,000. Rebates will be issued in the form of a check.
Who is eligible to participate?
The Program is available to residential and non-residential customers (Applicants) who purchase
water from Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The Applicants water account must be in
good standing.
What lawn areas are eligible for the Program?
Lawn areas to be converted must be front yards or areas visible to the general public from
sidewalks or walkways. Backyards or areas that are not visible to the public may be considered
after the removal of all lawn in visible areas. One of the goals of the Program is to provide
visible examples of water-efficient landscapes in the community.
Lawn areas to be converted must be maintained, irrigated and in healthy condition.
A minimum of 200 square feet of lawn must be converted. Smaller projects will be considered if
they eliminate 100% of the front, or publicly visible lawn on the Applicants property.
What plants can I use in my water-efficient landscape?
California native or climate-appropriate plants that require little or no supplemental irrigation.
Please visit www.acwd.org for a list of plant resources.
I already replaced my lawn with water-efficient plants. Can I get a rebate?
No. The program is not retroactive and cannot provide rebate for projects that were started prior
to receiving a Notice To Proceed letter from ACWD. The Program is intended to provide an
incentive to retrofit existing lawns.
Can I receive a rebate for replacing my lawn with artificial lawn/turf?
No. Artificial turf is not eligible for a rebate. ACWD made this decision for the following
reasons: (1) Artificial turf does not last forever and ultimately has to be disposed of in a landfill,
(2) Artificial turf does not provide habitat for any living species, and (3) Concerns have been
raised about the environmental impacts of artificial turf on underlying soil and groundwater, as
well as the health impacts to individuals who play on the artificial turf.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 68
Can I receive a rebate for installing a concrete patio, a walkway or an extension to my

driveway?
No. The program does not allow non-permeable hardscape. However, permeable hardscape,
such as gravel, brick or flagstone with permeable, mortar-less material for grout lines (such as
sand and gravel) are allowed in up to 50 percent of the converted area. The remainder of the
converted area must be covered in live plants.
Can I receive a rebate for replacing a dead lawn?
No. The purpose of the Program is to reduce existing water demand. Lawn areas to be
converted must be currently maintained, in healthy condition and irrigated.
Can I receive a rebate for replacing my high water use lawn with low water use lawn?
No. This program provides incentive to convert lawns to alternative types of water-efficient
landscaping, including trees, shrubs, groundcovers and native bunch grasses. One of the goals of
the Program is to provide visual examples of water-efficient landscapes that can be alternatives
to lawns.
Can I receive a rebate for replacing high water use plants other than lawn?
No. The Program only credits the lawn that is converted.
How do I get rid of my existing lawn?
There are many ways that you can remove an existing lawn. Manual removal is one of the
fastest ways to kill grass and requires no toxic chemicals. Methods of manual removal vary but
commonly include the use of a spade or a sod cutter. The sheets of removed sod can be
discarded or laid out in the sun to dry before being added to a compost bin. Smothering is
another way. Entire lawns can be killed at once by smothering. Two major options can be used.
First, you can harness the heat of the sun by covering the grass with a plastic sheet weighed
down at the edges. The heat of the sun and the lack of water will bake the grass and kill it over
the course of two to three months. Alternatively, if you want to plant over the grass
immediately, use cardboard. Place a layer of cardboard, overlapping over the grass followed by
6-8 inches of compost or topsoil. The underlying grass will die and you can plant new
vegetation immediately into the compost layer.
What is mulch and why is it required?
The most common types of mulch are bark chips, shredded bark and wood chips. Non-organic
materials, such as rock or decomposed granite, can also be used as mulch. Mulch will reduce the
amount of water that evaporates from the soil. It also acts as an insulating layer, keeping the soil
cooler in the summer. Finally mulch keeps the weeds down. The Program requires that
converted areas have a minimum of three inches (3) of mulch in all planting areas.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 69
What is the 50 percent plant cover rule?

Converted areas must contain enough plants to cover at least 50 percent of the converted area
with living plant cover when the plants are fully grown. To determine if your landscape plan
will meet this requirement, check the mature growth size for each plant you are using. For
example a 1,000 square foot converted area must contain a sufficient number of plants such that,
at maturity, the plants cover at least 500 square feet.
Why is there a 50 percent plant cover rule?
The primary goal of the program is to reduce water use by removing water-thirsty lawns.
However, this program also encourages the use of water-efficient landscaping to maintain
aesthetically pleasing sustainable landscaping. Trees, shrubs and groundcovers provide shade,
absorb carbon dioxide, supply oxygen, reduce soil erosion, give wildlife a home, decrease energy
use, reduce storm water run-off, and save water.
What type of irrigation system do I need to use?
An irrigation system is not required in the converted area. An existing sprinkler irrigation
system in the converted area must be removed, capped in place, or converted to a low volume
drip. A new irrigation system installed in the converted area must be low volume drip, equipped
with proper backflow prevention, a rainfall shutoff valve, a pressure regulator, filter and pressure
compensating emitters. The irrigation system in the converted area must be in good working
order, and free of leaks and malfunctions. If only part of the lawn area is converted, the
converted area must be irrigated on a separate valve from the remaining lawn. The sprinkler
system for the remaining lawn must be modified to only irrigate the remaining lawn area and
may not spray onto the converted area.
How many times can I apply for the rebate?
Eligible customers may participate one time per water account.
What would it mean if I allowed my converted landscape to be showcased?
If you elect to allow your converted landscape to be showcased, that would mean the following
things:
You may be asked to display signage in your yard indicating that yours is a water
efficient landscape that participated in ACWDs Water-Efficient Landscape Rebate
Program.
Pictures of your landscape may be posted on ACWDs website to promote the Program.
Pictures of your landscape may be used in promotional materials for the Program by
ACWD.
You may be asked if your garden may be included on a local garden tour.
Your address may be listed next to a picture of your garden on ACWDs website so that
other interested parties may view the landscape in person.
Call 510-668-6534 or visit www.acwd.org for more information.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 70
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Karen FERLITO
Doug Schmitz; Rob Mullane; Mike Branson; jason burnett; Carrie Theis Council; Council Member Beach; Ken
Talmage Council; Steve Dallas Council; Michael LePage; Goodhue Don
Santa Monica Office of Sustainability and the Environment
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 12:06:47 PM
We could learn a lot about how to inform the public about landscape, etc. if we had a website like this one that states
our standards, etc. check out the landscape section.
They do not support using artificial turf and do not issue rebates for it.
Maybe it's time for a sustainability workshop.
http://www.smgov.net/departments/ose/
Karen Ferlito
Sent from my iPad.

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 71
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Doug Schmitz
Rob Mullane
FW: Artificial turf position in Santa Monica, please include in city council agenda packet for July 7.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:04:06 AM
WebPage.pdf
From: Ferlito [mailto:ferlito@pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:09 PM
To: Doug Schmitz
Cc: Karen Ferlito
Subject: Artificial turf position in Santa Monica, please include in city council agenda packet for July 7.
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Landscape/Why_Artificial_Turf_is_not_rebated.pdf

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 72
City of Santa Monica

Office of Sustainability and the Environment
1717 4th Street, Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90401
www.sustainablesm.org/landscape
Why Artificial Turf is not rebated

The City of Santa Monicas Cash for Grass Rebate Program improves landscape water use
efficiency and encourages holistic landscaping practices that will minimize environmental
impact. A holistic approach to landscaping fosters soil health, conserves water and other
valuable resources, reduces waste, and prevents pollution. Artificial turf is not consistent with a
holistic landscaping approach and therefore, is not rebated through the Cash for Grass Rebate
Program for the following reasons:
Artificial turf does not support bio-diversity
o A diverse landscape may resist disease and insect pests better than those with
little variety, while providing a higher habitat value
Artificial turf does not foster soil health. Healthy living soil will:
o Increase microbial activity which helps cycle nutrients and filter pollutants
o Increase water holding capacity
o Improve water quality
Production of (virgin) synthetic turf components are associated with significant
greenhouse gas emissions
o This is increased when considering the entire life cycle, due to related increases
in processing and transportation needs
Artificial turf is not easily recycled
o Cost and lack of infrastructure are an issue to end-of -life recycling of artificial turf
o It ends up in the landfill
Artificial turf can be a contributor to the heat island effect
o Artificial turf has no ability to sequester carbon
Without a built-in drainage system, artificial turf can lead to excessive runoff
o Any existing chemicals may runoff directly into storm drains and waterways
without the beneficial filtration that live vegetation or mulch provides
Levels of zinc, selenium, lead and cadmium leaching into the groundwater from crumb
rubber underlayment may be significant. More research needs to be done (report from
Environment and Human Health, Inc: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/ )
For more information, please call (310) 458-8972 or visit www.sustainablesm.org/landscape.
Content courtesy of
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 73
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Ferlito
Rob Mullane; Ashlee Wright; Doug Schmitz
Re: Frass
Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:41:37 PM
Frass.docx
SM guidelines.docx
oops. I will try again.
Karen Ferlito
"Live well, do good work, keep in touch"....Garrison Keillor
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:15 AM, Rob Mullane <RMullane@ci.carmel.ca.us> wrote:
Karen,
There was no attachment or content in the email to pass along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert A. Mullane, AICP
Community Planning and Building Director
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Drawer G
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
main (831) 620-2010
direct (831) 620-2057
rmullane@ci.carmel.ca.us
From: Ferlito [mailto:ferlito@pacbell.net]

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:15 PM
To: Doug Schmitz; Rob Mullane
Subject: Frass
Please include in package for City Council Agenda for July 7, 2015
Thank you.
Karen Ferlito
"Live well, do good work, keep in touch"....Garrison Keillor

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 74
Artificial Turf, Plastic Grass, AstroTurf, Frass (fake grass): JUST SAY NO!
Carmel by the Sea should lead by example and just say no to the installation of
artificial turf anywhere within the city limits. CBTS should strive to become a more
sustainable village and require natural and native landscapes that protect the Citys
forest, beach and parks, its design traditions and history of being different and
unique.
CBTS Landscape and Design guidelines and policies should be ones that improve
landscape water use efficiency and encourage landscaping practices that will
minimize environmental impact. A natural and rustic approach to landscaping
fosters soil health, conserves water and other valuable resources, reduces waste,
and prevents pollution. Our Landscape and Design guidelines emphasize the health
of our urban forest. Artificial turf is not consistent with a natural and healthy
landscaping approach, requires compaction of the soil which is harmful to tree root
systems and therefore, should not be permitted as a landscape choice or as an
alternative to a natural lawn.
Artificial turf does not support bio-diversity. A diverse landscape may resist disease
and insect pests better than those with little variety, while providing a higher
habitat value.
Artificial turf does not foster soil health. Healthy living sol will increase microbial
activity, which helps cycle nutrients, and filter pollutants. Healthy living soil
increases water-holding capacity and improves water quality.
Production of (virgin) synthetic turf components is associated with significant

greenhouse gas emissions. This is increased when considering the entire life cycle
(10-15 years) due to related increases in processing and transportation needs.
Artificial turf is not easily recycled. Cost and lack of infrastructure are an issue to
end-of-life recycling of artificial turf. It most often ends up in a landfill.
Artificial turf installation requires the removal of 3-5 inches of healthy soil, and a
layer of base rock, which is then compacted. Often an additional layer of foam is
installed on top of the base rock once the soil is removed. Once healthy soil is
compacted the area is generally unfit for conversion back to healthy soil. Tree root
systems (which are located predominately in the top 6 to 24 inches of soil and may
stretch as much as 50 feet from the trunk in all directions) provide life sustaining
nourishment and water to the existing trees and are destroyed in the compaction
process. Roots grow where water, minerals and oxygen are found in the soil and are
usually located in the upper surface layer of soil. Soil removal removes layers of
roots and then compaction reduces the air pockets Most trees that have their roots
disturbed or removed and the soil around them compacted will be stressed and
susceptible to disease and insects. Adding plastic on top restricts or suffocates
roots. Symptoms of root problems from construction damage or other detrimental
Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 75
activities may appear one to several years after the damage occurred. Once a tree
root system is severely affected the tree will fail within a few years and usually have
to be removed. Tree root systems in a neighboring yard may be severely disturbed
by artificial turf installed next door.
Artificial turf can be a contributor to a heat island effect. While this seems unlikely
in our present climate; with the loss of tree canopy and increased solar exposure
this could become a problem in the future.
Artificial turf has no ability to sequester carbon. Natural plantings do.
Artificial turf can lead to excessive runoff. Any existing chemicals may runoff
directly into storm drains and waterways. Without the beneficial filtration that live
vegetation or mulch provides trees and native plants die of thirst. Living near the
Monterey Marine Bay Sanctuary should require no toxic runoff. Levels of zinc,
selenium, lead and cadmium leaching into the groundwater from crumb rubber
underlayment and infill may be significant.
Artificial turf provides habitat for absolutely nothing. No birds, no bees, no critters
and no living plants grow in it. It is like paving a yard with asphalt. As such, it
should be considered site coverage.
Artificial turf is not maintenance free. It must be raked or blown to remove leaves
and needles so they do not decay into it and make soil. It must be rinsed off to
remove bacteria from pet, bird and critter waste. Some types require regular infill
renewal in order to remain upright. In hot climates it must be hosed down to cool it
off.
Artificial turf comes in a variety of styles, colors and qualities. Some look fairly real,
but others look like a pool table top left out to wrinkle and fade. This could create a
significant headache for city officials during permitting and inspection processes. It
could require a lot of follow-up to see that what was specified was actually installed.
And, when it starts to look its age, this too could require city inspections and
requirements that it be removed and replaced.
There are so many, many reasons to just say no to any installation of artificial turf.
Karen and Hugo Ferlito

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 76
Carmel by the Sea Landscape design guidelines and policies should be ones that improves
landscape water use efficiency and encourages holistic landscaping practices that will
minimize environmental impact. A holistic approach to landscaping fosters soil health,
conserves water and other valuable resources, reduces waste, and prevents pollution.
Artificial turf is not consistent with a holistic landscaping approach and therefore, should
not be permitted as a landscape choice or as an alternative to a natural lawn.
Artificial turf does not support bio-diversity
o A diverse landscape may resist disease and insect pests better than those with little
variety, while providing a higher habitat value
Artificial turf does not foster soil health. Healthy living soil will:
o Increase microbial activity which helps cycle nutrients and filter pollutants
o Increase water holding capacity
o Improve water quality
Production of (virgin) synthetic turf components are associated with significant
greenhouse gas emissions
o This is increased when considering the entire life cycle, due to related increases in
processing and transportation needs
Artificial turf is not easily recycled
o Cost and lack of infrastructure are an issue to end-of -life recycling of artificial turf
o It ends up in the landfill
Artificial turf can be a contributor to the heat island effect
o Artificial turf has no ability to sequester carbon
Without a built-in drainage system, artificial turf can lead to excessive runoff
o Any existing chemicals may runoff directly into storm drains and waterways
without the beneficial filtration that live vegetation or mulch provides
Levels of zinc, selenium, lead and cadmium leaching into the groundwater from crumb
rubber underlayment may be significant. More research needs to be done (report from
Environment and Human Health, Inc: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/ )
For more information, please call (310) 458-8972 or visit
www.sustainablesm.org/landscape.
Content courtesy of

Agenda Item: 8.B
Page 77

Moratorium On Artificial Grass 07-07-15

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Moratorium On Artificial Grass 07-07-15

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director

Moratorium on Artificial Grass and Similar Groundcover

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Funding Source( general fund , grant,

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY: Artificial grass installations were

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

JASON BURNETT, Mayor

lEE PRICE, Interim City Clerk

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Discussion of the review process for proposals to install natural and

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

"Live well, do good work, keep in touch" .... Garrison Keillor

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

To: Rob Mullane, Planning Director

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

To: Rob Mullane, Planning Director

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Begin forwarded message:

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

To: Planning Commissioners

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Mary Condry <carmelcondrym@comcast.net>

PLEASE don't allow us to start looking like 11 Anywhere USA 11 !

Planning &Building Den

Sent from my iPad

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Compaction impacts trees in many ways. Generally, compaction associated physiological

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA WARNELL SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES EXTENSION PUBLICATION FOR00-8

Restrict where possible vibrational compaction.

Dr. Kim D. Coder, 2000

Figure 1: Soil penetration

Dr. Kim D. Coder, 2000

Figure 2: Depth of soil

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Soil Compaction & Trees:

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA WARNELL SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES EXTENSION PUBLICATION FOR00-3

Council Meeting Date: 07/07/2015

Table 3: Brief list of root growth resource requirements.

oxygen in soil atmosphere (for root survival)

soil bulk density restricting root growth (g/cc)

penetration strength (water content dependent)

water content in soil

root initiation (O2% in soil atmosphere)

temperature limits to root growth

pH of soil (wet test)

Root growth limiting air-pore space values by soil texture.

Root growth limiting bulk density values by soil texture.

Tree Root Impacts of Compaction

Dr. Kim D. Coder, 2000