Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArboist Report 998700002 Arboricultural Assessment Bill Van Ry 114 Crest View Drive Port Ludlow WA Richard R Hefley – Consulting Arborist Page 2 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com Arboricultural Assessment Arboricultural Assessment Client: Bill Van Ry 114 Crest View Lane Port Ludlow WA Author: Richard R Hefley Consulting Arborist Site Visit Date : 07/02/2016 Report Date : 07/03/2016 OBJECTIVES: Assess a clump of three mature Shore Pines for health and effects of proposed pruning. BACKGROUND I was contacted by Bill Van Ry on 07/02/2016. He requested I examine a clump of three Shore Pines (Pinus contorta) immediately adjacent to his property and growing in the Common Area of Teal Lake Village. He requested pruning actions be taken to improve the health and appearance of these trees, as well as allow for the unhampered growth and development of plants currently growing on his property. *I would like to note that “views” are not an issue. Page 3 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com CONTENTS: Page 01 ….. Title Page Page 02 ….. Client, Author, Objectives Page 03 ….. Contents Page 04 ….. Executive Summary Page 05 ….. Observations – Aerial Photo Page 06 ….. Obs – Photos of Trees and House, Pitch Masses on Trunk Page 07 ….. Obs – Photos of Lower Branches and Trunk Page 08 ..… Discussion and Recommendations Page 09 …. Pruning Notes Page 10 …. Pruning Notes continued Page 11 …. Sequoia Pitch Moths Page 12 ….. Sequoia Pitch Moths continued Page 13 ….. Methods of Observation Page 14 ….. Methods continued Page 15 ….. Waiver of Liability ; Contact Information Page 4 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: I was contacted by Bill Van Ry on 07/01/2016. He wished to prune three Shore Pines located on Common Area property immediately adjacent to his residence at 114 Crestview Place, Port Ludlow WA. Specifically, he desired to raise the crown of the trees approximately two feet off the ground, where branches were presently lying on the ground. He also desired to make selective thinning cuts in the dense canopies in order to prevent or reduce the likelihood of wound-wood on limbs occurring from branches rubbing together. He also desired to make selective and thinning cuts to allow for the natural growth of a Red Maple tree planted on his property. The trees appear to be in very good health, and all the actions requested could improve the health and management of these trees. Raising the crown (getting the lowest branches off the ground) would allow for taller vegetation to grow in this area and better interdict stormwater that runs below the tree. The thinning and selective heading of long lateral limbs would reduce the instances of wounds forming on braches by rubbing together. There is a moderate infestation of Sequoia Pitch Moths on these trees and all other Shore Pines located in this immediate area, approximately twenty trees, most located at the base of the slope. It is my opinion that the pruning requested will cause no measurable harm to these trees, and in all likelihood will improve the health of these trees. I recommend the pruning take place as requested, and the amount pruned should not exceed 20% of the living canopy of the trees (as requested, it appears Mr. Vanry desires far less than this amount, perhaps 5% of the canopy). This pruning should take place in winter months when Sequoia Pitch Moths are not active, and should follow proper pruning procedures. These procedures are included in this report. I recommend the appropriate monitoring agencies take a closer look at the issue of the Sequoia Pitch Moths and consider taking actions to reduce the number of moths. These actions may include mechanical removal, traps, and chemical controls. Page 5 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com OBSERVATIONS: An aerial view of the Van Ry property. The three Shore Pines requested to be pruned have grown together as a single mass and are marked with the single Yellow pin. *Note – the bare patches across the slope appear to have been created by Sequoia Pitch Moths which I observed on the site, both on the trees in the form of mature moths, masses of pitch exuding from the trunks and limbs of the trees, and (inexplicably) burrowing into shallow holes in the sandy slope. I am still researching this. The clump of trees consists of three Shore Pines, Pinus contorta. These trees measure approximately 10” in diameter and stand approximately 20’ in height. The trees were planted approximately 10’ apart and have since grown together in a single mass. These trees appear to be in good health, showing a moderate growth rate, very dense foliage throughout the entire tree, from sweeping along the ground to the tip of the trunk, good color, and devoid of the presence of common stress signs, most notably masses of old cones. These trees are moderately infested with Sequoia Pitch Moths. I observed at least twenty extrusions of pitch on each of these three trees, and later I saw mature moths (at least 100) flying around the south sides of the tree lowest on the slope. I then noticed many bare patches on the ground along the slope. These are easily visible on the aerial photograph above. Mature Sequoia Pith Moths were digging into and burrowing into shallow holes along this slope. These “Moths” resemble yellow jackets, but are not stinging insects. Page 6 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com Masses of exuding sap are a sign of the pitch moth larvae infesting the pines, typically at points where branches meet the trunk of the tree. Shore Pines are located to the right of the residence. A red maple (Acer rubrum Species) has been pruned, as well as the pines, to allow for the growth. Page 7 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com Above – the lower branches of the trees sweep along the ground of the slope, sweeping it clear of vegetation that might otherwise grow and help interdict the flow of groundwater during heavy rainfall. Left – one pine has been pruned in a few places to accommodate the growth of the nearby Red Maple. Page 8 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com DISCUSSION and RECOMMENDATIONS: Mr. Van Ry has requested that the trees be pruned. He requests the crowns be raised no more than 2’ above ground level, that a few lateral limbs be pruned (thinning) to reduce damage to branches caused by rubbing together, and that several branches be pruned to allow for the natural growth of a Red Maple growing on his property but adjacent to the common area where the pines are growing. It is my opinion that these actions will cause no measurable harm to these trees, and will actually improve their functions in stormwater control by allowing taller and more varied vegetation beneath the trees to interdict stormwater, and may improve the health by increasing light, airflow, and the reduction of damage caused by abrasions from rubbing limbs. Given the current apparent good health of these trees, I see no reason these actions would result in any negative impacts on these trees, with caveats – -Due to the presence of a large number of Sequoia Pitch Moths, the pruning should take place during the winter months when they are not actively present. -No more than 20% of the canopy should be pruned at any one time, and the less pruned, the better for the tree. -Proper pruning cuts should be made; either selective heading cuts (cutting a branch back to an appropriately sized lateral branch), or thinning cuts (removing the limb back to the trunk, but outside of the branch bark collar). Page 9 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com NOTES: Tree Pruning Guide Click to view this downloadable PowerPoint presentation for information on tree pruning. Pruning • Limit at planting time to removing broken, crossing, rubbing branches, alleviating structure problem • Remove basal sprouts • Encourage a central leader • Leave lower branches on the tree to stimulate root and trunk diameter growth Page 10 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com Common Pruning Mistakes • Do not thin the tree to compensate for root loss • Do not raise lower limbs, these will help add girth to trunk and root growth • Pruning paints and sealers do not prevent decay or promote rapid closure, not recommended • Pruning Flush cutting branch back to trunk is incorrect, it wounds the trunk and causes decay. • Make the cut along branch collar. Notes on Pruning: Pruning should be done in conformation to ANSI A300 Standards. When pruning trees, I recommend the woody debris be ground into chips or broken down into the smallest pieces possible, and distributed throughout the area beneath the tree canopy. This debris will break down and provide future nutrients for the remaining trees, as well as build up the soil layers and aid the mycchorizal organisms that live in the soil and are a critical part of water and nutrient uptake (yes, the soil is, literally, alive). Light pruning (10% or less of the live canopy) can be done any time of year. Heavy pruning is best left for winter months when trees are in their maximum state of dormancy. Pruning should never exceed 25% of a tree’s canopy, though this amount can be modified depending on the tree’s age, health and species. If pruning for safety reasons then the season should be discounted and pruning take place as soon as practical. It is best to have all safety pruning completed before the end of October, which generally is the commencement of our wind-storm season. Another viable option is to leave the branch stubs in place to serve as habitat for beneficial organisms, from fungi to mammals. This technique (or lack thereof) is being more and more encouraged by tree care professionals as it replicated what would be done naturally. In a similar vein, wood chips and debris are encouraged to be allowed to remain beneath the tree to decompose and serve as a source of mulch and nutrients for the tree. Page 11 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com Pine (Pinus)-Sequoia pitch moth Sequoia pitch moth Synanthedon sequoiae Edwards Adults mating showing damage © Ken Gray Insect Image Collection(link is external) Sequoia pitch moth Synanthedon sequoiae Edwards Immature © Ken Gray Insect Image Collection(link is external) Sequoia pitch moth Synanthedon sequoiae Edwards Female adult on host egg(s) © Ken Gray Insect Image Collection(link is external) Synanthedon sequoiae Pest description and damage The adult moth is clearwing with yellow and black markings resembling yellowjacket wasps. The larvae are about 1 inch long, yellowish, with a reddish brown head. Larvae feed by boring into branches or trunks. At the point where the larva enters the wood, small to large masses of creamy yellow to pinkish pitch accumulate. The larva feeds locally underneath the pitch mass. This pest causes Page 12 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com mainly aesthetic damage because of the pitch masses. They do not attack sequoia, the coast redwood. Biology and life history Eggs are laid on the bark of host trees. The larvae bore into the inner bark and establish a feeding site. The feeding site can be distinguished easily by the large accumulation of pitch and frass on the exterior of the bark. Pupation takes place within this mass, and the adult moths fly through the summer months. About half the population completes its life cycle in 1 year; the other half requires 2 years. Pest monitoring Periodically check pitch masses for the partially emerged pupa case. If the moth has emerged the pupal case will be papery and empty. Pheromone traps are available to time adult activity and physically remove males. Management-cultural control Healthy trees are not commonly attacked. Infestations often are associated with pruning wounds or mechanical damage to the tree. Trees pruned or wounded in the spring and summer when adult moths are flying are far more likely to be attacked than those pruned or injured in the fall and winter. The moths also may be attracted to trees undergoing stresses associated with drought or saturated soil. Remove pitch masses by hand or dig out larvae with a knife. Management-chemical control: HOME USE None recommended. Management-chemical control: COMMERCIAL USE Apply materials to the trunk and lower limbs. Avoid contacting foliage. Apply generally in late spring or when adults are active. • carbaryl • Print-friendly version • http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5187550.p Page 13 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com METHODS of OBSERVATION: I assess trees for risk by first visually examining the foliage of the tree’s crown. I will note: Foliage density or Crown Density (CD) – Wherever possible, I compare the density of the foliage of the examined tree with the density of the same species in the same, or similar, environments. If local examples are not available, I use my best judgment as to what the optimal density of the foliage of a particular species should be. I express the results as a percentage, using 100% as the optimal foliage density. In the case of deciduous trees examined during their dormancy, I will note the density and health of the past season’s growth of twigs. Trees exhibiting signs of stress are typically less dense than healthy trees. Foliage color – Where possible, I compare the foliage color of the examined tree with the color of the same species in similar environments. If local examples are not available, I will use my best judgment of what the optimal color of a particular species should be at that particular time and location. Color is expressed as Good, Fair, or Poor. Trees under stress often exhibit Poor color, usually lighter than healthy trees. Live Crown Ratio (LCR) – The Live Crown Ratio is a measurement of the amount of living foliage of a tree expressed as a percentage of the tree’s height. For example, if a tree is 100’ high, and the first branches with live foliage begin at 75’ high in the tree, the tree has a 25% Live Crown Ratio. Trees with 25% or less of a LCR (the ones that look like Q-Tips) are considered potential hazardous trees. Cones – Cones are the seed-bearing structures of conifers. A stressed tree will sometimes produce an inordinately large crop of cones (seeds). I will compare the amount of cones with similar species where available, or use my best judgment where the same species trees are not available. Deciduous trees may produce extraordinarily large amounts of seeds in response to stresses. Epicormic Growth – This is foliage which sprouts from dormant buds located along a trunk or limb, and is often a sign of stress in trees. The tree is attempting to increase the amount of foliage to counteract another stress, often damage to a root or vascular system that prohibits the tree from producing the optimal amount of nutrients it requires for survival. In conifers, epicormic growth is often manifested as needles sprouting on the trunk of the tree, giving the tree an almost “furry” appearance. Structurally Unsound Wood – Examples include multiple tops, multiple branches emanating from a single point, limbs growing at a tight angle to the trunk (typically less than a 45 degree angle), cracked or broken branches, and included bark (bark wedged between two trunks or limbs growing tightly together). Rot – I look for signs of rot such as fungal growths, cracks, holes, swelling and excessive bleeding sap. This may extend to the excavation of soil around the roots, or examining beneath bark for signs of disease. I may strike the trunk with a mallet to listen for the sounds of hollow or pithy wood. Page 14 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com I may drill into the trunk of a tree if a significant hollow space is suspected, to confirm the amount of solid and unsound wood. I may take a core sample of the tree’s wood using a 1/8” increment borer. I will visually examine the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) of the tree. This is generally defined as a circle around the trunk of the tree, the radius in feet being equal to the diameter of the trunk in inches (a 10” diameter tree will have a CRZ with a radius of 10’, or a 20’ diameter). The history of actions performed within this area, as well as actions planned for this area, is critical to the health and viability of trees. Field observations are limited by the tools at hand. I may request that samples be taken and sent to a plant pathology laboratory for a more complete analysis. I measure the trees diameter at approximately 4.5’ above the ground level using a caliper measuring tape. I measure the trees approximate height using a clinometer where practical, or a visual approximation if necessary. I prefer to interview the owner or responsible person in charge of the project to ascertain the construction history of the site. I will look for the evidence of other tree failures in the immediate vicinity. This can sometimes help in confirming the presence of root rotting pathogens. I may mark examined trees with a numbered aluminum tags, or flagging tape. History of the site is often the most important information gleaned from a field observation. To know when a site was developed, when and where trenching or subsequent construction has taken place, and to learn of potential new uses for the property is crucial to forming a long-term plan to retain and improve the health of trees and shrubs on the site. Note – When working with native stands dominated by mature conifers, it is useful to note the crown classification of individual trees. Dominant and Co-Dominant trees have crowns that extend above all other vegetation. These are often, but not always, the strongest trees in a stand. Intermediate trees have crowns which extend into the Dominant crown category, but are still lower and so receive less light. Suppressed trees are overtopped by adjacent trees. Unless these suppressed trees are young and actively growing trees accustomed to shady conditions, such as Western Hemlock, Red Cedar or Vine Maple, these trees typically have short life spans. Page 15 of 15 Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com WAIVER OF LIABILITY: Many factors affect a tree’s health and stability that are not discernible in the course of a visual examination. These conclusions represent an opinion of a tree’s health and stability at this particular point in time. This report does not guarantee the future safety of or predict future events that may affect this tree. A second opinion by a qualified assessor is always recommended. The property owner is responsible for scheduling future examinations and/or recommended maintenance. The property owner is responsible for obtaining required permits from all concerned governing bodies from federal to state, county, city, and home owner associations. The property owner is responsible for obtaining and providing all applicable codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) that apply. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for injuries or damages incurred if recommendations are not heeded or for acts of nature beyond reasonable expectations such as severe winds, excessive rain, heavy snow loads, ice, earthquakes etc. This report and all attachments, enclosures and references are confidential and intended for the use of the client referenced above. They may not be reproduced, used in any way or disseminated in any form without the consent of the client and Richard Hefley – Consulting Arborist. Richard R. Hefley Consulting Arborist 360-385-2921 rkhefley@olypen.com PO Box 177 101 Renier Road Nordland WA 98358