HomeMy WebLinkAboutZON2022-00028 - 09 Arborist Report (0002)
Arboricultural
Assessment
Gould-Graves Residence
2432 Oak Bay Road
Port Hadlock WA
Richard R Hefley – Consulting Arborist
PO Box 177, 101 Reinier Road
Nordland WA
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Arboricultural Assessment - Addendum to 2012 Report
Client:
Greg Graves
2432 Oak Bay Road
Port Hadlock WA
Author:
Richard R Hefley
Consulting Arborist
ADDENDUM: 11/15/2022
Site Visit Date : 03/20/2018
Report Date : 04/09/2018
Updated: 04/26/2018
OBJECTIVES:
Create a vegetation management plan for the Gould-Graves property that balances removals and
pruning to retain a view corridor with replanting in disparate conditions, with a view towards
maintaining native plants most appropriate.
BACKGROUND
I was contacted by Greg Graves by telephone on 03/15/2018. He requested I examine his property at
2432 Oak Bay Road and create a report to address the following items;
-Long-term management of the larger view corridor.
-Management of the Gould-Graves view corridor.
-Recommendations for Grand Fir closest to residence.
- Recommendations for Hemlocks beside out-building.
-Recommendations for managing Big-leaf maple beside out-building.
-The use of Habitat Trees as a part of view corridor management.
-Suitable plants for mitigating wet-area.
-Notes for Replanting.
-Notes for Pruning
I revisited the site on 11/07, accompanied by Mr. Graves, Amanda Hunt and Donna Frostholm of
Jefferson County Dept of Community Development. Recommendations for the project proposed in
2022 including the planting and monitoring plan based on this visit are contained on pages 34 - 41.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
CONTENTS:
Page 04 ….. Executive Summary
Page 05 ….. Pruning Specifications
Page 06 ….. Observations – Aerial Photos
Page 07 ….. Discussion – Pruning for View
Page 08 ….. Pruning – Thinning / Windowing
Page 09 ..… Continued
Page 10 …. Replanting --- Access Road Mitigation
Page 11…. Trees on Site : Grand Fir, Western Red Cedar
Page 12…. Trees – Douglas Firs
Page 13, 14 ... Trees – Western Hemlocks
Page 15 …. Trees – Bigleaf Maple
Page 16 …. Wet Area ; Noxious Weeds
Page 17 …. Recommendations – Schedule of Actions
Page 18 …. Waiver of Liability, Contact Information
Appendices
Page 19, 20 …. Methods of Observation
Page 21 – 28 …. Habitat Trees
Page 29, 30 …. Pruning Guidelines
Page 31, 32….Plants for View Corridor
ADDENDUM
Page 34 ….. ADDENDUM Summary
Page 35 ….. Aerial Photo of Trees to be Pruned and Removed
Page 36 ….. Grand Firs to be Pruned
Pages 37-38 ….. Western Red Cedars to be Removed, Red Alders to be Pruned
Page 39 …. Mitigation Planting Plan Specifications
Page 40 ….. Aerial Photo of Planting Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
The primary issue is maintaining the view corridor in a manner that will not compromise ground
stability. A view in this case is defined as the several degrees of horizon that comprise the water and
mountain vistas.
A geotechnical report issued by Northwestern Territories INC. (NTI) recommends the removal of no
more than three conifers of a size 8” or larger diameter at breast height (dbh), that these trees should
be at least 50’ apart, and that each area be replanted with three conifers at least 20’ apart.
I agree that this is a good baseline with a few derivations. In several cases the areas around the
mature trees are already abundantly supplied with actively growing young conifers which would limit or
prevent the addition of more trees of that sort. However, I do recommend an evergreen tree or shrub of
a more suitable variety be planted in the nearest exposed area.
I would add the creation of Living Habitat Trees in addition to tree removals. The benefits of Living
Habitat Trees are many, one important benefit being that they do not expose soils beneath the tree to
rain and wind that facilitate erosion. The Habitat Tree also retains its soil-stabilizing roots. I would
recommend the creation of one Habitat Tree in addition to the three potential tree removals if desired.
A third method for managing a view corridor is pruning, not to exceed 25% of the canopy area of
trees. “Windowing” is the most effective method to maintain a fixed view, while thinning can improve
the overall view of water. A combination can be used on trees so long as the total amount of foliage
removed does not exceed the maximum and the top of the tree remains intact to allow the tree to
continue to grow up and out of the view corridor.
Because we have relatively thin and nutrient poor soils, all wood materials should be chipped and
spread throughout the area to decompose and so rebuild and maintain soil tilth.
PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS:
The View –
The view from this
property consists of the
several degrees of
horizon that contain
vistas of the water and
mountains.
(water is just visible
above trees in lower
right of photo)
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Scope-
These specifications are to apply to trees located on the Gould-Graves residence, 2432 Oak Bay Road,
Port Hadlock WA.
Objectives-
Trees located within the view corridor of this parcel may be pruned to manage the continuation of
previous and existing views while maintaining the environmental integrity of the land. The following
methods in combination should be used to achieve this. No more than 25% of a tree’s canopy should be
removed within a three-year period.
1. Three conifers may be removed per year as specified by a geotechnical assessment performed
by Northwest Territories Inc (NTI).
2. One tree may be converted to a Habitat Tree using techniques specified by the WA State Dept of
Ecology.
3. Remaining trees may be pruned, not to exceed a maximum of 25% of the canopy, and this
maximum amount to be performed once every three years. Minimal pruning of 10% may be
performed annually.
4. Removed trees are to be mitigated by planting three conifer seedlings.
5. The objective of the replanting is to achieve no net loss of vegetative cover of land area.
Procedures-
1. Pruning cuts shall be made in concurrence with ANSI A300 standards and adhering to ANZI Z133
Safety Standards, as well as Best Management Practices Revised 2008, Edward F Gilman and
Sharon J Lilly.
2. Reduction cuts should be made to lateral limbs of a sufficient size to survive the procedure,
typically 1/3 the diameter of the piece removed. To minimize decay at the pruning site it is
preferable that the cut not exceed 4” in diameter.
3. The sum of all cuts should not exceed 25% of the total canopy area per tree.
4. Removed wood should be chipped and retained on site to rebuild soil composition.
5. Each removed tree shall be mitigated by replanting three conifers as close to the removed tree
as practical given site limitations.
Personnel -
Work should be performed under the supervision of a certified arborist or state accredited forester.
OBSERVATIONS:
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
An aerial photo of the Gould-Graves property with the two neighboring properties on the left side of the
photo. The lines roughly denote the view corridor to be managed.
The portions of the View Corridor belonging to the Gould-Graves property is approximately the area
between the lines on the aerial photo. This view looks eastwards towards water and mountain vistas.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
DISCUSSION:
The geotechnical firm NTI recommends a limit of three removals of mature conifers per year, which I
agree is a good limit. Mature is defined by NTI as a tree with a trunk diameter of eight inches and
greater.
Trees are important conduits for redirecting the increased amounts of water on this slope due to
development of this and adjacent properties via transpiration, the foliage interdicts rainfall to slow
erosion, and the roots bind soil particles to retard soil movement. I recommend the trunks of felled
trees be retained and placed across the face of the slope in order to collect the inevitable accumulation
of debris moving downhill. These trunks or trunk sections can be anchored against remaining trees or
tree stumps if there is any danger of them rolling (very unlikely). The limbs of trees should be cut into
small pieces and distributed throughout the area and left to decompose. This decomposition is critical to
improving overall soil health.
Replanting is best done in late fall when the natural rainy season can provide water. Seedlings greatly
benefit from being placed within protective tree cones. These cones serve to block drying winds, collect
and funnel water to the root crown, protect from browsing animals, and forms a humid atmosphere to
keep leaves and needles hydrated during the dry summer months.
The plants chosen for replanting removed trees should be a variety that will not quickly grow to
obstruct the view corridor (unless all parties can agree to a temporary view obstruction until the tree
has grown through the view corridor. The new plants should be evergreen so they transpire water
during the dormant season when most of our rain falls. These plants should also be chosen to fit the
micro-ecosystem where they are to be placed. Soils on this property are alternately saturated and dry,
deep shade and full sun. Selecting the right plant for the right place can save decades of headaches.
In addition to the removal and replanting schedule, pruning will comprise a large part of the
maintenance of the view corridor.
Pruning For View
There are essentially five methods for pruning trees for view;
1. Thinning
2. Windowing
3. Limbing Up/Crown Raising
4. Crown Reduction, or a combination of these.
It is important to not remove too much foliage. The “rule of thumb” is to remove no more than 25%
of the canopy at one time, but this should be adjusted to account for the species, the age, the health,
and the time of year the pruning is done.
Many say this amount may be removed yearly, but my opinion is that one should wait several years
before conducting another “maximum” pruning (25%) to avoid stress on the tree and allow more foliage
to take the place of what was lost. Light pruning (less than 10% of canopy) can be done yearly and
regardless of the season.
5. Living Habitat Tree. Another technique is a more severe alteration of the tree, the creation of a
Habitat Tree, which entails removing as much as 80% of the tree (and most likely shortening the
life span of the tree). This technique is replicating natural storm damage trees suffer which
results in their losing the majority of their crowns while retaining enough foliage to survive and
provide habitat for a large variety of birds, animals and fungi. The tree will also retain its critical
functions of transpiration, rainfall interdiction and soil cohesion. There are no studies to my
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
knowledge on the number of Living Habitat Trees suitable for any given area, but I would err on
the cautious side and estimate that no more than 10% of trees in an area should be converted
into Habitat Trees, and probably fewer. The Gould-Graves property has approximately fifty
mature conifers, the number of Living Habitat Trees should not exceed five.
A well-thinned tree.
Imagine the gray
building behind it is
water and one can see
how this form of
pruning can improve a
view somewhat while
still maintaining the
full integrity of the
tree.
The tallest tree in the
photo is a Douglas Fir
that was topped
naturally in a storm. It
is now riddled with
woodpecker holes and
is habitat for far more
organisms than it was
as a healthy actively
growing tree.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
The conifers to the left,
Western Hemlocks, have been
“Windowed” to allow a view of
the water.
Successful windowing consists
of removing sections of
branches on alternate sides of
a trunk to allow aesthetic
balance with regaining views.
This is an example of “crown
reduction” coupled with “thinning”
performed on a Douglas Fir on the
Gould-Graves property.
Crown reduction is best utilized on
conifers that do not grow with a
strong central leader, or have already
lost their central leader as a result of
natural topping.
The most important factor for tree
survival is to limit excessive foliage
removal so the tree retains enough to
conduct photosynthesis and water
uptake.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Replanting-
The NTI report recommends that each mature conifer removed be replaced with three coniferous
seedlings. This is an adequate number.
Because this is a view corridor I recommend these be replaced with lower growing native trees that
will not block views, or at least are easy to successfully prune to keep below the view height. A few good
varieties are the Shore Pine (Pinus contorta), Western Yew (Taxus brevifolia), and Mountain Hemlock
(Tsuga mertensiana), though there are also more selections including dwarf forms of our normally large
trees and large evergreen shrubs. A fuller listing is in the Appendices.
Logging Road Remediation
Regarding the apparent constriction of surface water as a result of the unintentional damming effects
of the logging access road, in addition to the recommendations of NTI to create channels, I recommend
allowing Red Alder to grow in the roadway. These trees naturally serve the function of loosening
compacted grounds and adding nutrients to poor soils. They should be pruned and maintained as a
deciduous grove before they grow into the view corridor. Do not allow them to grow into the view
corridor, but treat them like a large, albeit homely, deciduous hedge. After a period of time, about 10-20
years, they can be cut down to ground level and the stumps left to decompose. (This is simply an
accelerated version of how our ecosystem naturally reclaims challenged soils).
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Trees on Site:
Abies grandis, Grand Fir.
Comprising one of the primary conifers on this site, it is proving to be the more contentious tree at
present. One mature specimen is growing through the LOS (Line of Sight) of the view corridor, but is also
a perfect specimen in its own right. The tree appears to be in ewxcellent condition with good color, rate
of growth, limb attachment and distribution. It is my belief that any significant alteration of this tree due
to pruning is likely to weaken the overall structure and result in an increased likelihood of failure, most
likely of a branch or top rather than the entire tree. These are within distance of striking an out-building,
but given that ordinary of storm winds in this location emanate from a southerly direction, it is unlikely
to do so.
As these trees reach maturity, typically at about 100’ in height as this one is, they will begin to
naturally lose lower limbs, become ‘unbalanced’ as a result, and then lose their central leader (top).
Most mature lowland firs near the coast will, at advanced maturity, begin to resemble a Q-tip; rounded
at the top from repeated breakages and devoid of branches in the lower portions of the trunk.
As this particular tree, located approximately 100 feet north-east of the residence, acquires its
inevitable mature shape it will cease to be a significant hindrance to the view horizon enjoyed by
neighboring properties. I see no effective way to dramatically improve this view horizon without
“unbalancing” the tree and promoting rapid failures of other limbs or top.
One possible mitigation would be an even thinning of limbs throughout the entirety of the canopy.
This would consist of removing a single branch from each (rough) whorl of the tree from bottom to the
top, with each limb growing in an alternate direction (i.e. – first a limb facing N, then S, E, W, NE, SW
etc).
Thuja plicata, Western Red Cedar.
This is the most effective tree for water transpiration and soil cohesion, tolerating wet soils and being
more disease resistant than most of our other conifers. They are generally the most stable of our
conifers, having a wide trunk and dense shallow roots.
The trouble with these is that they are difficult to maintain in a view corridor because of their rapid and
bushy upward growth. Though many people top them and maintain them as a sort of ugly “hedge”,
A recently cut view corridor
through Red Cedar.
What was 10 pruning cuts the
first year will likely be 100 the
next time, 500 the next…
It is now a hedge requiring
periodic shearing.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
they regrow quickly and from multiple points on the tree and require re-cutting every few years.
Pseudotsuga menziesii, Douglas Fir,
These are the best conifers for pruning. They are particularly effective for windowing and crown
raising, taking a long time to regrow into the newly created window.
The Douglas Firs are the tallest and
most pointed conifers in the
photograph.
They tend to form the least ‘mass’
of all native conifers once they
reach a mature height, and grow
rapidly enough to move through
the view corridor (the degrees of
horizon comprising water and
mountain views).
The photo left shows a Red Cedar that has
been heavily thinned in the top 1/3 and little
or nothing in the lower portion.
Because Red Cedars are more stable and
disease resistant than other conifers, this
technique should not result in destabilizing
the tree.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Tsuga heterophylla, Western Hemlock.
There are several of these on the site, and, in my experience, they are one of the least successful in
adapting to the new stresses caused by the development of a property. Of immediate concern are a pair
of young Hemlocks located immediately north of the out-building. The tree closest to the building is
more than half dead and should be removed immediately. The remaining hemlock is located a few feet
from the first and should be removed at the same time. Hemlocks are notoriously poor trees for
resisting diseases, and because same species trees graft their roots together underground, the pathogen
has affected the first is likely to affect the remaining tree. Furthermore, when trees are growing in close
proximity to one another, the removal of one allows winds to place stress on portions of the remaining
tree that have not experienced these stresses before, making the failure of the remaining tree far more
probable.
Because these trees barely qualify as “mature” conifers by NTI standards, and are still relatively
young, I would not count the removal of these trees towards the limit of three removals, though I would
still recommend the planting of six seedlings to replace their canopy-coverage area.
The tree to left is a naturally
“windowed” Douglas Fir.
Unlike Red Cedar, these
trees are very slow to ‘fill in’
the windows created in their
canopy, whether made
naturally or an arborist’s
saw.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
The Hemlocks in
question are to the
left of the building;
The tree mostly dead
being closest to the
building.
The lower trunks of the
two Hemlocks.
The dead tree is farthest
left. You can notice that
soil appears to have been
piled around the lower
trunk (notice the lack of
trunk flare), probably a
result of grading for the
building.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Acer macrophyllum, Bigleaf Maple.
There are a few of these trees on the site. Those I saw were cut to the ground, most likely when the
property was first developed, and have responded with multiple competing trunks, as many as fifty
springing from the old stump. These are structurally unsound and will begin edging one another out,
causing frequent breakages. Because these grow large very quickly, sometimes growing six or more feet
in a year, they can be in a position to do damage quickly.
I recommend these multiple competing trunks be thinned frequently both to keep the trees from
growing into the view corridor and to lessen the likelihood of sudden trunk failures and the increasing
difficulty of pruning away these large and heavy trunks.
Alnus rubra, Red Alder.
There are quite as few young alders growing on the property, and though they do not currently pose a
problem for the view corridor, they will in time.
Alders are a very important part of our natural remediation of damaged lands, growing in hostile soils
and adverse conditions, these are the first colonizers to follow destructive events like landslides, fires, or
development which causes soil compaction. They live fast and die young, all the while adding nitrogen
to the soil due to a unique feature of their root systems, and blanketing the soils with a rain of nutrient
rich and fast decomposing leaves, twigs, bark and wood. They are the most effective plant for restoring
compromised land.
This is why I recommend retaining these trees in the old logging road area. Being deciduous, it is
relatively easy to maintain their height by “crown reduction” pruning, which consists of removing the
longest limbs or even the central leader and pruning back to a limb no less than 25% of the diameter of
the limb removed. Where many alders are growing in a small area I recommend thinning out trees until
they are spaced at approximately 20’ intervals.
This Bigleaf Maple on the left side of
the photo was a single tree when the
property was first developed.
It has since regrown into a behemoth of
about 20 or more competing trunks,
none of which are structurally sound.
Because they are an important native
tree and aesthetically lovely, I would try
to keep this tree by narrowing down
the number of trunks by pruning away
25% of them at a time, separated by at
least three years to allow the tree time
to recover.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Wet Areas-
The old logging access road to this area appears to have created a dam for groundwater that has
resulted in saturated soils above the road. This can limit the types of plants chosen for replanting in
these areas. In areas where Horsetail and Bulrushes are actively growing, I recommend the planting of
trees and shrubs that can tolerate saturated soils.
We are severely limited in the number of conifers suitable for wet areas; Western Red Cedar and
Sitka Spruce are two well-known wet-tolerant trees, but unless dwarf varieties are planted, these will be
unsuitable for view corridors. I have observed at the Bloedel Reserve on Bainbridge Island a Mountain
Hemlock that has been growing (and thriving!) for twenty years in the middle of their larger swamp.
Based on nothing more than observation, I would suggest giving this wonderful small and aesthetically
pleasing tree a try.
The only other native evergreen plant I would recommend for these conditions is the Western Sword
Fern.
Noxious Weeds-
The weed of most concern here is Himalayan Blackberry. These are not overly difficult to remove by
cutting back to the main clump of canes and then digging these out. Another approach is to cut a cane
and then paint on Glyphosate concentrate. Areas cleared of blackberry should be replanted to mitigate
new blackberries sprouting. This weeding out procedure will need to be repeated for an unknown
number of years.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
RECOMMENDATIONS:
I recommend the following schedule for maintaining the property and view corridor.
1. Remove the two compromised Western Hemlocks located north of the out-building at any time.
2. Flag Alder seedlings/young trees growing in old logging road to be retained.
3. Cut Himalayan Blackberries to ground, dig out canes. (most effectively done in September)
4. Remove three to-be-selected conifers.
5. Create one Habitat Tree.
6. Cut back Alders using crown-reduction prior to their growing into view corridor. (Best when
trees are dormant)
7. Prune unpruned conifers using thinning, windowing techniques not to exceed 25% of canopy.
8. Plant a minimum of 18 seedlings for the 5 trees removed and 1 Habitat Tree created this year.
9. Plant as many (preferably) evergreen seedlings in space occupied by Himalayan blackberries.
2019
10. Remove three additional Trees.
11. Create Habitat Tree
12. Prune unpruned trees
13. Replant as planned
14. 2020 – Remove 3 conifers, create 1 Habitat Tree
15. 2020 – RE-Prune trees pruned in 2017
16. 2020 – Prune unpruned conifers
17. 2021 – Remove three conifers, create habitat tree
18. 2021 – Re-Prune trees pruned in 2018
19. 2021 - Replant as planned
Page 14 of 14
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.
My 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 the trees or predict future events that may affect
these trees.
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
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Appendices
Methods of Observation:
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 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 to that on the same species
where available, or I will use my best judgment where the same species are not available.
Deciduous trees may also produce extraordinarily large amounts of seeds in response to stresses.
Epicormic Growth – This is foliage 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 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.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
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 45 degrees), cracked or
broken branches, and “ included bark” (bark wedged between two trunks or limbs growing tightly
together).
I include spike-knots in this category. This is a colloquial term used to describe a dead branch or leader,
usually the result of breakage or pruning. These remaining knots have been observed by me to provide
an entry for wood decay pathogens that facilitate a tree failure at that point.
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 examination of areas beneath bark for
signs of disease.
I may strike the trunk with a mallet to listen for the sounds of hollow or pithy wood.
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).
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.
The 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 are all crucial to forming a long-term plan to
retain and improve the health of trees and shrubs on the site.
When I am 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.
-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 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Notes on Habitat Trees-
I often recommend that some trees slated for removal be retained as “Habitat Trees”.
These are essentially standing snags from 3’ up to however high is deemed safe given the location of the
tree.
Snags are critical components of our ecosystem and provide food and shelter for wildlife and beneficial
fungi. It should be assumed that the standing snag will eventually rot at the base and fall over after
many years, so care should be taken to locate these ‘habitat trees’ in a location unlikely to be
frequented by people or damaging to property.
If possible it is best to leave a jagged break where the tree trunk is cut. Not only does this look more
natural, like a tree that has been snapped in high winds, but the jagged layers of wood provide increased
habitat for beneficial organisms.
Leaving logs remaining on the ground, especially alder logs, is another practice that is immensely
beneficial to the native ecosystem.
Nothing can duplicate the art of
nature for creating Habitat Trees,
whether a “Snag”, the dead tree
on the right, or the “Living Habitat
Tree” on the left with only the top
dead.
These trees are habitat and shelter for
beneficial fungi, insects, grubs, birds
and mammals.
Some arborists now argue that a failing
tree serves more and greater
ecological functions than an actively
growing tree.
I tend to agree.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
More detailed information is available from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife;
http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/snags/
The following is from Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife.
Snags - The Wildlife Tree
The Importance of Snags in Your Neighborhood
Dead Wood Brings New Life
Hard to believe, but trees can actually provide more habitats for wildlife dead than when they are alive. Standing dead and dying
trees, called “snags” or “wildlife trees,” are important for wildlife in both natural and landscaped settings, occurring as a result of
disease, lightning, fire, animal damage, too much shade, drought, root competition, as well as old age.
Birds, small mammals, and other wildlife use snags for nests, nurseries, storage areas, foraging, roosting, and perching. Live trees
with snag-like features, such as hollow trunks, excavated cavities, and dead branches can provide similar wildlife value. Snags
occurring along streams and shorelines eventually may fall into the water, adding important woody debris to aquatic habitat. Dead
branches are often used as perches; snags that lack limbs are often more decayed and, may have more and larger cavities for
shelter and nesting. Snags enhance local natural areas by attracting wildlife species that may not otherwise be found there.
All trees of all sizes are potential snags. Unfortunately, many wildlife trees are cut down without much thought to their wildlife value
or of the potential management options that can safely prolong the existence of the tree. Wildlife trees offer a one-stop, natural
habitat feature. In short, snags “live on” as excellent wildlife trees for all to enjoy!
DOWNLOAD PDF VERSION
Snags - The Wildlife Tree
9.5 Mb
Wood duck ducklings plunging from their nest cavity in a tree. This is
normal behavior for wood ducks when leaving the nest cavity which can be anywhere between 6 to 15
feet above ground and almost always above water into which they fall. Photo Credit: Mike Lentz Images
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Raccoon family in tree den. A note about raccoons – raccoons can
become habituated to people; they are aggressive and sometimes dangerous and carry the roundworm Baylisascaris
procyonis that can infect humans and pets. Do NOT leave pet food and garbage out and never feed
raccoons.
Red squirrel poking out of a den tree savoring a nut dropped by a
passerby. Central Park, New York City. Photo Credit: Bruce Yolton
Pileated woodpeckers foraging on an old dead snag pulling off the bark to
get to the insects underneath. Note the thick bare branch at the top of the tree perfect for bald eagles or other large birds.
Photo Credit: Patricia Thompson
Wildlife That Use Snags
West of the Cascade Mts 39 species of birds and 14 species of mammals depend on tree cavities for their survival. East of the
Cascades 39 bird species and 23 mammal species depend on these snags (Pederson, USDA Forest Service). In total, more than
100 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians need snags for nesting, roosting, shelter, denning, and feeding (Bottorff,
WSU, Snohomish Co. Ext); nearly 45 species alone forage for food in them. Hollow snags and large knot-holes are used by many
species of mammals such as squirrels, marten, porcupine, and raccoons.
In winter when snow covers the ground, northern flickers and other common backyard wildlife depend heavily on insects and other
foods found in snags. Brown creepers, bats, and other small animals will roost behind loose bark and bark slits for winter warmth
and shelter. Hollow snags are very valuable in winter as they are used by many species such as squirrels, raccoons, owls, and bear
for denning and roosting.
Large snags more than 12 inches in diameter and 15 feet tall offer ideal hunting perches for hawks, eagles, and owls. They function
as resting perches for swallows, band-tailed pigeons, mourning doves and other birds; food storage areas for mice, squirrels,
woodpeckers, and jays; and song perches for tanagers and flycatchers. Woodpeckers use large dead tree trunks as a way to
announce their presence during courtship, hammering their bills against the tree’s resonating surface. Small snags may be used as
song posts by bluebirds, hummingbirds, and other songbirds to attract mates and proclaim nesting territories. This high use of snags
by a myriad of species underscores the importance of preserving snags and including them in your landscape.
Dead Tree/Wildlife Condo
You can see where wildlife finds food and shelter if
you look carefully at a snag:
A snag harbors many insects that are food
for wildlife. The outer surface of the bark is
where birds such as brown creepers, nuthatches, and woodpeckers eat bark
beetles, spiders, and ants.
The inner bark is where woodpeckers eat
larvae and pupae of insects. Mammals such
as raccoon and black bear may tear into
these areas of snags to harvest the protein-
rich insects.
The heartwood is where strong excavators
such as the pileated woodpecker prey upon
carpenter ants and termites.
Click on photo to enlarge
Live aspen snag “condominium.” These
trees have many nesting cavities
excavated by at least three species of
woodpeckers. In the tree on the left, the
largest rectangular hole is a pileated
woodpecker nest in which the pileateds
were seen nesting; the top cavity just
under the greenery was excavated and
used by northern flickers; smaller nest
cavities were excavated by red-naped
sapsucker and also used by black-capped
chickadee and house wren for nesting.
Look for small nest holes in the tree on
the right also.
Photo Credit: Patricia Thompson
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
The space between partially detached bark and the tree trunk is where nuthatches, winter wrens, and brown creepers roost or search for food. Pacific tree frogs, several species of bats, and many butterflies also find shelter there.
Trees that make the best snags.
Tree Species. Snags of both deciduous
trees (those that shed leaves in winter) and
conifer trees (evergreens) are used by
wildlife. The most favored snag species east
of the Cascades are: ponderosa pine,
western larch, quaking aspen, and paper
birch; west of the cascades Douglas fir and
western red cedar snags are highly favored
and big-leaf maple and cottonwood are also
used. Softwood trees such as fir tend to
make better food foraging trees, while
hardwood trees are sometimes better for
nesting cavities. Nevertheless, just about
any species of snag tree will be used by
wildlife.
Tree Size. Small trees rot rapidly, creating
wildlife habitat. Black-capped chickadees
nest in snags as small as six feet tall and
four inches in diameter. The large conifers
such as cedar, fir, larch, and pine, tend to
rot more slowly than do deciduous trees
such as alder, birch, and cherry. However,
large deciduous trees such as cottonwoods,
big-leaf maples, and oaks can last many
years as snags. Moreover, while alive, they tend to develop cavities in their bulky and dead branches and trunks.
Decay. The best snags for cavity-nesters are those with hard sapwood (between bark) and decayed heartwood (inner core) making
them hard on the outside and soft in the middle. The hard sapwood provides protection from predators and insulation against
weather, while the softened heartwood allows easy excavation deep into the snag. Many birds avoid very soft snags for nesting
because extremely soft wood can be wet or crumbly.
Strong primary excavators, such as the pileated woodpecker and northern flicker, occasionally select living trees with decayed
heartwood because they can penetrate through the sound layer of sapwood and excavate the nest cavity in the soft heartwood.
Generally, the sapwood remains fairly intact and forms a shell surrounding the decaying heartwood. The excavated interior may
remain useable for many years by many species.
Click photo to enlarge
Hard and Soft Snags. The snag with the abundant nest cavities and foraging
evidence is a soft snag that has been used for many years. This photo was taken four years after the flat-top trees
were created” from live Douglas fir; they have barely started the decay process yet woodpeckers are beginning to work them.
Photo Credit: Patricia Thompson
Hard and Soft Snags
A snag habitat begins to form when a
large tree dies and forms a "Hard Snag.”
As this hard snag decays it gradually
becomes a "Soft Snag.” A partially or
recently dead tree is a hard snag. Hard
snags tend to have their bark intact while the heartwood (the non-living inner core)
and sapwood (the younger, softer,
growing wood between the bark and
heartwood) are still firm. These kinds of
snags are good for cavity excavating
birds. A soft snag has considerable
decay in its heart and sapwood. Fungi
infiltrate the heartwood and the tree becomes soft or hollow in the center. A
soft snag rarely has limbs, and its top may
be missing. Over the years, a soft snag
gets shorter as weather and animal
activity weakens it. Eventually it falls over
and continues to provide important food
and shelter on the ground.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Snags in Your
Landscape
Try to incorporate
one or more snags
into your
landscape keeping
old and damaged
trees when
possible. Retain
trees and tall
shrubs near the
planned snag to
protect it from
wind and provide a
healthier
environment for
wildlife. In urban
areas, tall snags
are best located
away from high
activity areas,
where they won’t
pose a hazard if
they fall. Trees
that lean away or
are downhill from
structures and other areas of human activity present little or no risk.
Ways to tell a future snag:
Sap runs,
Splits in the trunk, Dead main limbs,
Fungi on the bark.
Evidence of animal use, such as woodpecker holes.
Cedar snag with top burned out by homeowner adds an interesting and
striking feature to this backyard landscape. Photo Credit: Russell Link
Photo Credit: Russell Link
Also, note any trees you may want to make into a snag including:
Hazard trees--for example, one with a forked top, weak wood, or disease,
Northern flicker in the process of excavating its nest cavity. Note the
wood chips flying.
The Woodpecker - Cavity Creator
Woodpeckers such as the northern flicker create new cavities in snags
and are thus referred to as “primary cavity nesters.” They have thick-
walled skulls supported by powerful neck muscles, and a beveled, chisel-like bill. A woodpecker’s strong, grasping feet with sharp, curved nails
form a triangular base for support in the vertical position along with
specially adapted tail feathers. The woodpecker’s barb-tipped tongue
and sticky saliva help it get insects from deep crevices. Unlike other
cavity-nesting birds, woodpeckers rarely use nest boxes because they
are biologically conditioned to dig their own cavities: the physical motions
of cavity excavation stimulate reproduction.
Woodpeckers excavate several holes each year and rarely nest in the same one in consecutive years, thus creating many cavities for
secondary cavity nesters such as bluebirds, tree and violet-green
swallows, chickadees, nuthatches, house wrens, wood ducks, squirrels,
and owls who cannot excavate cavities themselves. Secondary cavity
nesting wildlife are highly dependent upon the availability of these abandoned nest cavities.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
A shade tree in an area where you want sun, A tree with invasive roots threatening a drainage or septic system,
A tree in a group that needs thinning out,
A tree in an area where there aren’t any snags.
Because individual snags may have only one wildlife habitat feature (perch, cavity, etc.), retaining and promoting small clumps of
snags throughout a larger property is more likely to provide all of these features. Small dead ornamental and fruit trees can be left in
the landscape where they are not a safety hazard because they will be used as perches for preening, resting, foraging, and singing.
Creating Snags from Live Trees
A professional arborist creates an alder tree snag giving it a natural-
looking jagged top. You must hire a professional to create these tall snags. It is unwise to attempt this
yourself. Photo Credit: Russell Link
Any snag you provide for wildlife will likely be used. You can even create one from a live tree. Branches or trunk you remove can be
added to a brush shelter. Remember, a tree can provide habitat even when just part of it dies. For instance, if a large conifer has a
fork in it, you can girdle one of the forks creating an excellent perch. If the trunk of this tree is large enough in diameter, a future
cavity may develop as the perch limb dies. In addition, if the tree is not dying after the side branches and top have been removed,
some individual side branches can be girdled to create perches and help the tree decline.
There are several methods for creating snags (See Fig. 1):
Remove the top third of the tree and half the remaining side-branches.
Leave the top the way it is and remove a majority of the tree’s side-branches.
Leave the top and sides as they are and girdle the trunk.
Girdle the branches.
Always hire an expert tree service to remove branches and tops of large trees. Make sure that whoever does the work is licensed,
bonded, and insured, and understands your intention to make a wildlife tree. Many certified arborists with the International Society of
Arboriculture specialize in wildlife tree creation and maintenance. Check with your local chapter.
Removing the top third of the tree and half the remaining side branches. This method ensures that the tree begins the
preferred inside-out decay process, premium sites for cavity-nesting birds. Leave some shortened branches at the top for perches
and make the snag look natural by creating a jagged top (Fig. 1). A jagged top also provides an avenue for fungi infection and other
rot-causing organisms. Water and bird feces will collect and speed decay. Sow bugs, earwigs, and other invertebrates will find their
way in and assist in the decay process.
Leaving the top intact and remove about 3/4 of the tree’s side-branches. Douglas fir, hemlock, and pine respond well to this
technique. Western red cedar is a tough conifer to kill in this way, but it makes an excellent snag because it is extremely wind-
resistant and long-lasting. Keep branch ends jagged and more susceptible to microorganisms and fungi, and more natural looking.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Figure 1. Ways to create a snag from a live tree. A jagged top and shortened branches at the top give the snag a more natural look and speed the process of decay. (Drawing by Jenifer Rees)
Leave the top and sides as they are and girdling the trunk. Least preferred method. Girdling creates a dead but intact top,
providing a taller snag, but leaves it more susceptible to breaking at the wound site. Girdling tends to cause a tree to rot from the
outside in, instead of the preferred inside-out. As a result, by the time the rot has progressed far enough for woodpeckers to
excavate a cavity, the tree has become fragile and may easily fall in a windstorm. Furthermore, a cavity in a girdled tree may not be
safe because the hole is likely to be shallow, which exposes young to weather and predators.
To girdle a tree, remove a four-inch belt of inner and outer bark around the trunk which stops the movement of water and nutrients.
If girdling is done at breast height and the tree falls, this leaves very little remaining snag habitat. Therefore, try to make the girdling
cut as high up as possible. Big-leaf maple, aspen, and poplar may send up sprouts, which can be removed or left to grow around
the tree as temporary cover. Some tree species, alder for example, are difficult to kill even when properly girdled. A tree girdled in
winter may not show signs of decline until well into spring, after it has used its stored energy.
Roosting Slits
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Brown creeper on a snag with visible roosting slits.
Roosting slits for bats and some songbirds, including brown creepers, may be added to created snags that are tall enough and wide
enough in diameter to accommodate the cuts. The slits should be at least eight inches deep, one or more inches wide, and angled
sharply upward. Bats need to fly up into the slits so the slits should be located in an area free of branches. The higher up the snag
they are, the more likely these roosting slits will be used. Some sun exposure warms these roosts and makes them more attractive
in winter.
Hazard Tree and Snag Management
If not managed properly, snags can pose a risk to people and structures. If a dead or dying tree threatens something that can be
moved, such as a swing set or patio furniture, consider moving those items before cutting the tree down. An alternative to
eliminating the entire tree is to remove only the dangerous section(s). Consulting with a certified arborist with experience in wildlife
snags is recommended. These professionals can determine what part of a tree is a hazard and provide management options to
reduce or eliminate any risk. Remaining parts can be removed over time. Often, once the unsafe limbs or portions of the trunk have
been removed, the tree is safe.
When a tree must be cut down, maximize its habitat value by placing as much of the debris as possible near the area where the tree
was removed. In hot, dry areas, move the material into the shade of nearby trees or large shrubs. Putting branches in contact with
the ground will cause them to rot faster. Place a nest box on your site as replacement for cavities lost through tree or limb removal.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
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
Common Pruning Mistakes
Do not thin the tree to compensate for root loss
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
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 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Effective Evergreen Plants for View
Corridors – North Olympic Peninsula,
leeward side.
Because balancing the requirements for maintaining view corridors with the need to keep geologically
vulnerable slopes vegetated leads to inevitable conflicts with property owners, an evolving list of native
tree, shrub and groundcover plants is necessary.
Evergreen trees and shrubs are particularly important because they transpire water during our wet
winter months and the evergreen leaves interdict rainfall and wind which facilitate erosion.
Plants will grow to different sizes depending on their microclimate, soil, and water availability. Pruning
may be required to maintain a preferable size/shape.
Conifers:
All dwarf cultivars/hybrids of our commonly grown native conifers – Abies grandis (Grand Fir),
Calocedrus decurrens (Incense Cedar), Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir), Thuja plicata (Western Red
Cedar), Picea sitchensis (Sitka Spruce), Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock, Pinus monticola (Western
White Pine).
However, these plants are fairly rare and therefore expensive, making them impractical for large-scale
replantings.
Easily available plants -
Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Pendula, Weeping Alaskan Cedar-
Shade,
Pinus contorta, Shore Pine-
Sun,
Taxus brevifolia, Western Yew-
Shade,
Tsuga mertensiana, Mountain Hemlock-
Sun, Part Shade –
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Evergreen –
Arbutus menziesii, Pacific Madrone
Sun
will eventually grow to 50’ high and wide and responds poorly to pruning (this is a marginal choice).
Tall Shrubs –
Arctostaphylus columbiana, Hairy Manzanita
Sub
Berberis aquifolium, Tall Oregon Grape-
Sun/Shade
Ceanothus thrysiflorus, Blue Blossom
Sun/Shade
Garrya elliptica, Coast Silktassel
Sun/Shade
Myrica californica, Coast Wax Myrtle
Sun
Rhododendron macrophyllum, Bigleaf Rhododendron
Shade
Umbellularia californicum, California Bay Laurel
Shade
Vaccinium ovatum, Evergreen Huckleberry
Shade/Sun (will remain low in sun, 2-4’, taller in shade, up to 6’)
Groundcovers-
Polystichum munitum, Western Sword Fern –
I list this plant first because it possesses every good characteristic required of a groundcover; it tolerates
sun and shade, drought and damp, grows densely to prevent weeds from emerging, and is relatively
inexpensive and easy to maintain.
This is the perfect groundcover, regardless of the situation.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Arctostaphylus uva ursi, Kinnikinnick-
Sun
Berberis nervosa, Low Oregon Grape
Sun/Shade
Festuca ovina, Blue Fescue
Sun
Fragaria chiloensis, Beach Strawberry
Sun
Gaultheria shallon, Salal
Sun/Shade
Slow to establish
Juniperus communis, Western Juniper
Sun
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
ADDENDUM
Site Visit Date: 11/07/2022
Report Date: 11/15/2022
SUMMARY:
Accompanied by Greg Graves, homeowner, and Amanda Hunt and Donna Frostholm of Jefferson
County Department of Community Development (DCD), I revisited the site to examine trees proposed
for pruning, removals, and to determine risk for trees growing immediately adjacent to the Glendon
septic system.
In speaking with the Glendon company representative on 11/14/2022, I was assured that tree roots
are unlikely to pose issues for this type of septic system. As such, there is no need for proposing the
removal of trees nearby.
This area was pruned in 2018 and has regrown vigorously. In order to maintain a portion of the
previously existing view corridor I recommend the pruning of approximately 25 young Red Alders (Alnus
rubra) using Crown Reduction pruning techniques, not to exceed 25% of the living crown over a three
year period. These are young and rapidly growing trees averaging 6.00”DBH.
I also made notes of two Grand Firs (Abies grandis) that require some crown pruning, not to exceed
25%, and not for view purposes but to mitigate poorly connected leaders and branches in the upper
canopy, lessening the likelihood of large branch failures.
In accordance with limits set forth in the attached geotechnical report for this property, it is
requested that 2 young Western Red Cedars, one less than the maximum allowed, be removed. These
are to be replaced with 6 native conifers in accordance with the Replanting Plan on page 40 and
monitored for a period of 5 years to ensure success.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
OBSERVATIONS:
(NOTE- Northernmost Red Cedar to be removed is 20’ south of the location on this map)
The locations of trees to be pruned are denoted on the aerial photo with YELLOW pins. The Red
Alders to be pruned are generally young trees, less than 12” DBH, and scattered throughout the view
corridor. These Alders are all in good to excellent healthy and growing rapidly. They may be pruned a
maximum of 25% of the living canopy over a three-year period with no measurable harm. I recommend
Crown Reduction pruning techniques. I estimate there are approximately 25 Red Alders scattered
through the view corridor area outlined in a red line in the aerial photo above.
The Grand Firs to be pruned to mitigate flaws in the upper crown to lessen the likelihood of branch
failures. These trees are also in good health and may sustain 25% of a crown reduction over a three year
period with no measurable harm done to the trees.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
Grand Fir #01 is located near the
middle of the southern boundary
of the property.
This tree was pruned in 2018 and
has regrown rapidly.
The pruning was not for view
purposes but rather to correct
poorly attached branches.
Grand Fir #02 is located near the
middle of the western boundary of
the property adjacent to the
driveway.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
One Western Red Cedar to be removed is located approximately 150’ east of the residence, one of
many currently growing into the view corridor. To regain a portion of the view, this tree may be
removed and replaced with three evergreen native saplings with no net ecological loss to the
functioning of this grove of trees.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
The young Red Alders to be pruned are visible as a lighter shaded green-leafed tree below the Blue
arrow.
The second Western Red Cedar to be removed is located just north of the Grand Fir on the southern
boundary. This too may be removed and replaced with three evergreen native saplings resulting in no
net ecological loss.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com
PLANTING PLAN:
This Mitigation Planting Plan (MPP) calls for the replacement of two mature native conifers with a
replanting of six nursery-grown native conifers at a 3:1 ratio.
The MPP on page 41 shows the approximate locations of the newly planted conifers. Exact locations
are extremely difficult to determine because of the presence of an abundance of native vegetation in
this area. The exact locations need to be determined by the absence of a significant native tree or shrub,
as well as being accessible in order to provide protection of the new tree and supplemental water as
needed.
The selected trees should be at least 3’ in height and planted and maintained using current best
management practices and ANSI A300 Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management Standard
Practices copyright 2012.
I recommend that native conifers chosen. Suitable low growing candidates include Tsuga
mertensiana, Mountain Hemlock, Pinus contorta, Shore Pine, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ‘Pendula’,
Weeping Alaskan Cedar, or Thuja plicata, Western Red Cedar, or similar cultivars that would satisfy the
light and space restrictions for this area.
Monitoring and Performance Standard:
Plants will be monitored for a five year period. They will be monitored twice yearly. Mulch must be
maintained to the dripline of the new trees. Watering should be performed as required (especially
important from 06/15 – 09/15.
All plants that do not survive the entirety of the first year following planting must be replaced.
For the four following years a survival rate of 90% of the newly installed plants is expected. If more
than 10% fail, those numbers will be replaced until the 90% survival threshold is reached.
Monitoring will consist of a plant inventory and a photographic record of the site conditions. If
problems are observed they will be communicated to those responsible for the maintenance of the
mitigation planting.
Records of this monitoring must be recorded with the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development.
Page 14 of 14
Richard R. Hefley – Consulting Arborist – 360-385-2921 – rkhefley@olypen.com