The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0204 CC REG ITEM 09EMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM °I • E. TO: The Honorable City Council 1 FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services. ' DATE: January 26, 2004 (CC Meeting of February 4, 2004) SUBJECT: Consider Maintenance Plan for the High Street Pepper Trees BACKGROUND On June 18, 2003, the City Council considered a staff recommendation to remove five mature Pepper trees located on High Street. This recommendation was based on a report (Attachment A) prepared by a previous consultant, Kay Greeley, who had served for a period as the City's arborist on specific projects. The report identified the five trees as having a hazard rating of 9 on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 presenting the greatest hazard). Ms. Greeley recommended that the City either remove the five trees or mitigate the hazard by inserting cables. The Council requested a second opinion and more information. Since the June 2003 meeting, staff has spoken to, and secured the services of, several arborists. This report attempts to summarize all of the information staff has gathered and to provide the Council with a recommendation for addressing the preservation of the Pepper tree theme on High Street. DISCUSSION The most comprehensive and recent evaluation of the mature High Street Pepper trees was performed by Michael Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney is a licensed arborist with over 30 years of experience. One of the tools he uses to help him evaluate the health and viability of a tree is a Resistograph®. A Resistograph® is used to measure the degree of decay in L -o HIM The Honorable City Council February 4, 2004 Page 2 internal tree tissue. It does this by measuring and graphing the increase or decrease of resistance to the force of a small needle drilled into a tree. Mr. Mahoney had an opportunity to review the reports written by Ms. Greeley and Mr. Andresen (another arborist hired by the City), and through the City's tree maintenance contractor, West Coast Arborist, he became familiar with the current maintenance practices employed to preserve the trees. Based on historical information about the trees and his independent evaluation, Mr. Mahoney prepared a comprehensive report, which was previously provided to the City Council. Attachment "A" to this report is provided to assist the Council in locating the various tree spaces addressed in Mr. Mahoney's report. To summarize his recommendations, which begin on page 4 of his report, Mr. Mahoney recommends that the City do the following: • With the knowledge that the life of a tree is not infinite, the City should consider planning for the eventual removal of old, non - viable trees in a manner that preserves, whenever feasible, the overall tree - lined appearance along High Street. To that end, the City needs to develop a policy and plan to remove old trees that present a hazard that cannot be mitigated in a manner that preserves some of the aesthetic value of the tree. Such a plan should address the staggered /phased removal of trees, when feasible. New trees should be planted in locations that better lend themselves to long -term growth and support the health of Pepper trees. The result will be a continuous collection of trees in a progression of different growth stages. • The City should consider removing the trees in spaces 22, 45, 34, 29, and 26. Then plant new trees in spaces where it is feasible. Rather than planting new Pepper trees in spaces 26 and 29, adjacent to the Metrolink parking lot, a different landscape treatment should be considered. • The trees in spaces 23, 36, 33, and 31 should be converted to veteran tree status by progressively pruning them to convert them to smaller trees. This is accomplished by carefully pruning away portions of the tree's canopy, while leaving adequate foliage to M:\MLindley \Landscp Zones\Pepper Trees\High St Pepper Trees Proposal ccagd.doc 000049 The Honorable City Council February 4, 2004 Page 3 support and maintain the health of the tree. Trees in spaces 17, 13, 9, 6, 44, 32, and 30 should receive the same treatment, but in an expedited manner as they present greater problems. • All remaining trees should continue to receive routine pruning to establish strong structural stability. This includes trees in spaces 16, 14, 8, 48, 47, 46, 43, and 35. • Perform regular tree evaluations to monitor and note any changes to the health and stability of the mature trees. Please note that Mr. Mahoney indicates that the original Pepper trees along High Street have performed very well. Considering their age, surroundings, and the species penchant for decay, the City is fortunate to have had the trees survive for as long as they have. He also states that the City's maintenance practices of routine thinning (at least twice a year) have contributed to their long, successful life. Additional Professional Input Prior to the evaluation performed by Mr. Mahoney, staff hired a third arborist, Mr. Andresen, and sought information from several other professional sources. Mr. Andresen performed a preliminary visual inspection of the mature Pepper trees on High Street and prepared a report documenting his findings (Attachment B) . In summary, he found that the significant structural defects of the trees were predominately in their main trunks. I accompanied Mr. Andresen on his initial inspection of the trees, and he pointed out the numerous tree wounds that have opened the trunks up to decay. While not in the report, Mr. Andresen stated to me that he agreed with the hazard ratings assigned by Ms. Greeley, although for different reasons in some cases. His report recommends that the City consider a more detailed evaluation of each tree to verify its hazard rating and to further determine which trees might make good candidates for cabling. However, based on his inspection and conclusion of the structural defects in the trunks, he does not believe any of the trees with a hazard rating of nine are good candidates for cabling. In his opinion, cabling will not mitigate the M:\MLindley \Landscp Zones\Pepper Trees\High St Pepper Trees Proposal ccagd.doc The Honorable City Council February 4, 2004 Page 4 trunk defects he noted. As recommended, the City subsequently hired Mr. Mahoney to perform a detailed tree evaluation. Our current tree maintenance contractor, West Coast Arborist (WCA) , recommended that I contact Ken Pfalzgraf, the staff arborist for the City of Beverly Hills. Mr. Pfalzgraf is very knowledgeable about tree cabling and often speaks to arboriculture organizations on the topic. Staff spoke with Mr. Pfalzgraf and he stated that cabling is not an exact science. There is no guarantee that cabling will prevent tree failures. When a tree's owner cables a tree, it admits to an abnormality that presents a hazard to the public, hence the need for cabling. Implied in this statement is an increase in liability; i.e., the tree's owner is aware of a potentially hazardous condition. Additionally, he stated that cabling a tree changes the wind load impact on it and can lead to failure to its other limbs, which were not cabled. Staff also consulted with West Coast Arborist (WCA), the City's tree maintenance contractor, and requested that they look at the five High Street Pepper trees with a hazard rating of 9 (according to Ms. Greeley's report) to see if, in their opinion, they could be cabled. A WCA staff arborist stated that in his opinion, none of the five trees would make a good cabling candidate and he would recommend against it. However, WCA will install cables at the City's request. To get an idea of what it might cost to cable a tree that is a good candidate for cabling, WCA provided staff with an estimate. Selecting one of the trees that has a hazard rating of 8, WCA recommends three cables (one 15 foot cable and two 20 foot cables). Based on a limited visual inspection, WCA estimates that for this one specific tree, it would cost $1,800 to install the cables and approximately $200 every six months to inspect and adjust the cables to ensure their continued effectiveness. In his opinion, cabling the trees may prolong the life of a tree with a hazard rating of 8 for about two to five years, depending on weather conditions. Proposed Action Based on Mr. Mahoney's report and the information gathered from other professional arborist sources, staff proposes M:\NILindley\Landscp Zones\Pepper Trees\High St Pepper Trees Proposal ccagd.doc 000051 The Honorable City Council February 4, 2004 Page 5 that the Council authorize the removal of the trees in spaces 22, 45, 34, 29, and 26. The work would be undertaken in the immediate future. Additionally, it is proposed that staff be directed to identify spaces that can accommodate and support the long -term growth of a Pepper tree to replace the trees removed. New 24 -inch Pepper trees would be planted in the identified spaces. Staff does not recommend that the City cable any of the Pepper trees. Further, it is proposed that the City implement Mr. Mahoney's recommendation to perform the progressive and expedited pruning work to incrementally convert the trees in spaces 23, 36, 33, 31, 17, 13, 9, 6, 44, 32, and 30 to smaller veteran tree status to maximize safety and mitigate risk. This can be accomplished by carefully pruning away portions of the tree's canopy, while leaving adequate foliage to support and maintain the health of the tree. The mature trees would then be evaluated and assessed on a no less than annual basis, and the findings documented. To address the future management of the Pepper tree collection on High Street, it is proposed that staff implement a phasing plan to remove trees when warranted and plant new trees in spaces that can support them over a long term. Rather than wait until a tree is removed, new tree spaces can be identified now, keeping in mind future improvements and potential development plans on High Street. STAFF RECOI- ZMNDATION Authorize staff to remove the High Street Pepper trees in spaces 22, 45, 34, 29, and 26, and direct staff to implement the steps proposed in the Agenda Report. Attachment A: Tree Map B: Steve Andresen Report M:\MLindley \Landscp Zones\Pepper Trees\High St Pepper Trees Proposal ccagd.doc 000052 52 ATTACHMENT A Arborist's Report-, Selected High Street Pepper Trees - December 2003 Site sketch ----------------------------------------- 1 192 nigh St, (old station) 21,01C tog #47 tog #46 WO/C too *0 *tag{ 18ro,/c . . . . . . . . . . . fto #36 (mulched tot) t" #35 tag #U Uke #33 A& too #32 A& tag #31 t1ko #30 j (PAOg tag #29 0; to fn I t __ 137 High 3L *A* 3to/c (market) 4,4ro/c {vacant lot) -------------- 41Yw& -------------------- 165 High St. tog #8 PIC 2010k (professional building) (storefront) (storefront) (storefront) restaurant 44o/c —1 j& ta a- 013 213 Nigh SL i (vacant building) 1 UO/C #14 233 High St. 7Zo/c (professional building) #16 255 High St. (swehrA.) tag #17 273 Nigh St. (residence) - - - - - - - - --- - (fire statio - n) (restaurant) (residence) kAlsag #22 349 High St. (blacksmith's shop) Pr 361 High St. tag 923 (vacant lot) * Denotes Trees Rated 10 and 9 in Ms. Greeley's Report 000053 eD Steve F. Andresen / Arborist Services 5516 Inspiration Drive ISA—WC 2170 Riverside, CA 92506 (909) 788 -1829 Fax 788 -1667 August 20, 2003 Ms. Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services THE CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93201 RE: ARBORIS7 LETTER CALIFORNIA PEPPERS - HIGH STREET Dear Mary, Thank you for the opportunity to be involved with your project. Please see below my initial findings regarding the California Pepper trees on High Street. SCOPE OF WORK At the request of City of Moorpark Director of Community Services, Ms. Mary K. Lindley, a meeting and site visit was made on August 5, 2003 to inspect the street trees along High Street. The purpose of the meeting and this subsequent report addresses the visible health and structure of the California Pepper trees and concerns regarding tree stability and possible hazards. SUMMARY My first impression when arriving at the location was the extremely high canopies of the trees. Due to the necessity to maintain the California Peppers as street trees, numerous pruning over the years has had a detrimental impact on the structural character of the trees. Also taking into consideration the age and location of the trees in question, I would recommend the removal of trees that after further inspection is found to have a strong possibility of failure. The importance of taking into consideration the age of a tree in this type of setting is the consideration that damage over the years may not be documented or revealed under normal circumstances. The option of guying and cabling to prevent limb failure may assist to protect the splitting of a tree at the limb attachment but will not address the more vulnerable areas below the large structural branches. The significant structural defects are in the main trunk and at the tree bases at the soil level where stress can occur from radial movement. 000054 EFFECTS OF PRUNING In picture (1), note how the wound has not properly healed. The pruning cut or flush cut has injured the branch collar and damaged the trees branch defense zone at this location. This zone is responsible for retarding the spread of decay. The size of the limb removed and the age of the tree are also factors contributing to the spread of decay into the heartwood and has weakened the overall tree stability and structure. CALIFORNA pEPPeR.. PLATE / 2 High Street — California Peppers Steve F. Andresen August 20, 2003 TRUNK DAMAGE Whole tree failure can occur in trees with severe trunk damage at the tree base. As seen in picture (2), a very large area of the tree trunk is dead and decayed. The amount of sound wood is not known in this tree but due to age and height, a tree with this condition has a high possibility of failure. 000055 High Street — California Peppers Steve F. Andresen August 20, 2003 Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSION Heritage trees have a two -fold impact on a community. The Pepper trees natural beauty and its contribution to the downtown setting is extremely positive. Allowing trees with substantial defects to remain in this setting is however not practicing proper tree management. The high pedestrian usage and traffic along High Street requires special consideration into the probability that tree failure will occur in structural defective trees even though all precautions are taken to improve tree conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS My recommendations for the trees on High Street are to further evaluate each tree and remove those considered to be hazardous systematically until all trees with severe damage are removed. A program aimed at replacing each tree with a specimen size replacement with proper structure and health should be considered in order to reduce the community impact of the large tree removal process. The twice a year pruning now done to reduce the canopy weight and remove any weakly attached or diseased limbs should be continued on the existing trees. 000056 056 High Street — California Peppers Steve F. Andresen August 20, 2003 Page 4 of 4 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: I am a certified arborist in California # WC 2170 with the International Society of Arboriculture and I am qualified to make this report. My inspection was a visual examination and in most cases will ensure the success of a project such as this. My report is based on the condition of the trees at the time of inspection. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: If you should have questions or comments regarding this report please feel free to contact me: Steve F. Andresen Arborist Services 5516 Inspiration Drive Riverside, CA 92506 (909) 768 -9897 Fax (909) 788 -1667 .ter s; f Fi' ' � � ✓✓ Steve F. Andresen Arborist WC 2170 Date: 00005"t ITEM Q • E• Michael. T. Mahoney INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT- SPECIALIST IN ARBORICULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY 425 30" STREET, SUITE 28 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663. 949.673.5199 • FAX 949.673.5197 MARY LINDLEY CITY OF MOORPARK DECEMBER 23, 2003 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 ARBORIST's REPORT: SELECTED HIGH STREET PEPPER TREES — DECEMBER 2003 Dear Ms. Lindley, This report summarizes my site visits to inspect the mature California pepper trees (Schinus molle) growing in the public right of way of the historic High Street district, compares the trees' present condition to previous studies, conveys my analysis of the current health and stability of the trees, and provides recommendations for the treatment of 24 individual trees and for the stand as a cohesive unit. I visited the site on November 10th and again on December 11t for purposes of producing this report. The current assessment follows a comprehensive study prepared in December of 2000 and a more cursory assessment in August of 2003. While some measures are included here to allow comparison of tree conditions in 2000 with those in 2003 (for purposes of establishing trends and making projections), methods employed here vary to some degree. A significant consideration underlying this report is the assumption that historic tree resource conservation in Moorpark is highly desirable; maximum tree preservation is sought even though the trees may pose a heightened level of risk. Thus, trees are assessed using a health and stability process (in addition to the relative hazard assessment method provided in the 2000 study) that focuses on various attributes of a tree: the root zone, the trunk or bole, the major structural or scaffold limbs, smaller branches and twigs, and the foliage. Please refer to the spreadsheets provided herein. Also, note that many of these trees are senescent; no warrantee for fitness of use is expressed or implied here for these old, decadent trees. Another convention utilized in this study, though not provided in previous studies, is analysis of internal wood decay using a Resistograph° - an instrument specifically designed and manufactured to determine the relative degree of decay in internal woody tissues. The device produces a continuous line juxtaposed on a measured graph, showing increasing or decreasing resistance to the force of a small needle inserted (drilled) into the tree. Thirty-five 'drillings' were made into various trees included in this study; graphs of these measurements are provided as an enclosure to this report. (For information on the Resistograph, see htt r.!'4vtv�.e .ililfLisa.coi�il}►kll�l;`rc sistl� rauh.htLi ). Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 2 Trees in the public domain often provide specific engineering functions; they might be thought of as 'working' trees and pruning and other treatments typically occur that are more severe than what might be expected in a more natural setting. Tree senescence occurs as a stage of natural development. Even in nature, unless they are prematurely damaged or destroyed, trees and other living organisms progress through life stages. The physiological progression of these phases is a more representative description of the age of a tree than is the number of years that it has been growing. A tree that has been growing for only a few years, but is growing under very adverse conditions, may be physiologically older than another that has been cultivated and carefully managed to attain a fuller life. Overly mature'working' trees, even though they have not attained the full potential of their life expectancy, may be retired from service in public settings when weaknesses become predictable and public safety is at risk. Concern about the potential for harm to the public and loss of venerable tree resources arise from the trees' large size, the stage of internal wood deterioration in conjunction with branch architecture, and the trees' proximity to people and property. It is noteworthy that a variety of 'generations' of California pepper trees can be found in this district; perhaps this'uneven aged stand' effect is a key to solving conservation of an historic resource and preservation of the public health and welfare. Given that all living organisms eventually fail, and that the landscape along High Street is a public space that must be managed with an acceptable level of safety for the public health and welfare, it is the tree 'spaces' that should be preserved. Individuals (trees) that occupy the resource (tree spaces) should be both historically representative and healthy, somewhat analogous to individuals of varying ages in a family and their impact on a community. Periodic reforestation is a vital tool in conservation of an historic tree resource. Statements in the 2000 study indicate that 'trees in ... hospitable surroundings might ... be expected to have a lifespan from sixty to two hundred years.' Considering that there has been no suggestion that the trees' High Street environment is especially 'hospitable' to tree health and stability, it is apparent that the majority of the trees are approaching senescence and they can be expected to deteriorate considerably. Characterizations of the trees' maintenance history are overly severe. Given the penchant for the species heart rot decay, the trees' proximity to vehicular and pedestrian traffic (and corresponding duty to provide safety clearance), the evolving community development, and the evolving state of the art in professional tree care it is rarely, if ever, that old California pepper trees are found in a better state of health and stability than what is found along High Street. Furthermore, it is likely that the periodic unloading of long horizontal limbs and the routine thinning of the trees' canopies has enabled them to persist to this mature state. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees - December 2003 Page 3 Research (and common sense) have demonstrated that shorter, stouter structures are mechanically more stable than taller, thinner structures - especially when these structures are load - bearing, as are trees. While it is true that dense, solid wood has significant weight and heft, loads represented by the end weight of long limbs densely laden with foliage flowers and fruit tend to represent a higher risk of mechanical failure, especially when inclement weather is added to the equation. Often failures of dense woody portions occur after leverage is applied by heavy end loading of long limbs, and cracks and other defects occur in the wood. Cracks and wounds in wood impede natural mechanical dynamics and permit opportunistic pathogens (fungi, insects, and other agents) to begin to decay the wood and reduce its physical strength. (Note: for a variety of other reasons some especially limber trees that grow very tall are able to maintain stability and longevity- i.e., some Eucalyptus species, but are predisposed to early failure when they are severely pruned or wounded. Such mechanical properties do not apply to strategies presented here for California pepper.) With sufficient foresight and routine care, certain trees can be treated and encouraged to persist in the 'built' landscape well beyond the service life that is typically encountered. This process involves conservation of certain growth structures, and reduction or elimination of others, to promote the achievement of and prolong the useful life of a 'veteran tree'. Below, is a graphic illustration of 'The Stages in the Life of a Tree' (Figure 12, Veteran Trees: A Guide To Good Management (0 1998 - 2002 English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PEI 1UA England): - FORMATIVE - - -- FULL TO LATE MATURITY - - -- EARLY ANCIENT - - -- LATE ANCIENT - - -- SENESCENT - - -- DEATH - - (For information on Veteran Trees, see lrtth:!/ rvw.0 fish nature ]< /pubs /l landbo oksi click on Veteran Trees Management Handbook) This simple graphic depicts the natural process from seedling, through veteran tree status, and eventually death. Modifications would be required to illustrate fundamental management issues that occur with roadside trees and reflect long -term design and planning for High Street in Moorpark, California. Those issues notwithstanding, the primary intent of this strategy is to extend the period between full- to- late - maturity and senescent /death, but it also demonstrates the natural condition that includes trees in various stages of development. Additional strategies are presented. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees - December 2003 Page 4 Assessment of tree related hazards and assessment of tree health and stability are procedures that can be distinguished in several important ways. While both processes are intended to measure relative conditions of health and stability, the hazard assessment process focuses more on documenting risk potential while the health and stability assessment recognizes five distinct attribute groups for each tree and serves to document the severity of one or more factors that challenge the tree's health and stability. Therefore, from a community forest management perspective each procedure has distinct merit. As demonstrated in the analysis of information gleaned during this study, three more trees have attained a very high hazard rating status (using the December 2000 hazard assessment process) and six trees (only one of which is included in the three trees rated as a very high hazard) have major defects that should be considered when making determinations about the health and stability of the community forest. (Note that the statement differs significantly from saying'making determinations about the health and stability of individual trees.') Furthermore, it is noteworthy that trees having achieved the highest hazard status might be treatable to reduce or minimize that threat. Recommendations Part 1- Rather than addressing individual tree preservation, expand the toolbox of administrative options by managing the entire collection of trees described as an historic representation of Poindexter's legacy. It is apparent that visual assessments based on professional experience (application of procedures to assess hazard, application of procedures to assess health and stability) and measurement of individual trees using scientific instruments (Resistograph measurements) produces mixed messages. The mission of this scenario might be stated as follows: historic tree spaces are conserved, a reasonably safe, shady, tree -lined street is realized, suitable historic relics are perpetuated for the sake of posterity. • Trees tend to develop along a certain progression — if you plant them at the same time they are likely to perish along a similar timeline. To overcome the inevitability of that progression, maintain the landscape with variable -aged trees that sustain the landscape in perpetuity. To that end, removal of old senescent trees and renewal of the collection by installing healthy young replacements is a positive step to assure achievement of a perpetual historic resource. • Tree spaces that have large senescent trees where renewal of the site by removal and replacement of the tree are clearly recommended are: #22, and #29. • The tree in space #17 has numerous apparent problems that might suggest the tree should be placed on the removal fast track, however, measurements taken by the Resistograph indicate that it has somewhat greater stability than what is outwardly apparent, and, mitigating measures might be taken to perpetuate the service life of this tree. (Note: this tree and many of the others are clearly Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 5 senescent and were it not for the community's desire to preserve historic relics these senescent trees would be recommended for removal. This is not an endorsement of the fitness of use for the tree in space #17.) Similarly, while the tree in space #26 has numerous apparent problems, it, too was found to have a marginally greater potential for stability than what might be suggested by the visual assessment. • The tree in space #34 has an extremely severe lean; however, readings taken with the Resistograph indicate that this tree might have greater potential for stability than it appears. Consider replacing this with a healthy new tree to renew the site and better contribute to long -term community forestry. • The tree in space #45 has visual evidence of aggressive fungal pathogens (though this pathogen is likely to be active in all of the trees to some extent), and the Resistograph measurement suggests that the tree is less stable than most of the others. Consider removal of this tree. • Other spaces have trees with major and even extreme problems that might be treated to reduce the impact of their condition. These include #13, #9, #6, #44, #36, and #32. For treatments to reduce the risk of hazard for these and other trees see Parts 2 and 3. • Relatively speaking, certain spaces lend themselves better to tree culture than others; some lend themselves better to preservation of the veteran tree relics, and some spaces may be lost over time due to changing land use. Sites #26 and #29 function as the gateway to the parking lot; these sites should be considered from the larger perspective of planning and land use - a different landscape treatment may be indicated here. The tree in space 22 is very close in proximity to space 23 where the abutting private property is a large vacant lot. Conversion of land use here may result in substantial additional challenges for tree development. • To realize a shady, tree -lined street it will be necessary to coordinate removal of undesirable senescent trees based upon the impact it will have on adjacent spaces. Where possible, stagger /phase the conversion or removal of shade trees at abutting sites to avoid the creation of blights. As an interim step it may be useful to severely prune a senescent shade tree that might be slated for removal and replacement, and convert it to a less stately historical relic, to avoid an over abundance of new small trees in an area. Designate new and potential spaces where future trees could be planted to compensate for lost original tree sites. (Again, consider that it is the site that is being managed and conserved.) Part 2 - Continue to perform routine pruning to establish strong structural stability in trees that have not yet reached a senescent stage of development. Minimize the risk of loss of limbs and injury to people and property by conducting periodic assessments to measure significant changes in individual trees. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 6 • Older trees in this collection should be inspected and assessed on no less than an annual evaluation cycle. Previous assessment methods and their findings should be used to measure changes in the population, notations should be recorded to document interim conditions for future evaluation. • Large pruning wounds (several inches in diameter and larger) should be avoided, if possible. Wounds to the base of the tree and at the juncture of major scaffold limbs will allow decay pathogens to begin to grow where they might leverage these mechanically vulnerable areas. • Pruning treatments should encourage the progressive and graduated branching within the tree's architecture. Pruning which results in long limbs with heavy end weight should expressly be avoided. • Spaces with trees that will benefit from routine pruning to establish healthy branch structure and to maintain pedestrian and vehicular clearance include all the younger and new trees not addressed in this study as well as #16, #14, #8, #48, #46, and #43 and #35. Part 3 - Convert selected trees to veteran tree status; facilitate an aesthetically desirable tree specimen and maintain maximum safety by reducing the risk of failure of tree parts that might impact people or property. The intent is to incrementally (annual installments over a period of 5 to 10 years) 'unload' selective branches to prevent breakage and to promote growth lower in the tree. This way, the tree might be maintained over time as a lower, bushier veteran tree. Primary dilemmas in this strategy occur as biological challenges and aesthetic challenges. Biologically, if we reduce the amount of living, functional foliage, we may inhibit the ability of the tree to manufacture sufficient energy (through photosynthesis and assimilate storage) to sustain new tissue development. It is necessary to carefully select portions of the tree's canopy to prune away, and to leave adequate foliage for each architectural element (major scaffold branches and associated lateral limbs) to function properly. Aesthetically, reduction of major limbs must occur in a progressive sequence so that the tree does not become an eyesore. While many of the trees have major health problems with various parts of their anatomy, none exhibit major foliage problems. Furthermore, only tree #36 was rated with extreme health problems and it occurs at the base of the tree. Therefore, if the useful service life of this tree is to be extended, it will be necessary to employ extreme measures to reduce the canopy and, thus reduce the load threatening the stability of the entire tree. • Trunk sprouts and sprouts occurring lower in the tree's architecture - even those that are highly disorganized - should be retained for an extended period of time. Trees gain energy by way of photosynthesis - a biological process that occurs in the green portions of trees and other plants - and, therefore, any green portion of the plant that can be retained will contribute to a net increase in the tree's energy Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees - December 2003 Page 7 reserves. Over time, these sprouts may be pruned and trained as important branches in the veteran tree's architecture. Carryout periodic and progressive reduction in the length of especially long limbs. Spaces with trees that would benefit from this treatment (provided they are not removed for other reasons) include #23, #17, #13, #9, #6, #45, #44, #36, #34, #33, #32, #31, #30, and #26. Of these, the trees with one or more significant stability problems that would benefit from a more rapid conversion to smaller, bushier trees include spaces #17, #13, #9, #6, #45, #44, #32, #30, and #26. A tree's canopy should have more than one layer (or level) of foliage. When multiple layers of foliage exist it is possible to reduce the size of the tree by removing the upper level while retaining a substantial portion of the lower levels, or when insufficient layers of foliage exist by cultivating over time sufficient development of new growth in the lower levels to adequately supply the photosynthetic needs of the tree (cultivation in this way is a pruning treatment). Large portions of the canopy should be reduced over time by appropriate pruning treatments. Trees that merit this treatment, and that also have sufficient layers of canopy are in spaces #23, #9, #6, #44, #36, #33, #32, #30, and #26. Summary #23 Provide eriodic and progressive pruning to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #22 _ this tree #17 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #16 Provide routine pruning to maintain health and stability. #14 Provide routine;pruning to maintain health and stability. #13 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #9 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #8 Provide routine pruning to maintain health and stability. #6 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #48 Provide routine pruning to maintain health and stability. #47 Provide routine pruning to maintain health and stability. #46 Provide routine pruning to maintain health and stability. #45 ,�- or expedite the time line to reduce tree size. #44 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #43 Provide routine pruning to maintain health and stability. #36 Provide 'periodic and progressive pruning to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #35 Provide routine,pruning to maintain health and stability. #34 -�■� or expedite the time line to reduce tree size.. #33 Provide periodic and progressive pruning to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #32 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. 431 Provide periodic and progressive pruning to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #30 Expedite the time line to convert this tree to smaller, bushier form. #29 , this tree. Consider a different treatment due to land use. #26 due to land use, or expedite the time line to reduce tree size. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page S Finally, recognition of the significance of the historical nature of the California pepper trees planted along High Street at the turn of the 20th century by Robert Poindexter might be perpetuated with the cultivation of new trees. Numerous seedlings periodically sprout beneath the canopy of old pepper trees. These new little trees can be collected and raised in nursery containers as future components of the original historic legacy. As in commercial nursery operations, seedlings should be periodically transitioned from smaller to progressively larger containers and eventually planted in the landscape. Extra or unneeded trees might be distributed for educational and promotional purposes. Enclosures Site Sketch This simplified, stylized, graphic depiction of the total collection of Poindexter's historic tree collection includes symbols for mature and senescent trees (tag numbers) and additional indications for other California pepper trees associated with the historic collection. Future studies should incorporate these elements and other features that may have significant bearing on the long -term management of the resource. Some color- coding is included that may indicate proximity relationships and recommended treatments Photo references Annotated photographic images are presented here for reference purposes. These and additional images are stored digitally and can be provided in jpeg format for future reference. Resistograph measurements Copies of the wax - coated graph paper strips produced by the instrument are reproduced here in a slightly reduced format. Annotations have been included with each strip to assist in its interpretation. Table 1 - Tree Locations and Dimensions This enclosure updates information provided in the December 2000 study and includes additional site attributes and comments with which to conduct ongoing management considerations. These factors have been assimilated into this assessment and they have bearing upon the recommendations provided herein. The enclosure titled Table 2 updates the hazard assessment process provided in December 2000 and provides the additional health and stability assessment process. Hazard assessment attribute categories and rating information from the 2000 process were described and detailed for the report produced from that study and, therefore, for the sake of brevity they will not be repeated here. However, modifications and conventions used in this presentation of the data, and the new health and stability assessment process merit a succinct description. Table 2 - Tree Assessment Summaries Subsequent to the 2000 report, trees in the public domain along High Street have been sequentially numbered and physically Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 9 tagged. Tree reference numbers from the 2000 report do not correspond to the current numbering system. These physical tags were useful conventions to avoid confusion during the Resistograph measurements, documentation, and multiple site visits required for this study; field notes included only the tag numbers for reference purposes. Table 2 has columns for_ each reference number as they correspond to each other (as does Table 1); additional enclosures are prepared with the current physical tag number only and it is anticipated that future management efforts will correspond to that convention. Please refer to Table 2. Columns relating to the 2000 hazard assessment process (including 2003 update) are presented in white; columns for the 2003 health and stability assessment process are presented in light yellow. Changes from 2000 to 2003 in the hazard assessment process are highlighted yellow. White highlights are used in the 2003 light yellow- colored health and stability section to flag extreme ratings (the rating system is on a 1 to 5 ranking with 1 equal to extreme problems, 2 equal to major problems, 3 equal to minor problems, and 4 equal to no apparent problems'). Multi - colored columns connote the cumulative ranking of hazard ratings, and health and stability conditions; the number value expresses a relative assessment for each tree. Please refer to Table 2. The health and stability condition rankings contain percentage rates. These rates were derived using the following equation: (5 +5,5 +5,5 +5,5,5) = 98% The highest rating would he 98% - 42 no tree is perfect. I hope you find this information helpful in assisting to make the important decisions about dealing with these challenging tree issues. If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly Michael T. Mahoney, registered consulting arborist Enc: Site sketch (1 page) Photo references (12 pages) Resistograph measurements (11 pages) Table 1 (1 page - legal size) Table 2 (1 page - legal size) Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 10 Site sketch __tag_#4$_ 52'o /c 192 High St. 21`o/c tag #47 _ s (old station) --- -- - - - - - -- 52'o /c — tag #46 f 50'o /c to #4 to #44 3$'0/ c d (storefront) 0 s tag #36 (mulched lot) tag #35" tag 34 tag #33 tag #32 i tag #31 tag #30 „ (parking lot) tag #2 to #26 V 137 High St. :_aag #6 -.. __ 33'o /c (market) � f 44'o /c (vacant lot) - _ _ 165 High St. tag #8 Za`o, , c (professional building) tag #9 ._ . (storefront) (storefront) (storefront) y ' restaurant r �. tag . #13____ _ 44'o /c 213 High St. (vacant building) 5b'o /c flag #14 __ 233 High St 72'cic (professional building) 57'o %c 255 High St. tag #16- - (storefront) tag #17 273 High St. A (residence) (fire station) (restaurant) (residence) ag 22 349 High St. /tit (blacksmith's shop) Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees - December 2003 Page 11 Photo reference Above: tree with tag #23 adjacent to 361 High Street. Note the sucker growth on the lower trunk prior to recent pruning - this and similar growth is useful in converting the tree from a shade tree to a veteran tree. Treatment of trunk sprouts is described in recommendations, pg. 6. Below: tree and several attributes of tree with tag #22 adjacent to 349 High St. This tree has been recommended for removal and replacement with a healthy young California pepper tree. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 12 Photo reference Above: tree and below base of tree with tag #17 adjacent to 273 High Street. This tree has several extreme problems yet Resistograph measurements indicate it is more stable than it appears. Consider removing this tree, nevertheless, and replacing it with a healthy new pepper tree to elevate and expand the evolving historic tree resource. Below: tree with tag #16 adjacent to 255 High Street. The canopy spread of this tree has been reduced in the period between the December 2000 study and December 2003. Routine pruning should be adequate to maintain the health and stability of this tree for the present evaluation period. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 13 Photo reference Above: two trees - to the left is the tree with tag #13; center is tree with tag #14 at 213 and 233 High Street, respectively. Below is the base of tree tagged #13. Note that this tree leans severely. Tree 14, which has a rather low and horizontal canopy, has sufficient health and stability to merit routine pruning for clearance, health and stability. Tree tagged #13 is more problematic and may require more severe treatments to preserve its health and stability. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 14 Photo reference Above: tree with tag #9 - one of two trees adjacent to 165 High Street. This tree is on the east side. It has extreme stability problems associated with the main trunk - recommendations are for expedited conversion of the tree from an over -story shade tree to a shorter, bushier relic tree. Among the various pruning cuts to accomplish this treatment, red lines on this image indicate two that might be carried out. Below: tree with tag #8 - also at 165 High Street (west side). This tree has relatively fewer or less significant stability problems. The tree's horizontal growth extension and the potential for these limbs to become 'overloaded' by the weight of the foliage -especially during times of inclement weather - require that it receive routine pruning to minimize the risk of limb breakage. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 15 Photo reference Above: tree with tag #6 at 137 High Street. Due to extreme problems with trunk stability, relatively favorable site characteristics, and an expanding and diverse canopy that lends itself to more aggressive pruning, recommendations are made to expedite conversion of this tree from over -story shade tree to lower, safer veteran tree. Below: across the street from 137 High Street is a site with the tree tagged #48. Due to relatively favorable health and stability ratings, recommendations are for this tree to continue receiving routine pruning treatments to minimize risks from health and stability problems. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 16 Photo reference Above: trees tagged #46 & #47, respectively. The canopies of these two trees are so close in proximity that they might be treated as a single unit. Both trees have relatively fewer problems with health and stability, though tree #47 is rated lower for trunk stability. Routine pruning is recommended to minimize the risk of health and stability problems. Below: tree with tag #45 and a detail of the base of that tree. The detail has a red arrow showing the location of perennial conks of an aggressive fungal pathogen causing Ganoderma Butt rot. Note the relationship of the location of the conks and the direction of the tree's lean - the portion of the trees anchoring support system that is under tension here is most impacted. It is recommended that this tree be removed and replaced, but it may be mitigated by severe pruning and protected in place - this treatment may render the tree aesthetically unfit. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 17 Photo reference Above: tree with tag #44. This image also shows the interrelated nature of trees in this segment on the south side of High Street and certain site attributes. This tree has extreme problems associated with the major limb indicated by the red arrow. Resistograph measurements confirm that this limb has extensive heart rot. It is recommended that this tree be converted from shade tree to veteran tree status and pruning treatments to achieve this process should be expedited. Below: tree with tag #43. This tree has relatively fewer problems with health and stability, though the large limb indicated by the red arrow is more horizontal and has less taper than would be desirable, the tree represents a lower level of risk due to its proximity, site attributes, and the condition of internal tissues indicated in three Resistograph measurements. Routine pruning is recommended to minimize the risk of health and stability problems. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 18 Photo reference Above and left: tree with tag #36. Oue to its proximity to the large open space this tree has developed with a magnificent canopy and it has the largest diameter trunk of any in the collection. However, it also has a large cavity at the base, indicated by the red arrow in the detail image (left). Large 'ribs' of reaction wood have developed overtime that compensate for the loss of tension support. This tree has been recognized for its diminished health in the root zone, however, due to its expansive canopy features, its site attributes, and the scale of its bole, it is recommended that this tree receive progressive pruning to convert it from a shade tree to a smaller, more stable veteran tree. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 19 Photo reference Above: tree with tag #35 and a detail image showing the tree's trunk. This tree has major problems with trunk health, though the ribs of reaction wood provide substantial tension support (red arrows), reducing the tree's instability. Recommendations for this tree call for routine pruning to minimize the risk of developing health and stability problems. Below: tree with tag #34. Note the extreme lean that has developed over time with this tree. The character of the canopy indicates that the tree has adjusted to the trunk lean, and a Resistograph measurement has confirmed that internal tissues in the trunk are stable. Consider removing this tree for aesthetic purposes, and to insure renewed health and stability of the entire collection of trees as an historic resource. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 20 Photo reference Above: tree with tag #33. Note the co- dominant stems at an elevation of about 15' above ground level. A Resistograph measurement was taken at the location of the red arrow and the attachment was found to be relatively stable. Nevertheless, this architectural feature is not conducive to long -term management and it is recommended that pruning treatments be initiated to convert this tree to an altered form. One of the trunks should be progressively subordinated to the other. Below: tree with tag #32. Due to apparent extreme problems with trunk stability, a Resistograph measurement that indicates reasonably stable interior wood characteristics, relatively favorable site characteristics, and an expanding and diverse canopy that lends itself to more aggressive pruning, recommendations are made to expedite conversion of this tree from over -story shade tree to lower, safer veteran tree. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 21 Photo reference Above: tree tagged #31. Co- dominant stems at a low elevation resulted in taking two Resistograph measurements to determine the relative stability of branch attachments. A measurement taken on the south side, indicate by the red arrow, indicates a weakened condition. Below: tree tagged #30 and a detail of the tree tagged #29. Both of these trees are situated in landscaped planters associated with the parking lot. Tree #30 has major problems; tree #29 has extreme problems - it is recommended for removal and reconsideration. 7.`i Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 22 Photo reference Above: the tree at the east entry corner to the parking lot and tagged #26, insert details of the canopy (above right) and bole (below left). This tree and the adjacent one tagged #29 represent a gateway into the parking lot. Land use planning consideration might result in a different landscape treatment here, and certain visually apparent problems support consideration for removal of this tree. Large ribs of reaction wood at the base of the tree (red arrows) and Resistograph measurements taken at the division of major limbs high in the canopy indicate that the structure is more stable than it appears. Arborist's Report: Selected High Street Pepper Trees — December 2003 Page 23 Photo reference Two examples of veteran trees that have been protected in place due to their value as historic legacies. Above: a veteran Coast live oak known as "The Oak of the Golden Dream" located in western Los Angeles County off I -14 Below: an ancient tree known as the "Bowthrope Oak ", which has been growing in its approximate present configuration since 1768 For additional images of veteran trees see: "Meetings With Remarkable Trees" by Thomas Pakenham; Random House Publishers and "Ancient Trees" by Anna Lewington and Edward Parker; Collins & Brown Publishers. Asessment of Mature Pepper Trees High Street - City of Moorpark, California December 2003 Table 1 - Tree Locations and Dimensions 22 2 349 blacksmith's shop 48 1 48 45 1 45 60 1 53 west adequate low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), no adjacent soil area, reduced canopy, severe lean 17 5 273 residence 41 1 41 50 50 45 1 44 west adequate low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), adjacent large soil area, reduced canopy, severe lean 16 6 255 storefront 39 39 50 50 70 1 58 west restrictive low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), adjacent large soil area, significantly reduced canopy 14 7 233 professional building 25 1 25 35 1 35 40 1 41 west adequate, low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), some adjacent soil area, low horizontal canopy 13 1 8 1 213 vacant commercial property i 43 1 11 40 1 40 i 60 1 57 west restrictive low vigor re: trunk diameter growth). no adjacent soil area, horizontal canopy, severe lean 9 9 165 professional building - east tree 40 1 40 55 ; 55 50 1 58 south restrictive low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), some adjacent soil area, expanding multi-layered canopy 8 10 165 professional building - west tree 38 ; 38 50 i 50 45 58 west restrictive low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), some adjacent soil area, expanding horizontal canopy 6 11 137 market 39 1 39 50 1 50 45 1 59 1 north restrictive low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), some adjacent soil area, expanding multi-layered canopy 48 12 192 old station west -most 51 1 51 1 50 I 50 65 1 69 west expanded low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), adjacent soil area, expanding multi - layered canopy, overhead powerlines 47 1 13 1 192 old station 2nd from west 1 36 1 40 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 49 south expanded adjacent soil area, reduced impacted canopy, overhead powerlines 46 14 192 old station 3rd from west 41 1 41 50 1 50 45 1 51 east ex anded low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), adjacent soil area, expanding multi-layered canopy, overhead powerlines, bee hive 45 15 192 old station 4th from west 35 ; 35 45 1 45 48 45 west expanded low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), ad soil, Ganoderma conks, reduced multi-layered canopy, severe lean, powerlines 44 16 192 old station 5th from west 33 33 40 ; 40 45 50 north expandec low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), adjacent soil area, expanding multi - layered canopy, overhead powerlines 43 17 192 old station 6th from west 42 1 42 1 40 40 60 1 56 north expande low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), adjacent soil area, reduced horizontal canopy, overhead powerlines 36 18 226 mulched lot by tan building 59 1 59 45 1 45 65 1 66 n -east expandec low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), large adj soil area, large cavity at base, multi - layered canopy, severe lean 35 19 226 mulched lot, east of tan building 32 1 32 1 30 40 1 57 north ex ande low vi or re: trunk diameter rowth , lar a adjacent soil area, lar a wound on trunk, low multi -la -layered can 34 20 226 mulched lot, 2nd from tan building 28 29 1 30 35 1 46 s -east expanded low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), some adjacent soil area, extreme lean to s -east, low horizontal canopy 33 21 226 mulched lot, 3rd from tan building 30 30 30 r30 35 1 39 north expanded low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), large adjacent soil area, co- dominant multi-layered canopy 32 22 226 mulched lot, 4th from tan building 1 25 1 25 30 1 30 1 43 n/a expanded low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), some adjacent soil area, low multi - layered canopy 31 23 226 mulched lot, 5th from tan building 36 ; 36 35 ; 35 65 11 52 south I expanded low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), large adjacent soil area, co- dominant reduced canopy 30 24 n/a parking lot, west -most tree 38 1, 37 40 j 40 40 ; 47 s -east adequate low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), landscaped planter, multi - layered canopy 29 25 1 n/a Iparking lot, 2nd from west 33 1 33 35 1 35 40 1 39 n -east restrictive low vigor re: trunk diameter growth), restictive planter, no adjacent soil area, low reduced canopy 26 26 1 n/a parking lot, 3rd from west 52 ; 52 45 1 45 30 1 43 south restrictive low vigor (re: trunk diameter growth), no adjacent soil area, cavity at base, expanding multi - layered canopy Asessment of Mature Pepper Trees High Street - City of Moorpark, California December 2003 Table 2 - Tree Assessment Summaries - ` .,,,� !�.' '*k ., .'. �;. � L: �+,v.:,:, � iay. �y�it '� �' , �y,vo N9'a� r.� - �� A�.-xd 23 1 4 4 2 i 2 2 1 2 1 8 1 8 ¢"...e G. Y M+a: gF�% iii „'� TId �t^Si'^!: ? F�� i,A ^1.i" Sa, wur.�rrrc� F.,4 -e. ' 2NG1A� M1tl^� %�� 3 1 4 2 1 3 2 i 3 : %.. faidylow low �e low poor x � 3- -. -. y�..r yrJ:� 5�•; ry a•C } r. #fi r�. S }i' J,�l?,4�i.5`Y��;5° _.�.'vfi- fa, i,�,�: i X ��'JV .,. '• � +Fa+kL d`� �� rY_rIS s%..F d'ew 4 g.e:Jw ..�..� -- - � �6, �.d < S. .. 4 4 64% 1 graph: Tup east side into 'rib' of wood left of cavity and right of a vertical seam in the trunk 22 2 4 1 4 2 1 3 2 1 3 8 10 1 1 I 2 1 1 3 1 i 3 4 4 4#%j3 graphs: 5' up north side, 12' up n -west side under limb, 14' up n -west side top of limb over street 17 5 4 1 4 2 i 2 2 1 2 8 I 8 1 ; 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 4 4 8694' 3 graphs: 4' up north side opp. dead section, 24' up north side above limb, 21' up west below limb 16 6 4` 4 2 1 3 2 2 8! 8 3 1 3 3 i 4 2 1 4 4 4 69% 1 graph: 3' up north side into a vertical flat area on the trunk 14 7 4 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 ; 2 7 I 7 4 i 4 3; 2 2 i 4 4 4 69% No graphs: none seemed apparent 13 8 4 1 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 8 i 8 2 1 3 1 ` 3 2 1 4 4 4 60% 2 graphs: 11' up n -west side below major limbs, 10' up nort h side below wester) limb 9 9 4 i 4 3 i 2 2 i 2 9 i 8 4 1 4 1 1 3 3 i 2 2 4 62% 1 graph: 7' up n -west side into a section of the trunk with canker 8 10 4 i 4 2; 3 2 1 2 1 8 9 3 i 3 4 1 3 2 1 2 4 4 64% 1 graph: 5' up the west side under a limb to the west of an old wound 6 11 4 1 4 2 1 3 2 1 3 8 10" 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 4 4 57% 1 graph: T up the south side into a vertical flat area to the left of an old wound 48 12 4 1 4 2 1 3 2 1 2 8 9 4+ 4 4 1 4 2 1 3 4 4 74% 1 graph: 4.5' up the south side at the base of the long limb extending to the n -west. 47 13 4 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 8= 8 3 1 4 2 I 3 2 1 3 3 3 60% 1 graph: 3' up the east side into a section leading to important tension support root 46 14 4 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 9 1 8 4 ; 4 3; 3 2 ; 2 4 3 64%.1 graph: 5' up then -west side opposite a large cavity and underneath the direction of lean 45 15 4 4 3 1 3 2 1 3 9 .1Q` 3 1 4 1 1 3 2 Y 3 3 4 60% 1 graph: 2' up the s -east side and 1' above Ganoderma spp. Conks 44 16 4 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 8 1 9 4 1 4 2 1 3 1 2 4 3 57% 3 graphs: 10' up east side at attachment, 7' u s -west side in flat area, 10' u west under limb 43 17 4 3 2 11 2 2 1 2 8; 7 3 ! 3 3 4 3 1 3 4 3 69% 3 graphs: 10' up s -east behind lean, 9' up south into main section, T u s -west into a flat area 36 18 4 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 8 ' 8 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 4 4 66% 2 graphs: 1' up south side in 'rib' east of large cavity, 30' up east side at cavity by s- facing limb 35 19 4 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 8 i 8 3 1 3 2 i 2 3 1 3 3 4 62% No graphs: none seemed apparent 34 20 4 1 4 2 ; Z 2 ; 2 8 8 1 ; 2 2 ; 2 2 ; 3 4 4 62% 1 graph: 1' up s -west side behind the direction of lean into 'rib' adjacent to the cavity 33 21 4 i 4 3 1, 2 2 2 9 9 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 67%11 graph: 15' up south side below the attachment of a south facing limb 32 22 4 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 8 1 8 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 62% 1 graph: 3' up the west side behind the direction of lean into 'rib' adjacent to the cavity 31 23 4 i 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 8 1 8 3 1 3 2 2 2 i 3 4 4 60% 2 graphs: 3' up south side behind lean, 2' up s -west side in 'rib' next to necrotic area 30 24 4 i 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 8 i 8 3 ; 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 57% 1 graph: 3' up the west side behind the direction of lean 29 25 4 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 2 7 1 9 3 1 2 1 i 2 1 1 3 3 1 4 48% 2 graphs: 22' up the south side behind an east/north fork, 3' up the north side behind lean 26 26 4 I 4 3 i 3 2 1 2 9 1 9 3 1 3 1 1 i 2 1 1 i 3 3 1 4 1 60% 2 graphs: 35' up south side below north and e/w facing limbs, 30' up west side at s- facing limb isolid inferior sections and internal i High Street, Moorpark CA 11/10103 Tag # 23 California pepper tree !Pockets of decay 3 -ft up east side (in 'rib' wl cavity left, seam right) hollow /decay t , i decay solid wood solid wopd ( solid wood strong - - - decayed- sapwood "solid interior se�tions ' High Street, Moorpark CA 11/10/03 Barrier Zone ' i and internal pockets of decay, { Tag # 22 California pepper tree 5-ft up north side (in to flat spot) no hollow from 8.75" on Barrier Zone - soli °d wood d T _. BI decayed to hol High Street, Moorpark CA 11/10/03 Tag # 9 California pepper tree isolid to 6.5" 7 -ft up northwest side (into canker area) I � r hollow from 6" on High Street, Moorpark CA 11/10/03 Tag # 8 California pepper tree 5 -ft up west side (under scaffold west of wound) strong High Street, Moorpark CA 11/10/03 Barrier Zone Tag # 6 California pepper tree 7 -ft up south side (into flat spot left of wound) Solid to 6 rn High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 I Tag #44 California pepper tree 10 -ft up east side (at attach. of n- facing scaffold) decayed or hollow beyond! 6.5" solid to 6.5" >y l ollow_beydnd 5.5" High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 Tag # 44 California pepper tree 10 -ft uo west side (under west - facing scaffold) :.. reaction wood solid wood High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 Tag # 36 California pepper tree 30 -ft up east side (at bifurcation s- facing cavity) N High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 Tag # 34 California pepper tree 1 -ft up s -west side (in 'rib' adj. cavity behind lean) N IL l� hollow to 11 Barrier' Zone± High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 - Tag # 29 California pepper tree 22 ft up south side (behind east/north fork) W solid to 4.5" Barrier Zone High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 Tag # 29 California pepper tree 3 -ft up north side (behind lean) I , hollow beyond 5" i _ s solid!to 5" rIL 0 >y 0 0 i I High Street, Moorpark CA 12/01/03 Tag # 26 California pepper tree 35 -ft up south side (below n & e /w- facing scaffolds) N Solid wood - ly