HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuntington Central Park Tree Assessment Survey - May - July RECEIVED FRONT
-044"x)Xll,
AS PUBLIC RE D R COUNCIL MEEWJ
OF
CITY CLERK OFFICE
MAN La FLYNN,CITY CLERK
Huntington Central Farb Free Assessment Survey
May — July
2008
. w
z
w
Survey Conducted by:
Kevin Osborne
In Conjunction with the Huntington Beach Tree Society and the
City of Huntington Beach Tree Department
l �
Introduction
This project was undertaken to generate a database of trees in the 350 acre
Huntington Central Park that could potentially cause problems both in the short and long
term. The hope is that the information contained within this report will help the city
identify the trees in the worst condition and work to mitigate these trees. In essence, the
report aims to provide a'worst first' guide in prioritizing efforts to maximize the use of
funding provided to the City Tree Department for maintaining the thousands of trees in
Huntington Central Park.
Method
Using the map of Central Park provided by the Huntington Beach tree department
(figure 4), I created sections within the park to ensure that all areas of the park were
surveyed. On the East side of Goldenwest St. the large area of the park North of Talbert
Ave. was divided into 4 quadrants: Northeast, Southeast, Southwest and Northwest. The
area south of Talbert Ave. which is now the sports complex, was not included in the
survey and report because the trees here are very young and the area does not have trees
of a size large enough to fall under the scope of potential problem trees.
On the West side of Goldenwest St. the survey areas were not as simple. The
sections here follow roads,paths or boundaries to create logical sections in contrast to the
quadrants on the East side of Goldenwest St.. This was due to the irregular shape of the
park area. The sections of the park in the West side of Goldenwest St. are as follows:
Shipley Nature Center to Central Park Dr., Central Section(Central Park Dr. to
Huntington Lake), Southwest Section, South Lake Area(Southern and Eastern borders of
Huntington Lake), and the Disc Golf course. The division into survey areas can be seen
in figure 4, using the same map that I used during my survey of the park.
After determining a survey method and order, the next step was to determine what
information to record regarding each tree and how to gather it. I used the book
Evalitation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas by N. Matheny and J. Clark(1994) as my
guide. This book is published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and
includes a tutorial video and a standard ISA form for the evaluation of a potential
problem tree in an urban setting. This form is the same one used by the city for its own
tree evaluations in other locations when an evaluation is needed. I read the book,
watched the video and worked with city arborist,Randy Menzel, to become comfortable
with the form and the appropriate method for applying the form to the trees in Central
Park. As the standard in the industry, this form seemed the best method for collecting
data.
The actual data collection took place during the summer of 2008, from the end of
May until the end of July. I collected information including approximate height, diameter
at breast height(DBH), approximate age class, disease/insect presence, location and the
target(what the tree is likely to damage of a problem occurs). Perhaps the most
important piece of the information was generating a tree rating based upon the other
factors on the ISA survey sheet. The rating is based on three categories: target rating
(what will be hit if the tree or tree part fails),potential for failure, and size of the part
most likely to fail. Each of these three categories is rated from one to three and then
summed. The result is a rating from 3 to 12,where trees with a low rating represent the
1
� f
least likely to cause a problem in the near future and trees having a rating of 12 being the
most likely to cause a problem in the near future.
To determine if a tree was to be included or not was perhaps the most difficult
step in the entire process. Some trees were very obvious, i.e. they had large dead
branches or obvious insect infestations. Other trees were on the border,having one or
two small dead branches or being located in areas where their failure was almost certain
not to cause damage to person or property. I attempted to err on the side of caution and
include any tree that looked like it might be a problem. Of course,it is likely that there
will be trees that fail in Central Park in the coming years that are not included in this
report. This is due both to the changing conditions that are part of a dynamic living
system as well as to the simple fact that in a park with perhaps thousands of trees,it
almost inevitable that some defect will be hidden from view or concealed by the growth
of surrounding trees.
Once a tree was chosen for inclusion, the form discussed previously was filled out
and the tree was given a number. The number was attached to the tree using a round
aluminum tag and an aluminum nail. The numbers begin at one and run in numerical
order until the last tree was surveyed.
As the trees were tagged, a mark was placed on a paper map of the park to
indicate its location. Once the survey in the park was completed,I digitized each tree
location onto a high resolution satellite image, similar to what one would see using
Google Earth. Mr. Demos Lovens of the Huntington Beach GIS Department provided
this image. This digitizing and other subsequent digital mapping were created using
ESRI Corp.'s Arc Map 9.2 software.
It is important to note that the numbers on the trees do not indicate the area or
section in which the tree is located. The numbers on the trees reflect the order in which
the trees were tagged. The section in which the tree is located was used as a guide to
ensure that the entire park was surveyed and to aide in locating trees once they are
targeted for remediation.
Once the digitizing of tree locations was completed, each point was assigned a set
geographic coordinates using the UTM state plane system to aide in locating trees in the
future. In addition, an excel spreadsheet that contains the information collected on the
ISA form was created and joined to the points on the digital map. This allows the user of
a GIS system to view the species,rating and geographic location of each tree without
leaving the GIS program.
Upon the completion of the digitizing and data importing, I created maps of each
survey section. The trees were displayed on the maps according to their rating, as
determined on the ISA tree evaluation form. The lower values,lower potential problems,
are in greens, with the colors transitioning to dark red for the highest rating, or potentially
most likely to have a problem. Also displayed on the maps are the numbers of the trees
that correspond to their tags in the field. These are maps 1 through 11.
Results
A total of 935 trees were included in the survey across the entire park. Of these
trees, 272 or 29% are in need of removal for one reason or another. Of the 935 trees, the
species most frequently recorded was Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) with 503
trees, followed by general unidentified Eucalyptus Sp. with 112 trees. Overall,
2
Eucalyptus species accounted for 672 out of the 935 trees surveyed, or 71.8% of potential
problem trees.
The non Eucalyptus species with the most trees was the London Plane (Platanus
x. acerifolia) with 105 trees, followed distantly by White Alder(Alni-ts rhombifolia) with
47 individuals. Closely behind the White Alder came California Sycamore (Platanus
racemosa)with 40 trees. Combining the California Sycamores with the London Planes
we get the second largest group in the survey, with 245 trees equaling 15.5 percent of the
trees included as potential problem trees.
Because the Eucalyptus, Sycamores and White Alder make up 92% of the trees
surveyed, they make up the majority of the time spent in the discussion of the results.
The complete species breakdown, including the smaller groups, can be seen in figure 1.
In terms of rating values, the most common numbers are five, six and seven, with
six being the most common, followed by seven and then five. When combined,ratings
five, six and seven account for 78.28% of the trees surveyed in the park. The count of
each rating can be seen in figure 2. This table shows that the distribution of ratings is
essentially normal.
Each tree also had a general recommendation included on the ISA form. The
three general recommendations are trim, remove or monitor. By far the most common
recommendation is trimming,making up 626 or 66% of the trees included in the survey.
Removal was second, with a total Of 272 trees recommended for removal, accounting for
a total of 29.1% of the trees. Only 37 of the trees require only monitoring. The results of
recommendations can be seen visually in figure 3. Also included in this table are more
details on the trees recommended for removal, i.e. what the underlying reason is for
recommending removal.
Discussion
GENUS EUCALYPTUS
The largest concerns among the Eucalyptus species are Red Gum Lerp Psyllid and
the Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle. Both of these pests are native to Australia and would
naturally exist in the areas where many of the Eucalyptus species are native. However,
these pests do not have native predators in Huntington Central Park, where they can
multiply unchecked and increase the level of infestation beyond what would occur in
their native environments.
The Red Gum, according to the University of California's online Integrated Pest
Management program (Paine et al 2003), is relatively more susceptible to both the Psyllid
and the Tortoise Beetle when compared to other Eucalyptus species. This is supported by
my observations in the park. I personally observed Red Gums with considerably more
infestations of both pests when compared to Red Iron Bark(Eucalyptus sideroxylon) and
Sugar Gum(Eucalyptus eladocalyx) trees that were in close proximity to highly infested
Red Gums. This was not only true in areas with multiple species: throughout the park the
Red Gum individuals appeared to have higher levels of pests when compared to other
Eucalyptus species.
The species in the Park that were least susceptible to the previously mentioned
pests appeared to be Sugar Gum and Red Iron Bark. The sample size of these was much
smaller,but that might be attributable to their being in better shape and therefore not
3
included in the survey. Also, the UC IPM online does indicate that these two species are
less susceptible to these pests compared to other Eucalyptus species(Millar et al, 2003).
Randy Menzel, Huntington Beach tree supervisor, easily helped me identify the
Red Gum, Red Iron bark and other Eucalyptus species,but the Sugar Gum made things
more interesting. A group of these trees line the parking lot east of Central Library and I
was initially unable to identify them. The problem was eventually solved by looking at
an older park inventory that labeled them as Sugar Gums. This identification was further
confirmed by the description in the Western Garden Book(Brenzel, 2001) as well as the
UC description of the tree as being resistant to both Red Gum Psyllid and the Tortoise
Beetle (Millar et al 2003).
Control of these pests may prove to be difficult,but the UC IPM webpage has
some recommendations. Currently the introduction of a parasite that lays its eggs into the
eggs of the Tortoise Beetle is underway. The female adults of this parasite is also said to
eat Tortoise Beetle eggs. Only time will tell if this is an effective measure of control for
the Tortoise beetle. Also according to the UC IPM information,no chemical controls are
currently listed for control of this pest(Millar et al 2003). Also, these insects tend to
spend time in the bark and soil near the trees,reducing the time they would be exposed to
any sprayed on chemical insecticide (Millar et al 2003). It is therefore not recommended
that a municipality use a pesticide that is not listed for theses pests, even if one believes
that known pesticides can do the job. Hopefully future testing will bring about a way to
control this defoliating leaf insect.
As for the Red Gum Lerp Psyllid,biological control is said to be the best option
(Paine et al 2003). In particular, there is an introduced parasitic wasp specific to the Red
Gum Lerp Psyllid. According to the UC IPM site, this control has been particularly
effective in the coastal areas of S. California. This is interesting because the Red Gum
trees in the park appear to be relatively heavily infested. Perhaps this park needs to have
more biological controls introduced to the area in order to aide in controlling the pest.
There are other things that do eat the lerp psyllid, including native dragonflies and some
birds. Chemical control of this pest also appears to be rather questionable as it has the
potential to adversely impact the biological control, since chemical controls generally
target any and all insects,regardless of their status as pest or control. In addition,
according to the UC IPM, the effectiveness of chemicals in controlling this pest are
inconclusive, with some reporting good control and others reporting poor results (Paine et
al 2003).
When viewed as a whole, I recommend attempting to control these two pests
biologically. This is also desirable because of the intense use of the park for recreation.
It is always good to avoid the use of chemicals when the area is used by the public,in
particular the large numbers of children who use the park for various boy scout and
summer camp activities. The park is also said to be noteworthy for bird watching in
Orange County; not using chemicals has the added bonus of avoiding controversy about
potential movement of any eco-toxins up the food chain to desirable bird species.
Along with attempting biological control, selecting the best species for planting is
important for future control of these pests in this park and throughout the City of
Huntington Beach. The Sugar Gum individuals located along the library parking lot
prove this point. They are very large trees adjacent to heavily infected Red Gums,but
they remain in much better condition, not suffering from the leaf drop induced by the
4
t
Tortoise Beetle and lerp psyllid. Because of their apparent resistance, this species would
be a good choice for future planting where large canopy trees are desired. Another good
choice is the Red Iron Bark. These trees are also present adjacent to the Red Gums and
the Sugar Gums near the library lot. In this setting they are also much healthier and lack
the intense infestation on the Red Gums. These trees are not as large or dominant in the
canopy as the Sugar Gums,but using them as a component seems to be a good plan.
A recommendation in conjunction with resistant varieties is to plant a variety of
species to avoid the mono-culture of one species that the Red Gum is in the park today.
According to the UC IPM, Lemon Gum(Eucalyptus citriodora) and Swamp Mahogany
(Eucalyptus robusta) are also more resistant to these pests than the Red Gum (Paine et al
2003). In fact,it is possible that some of the unidentified trees on the western border of
the Shipley Nature Center to Central Park Dr. section of the park are of the latter, Swamp
Mahogany species. I was unable to make a positive identification on these trees,but they
did appear to be in better health than surrounding Red Gum individuals. Combing these
species would provide a greater diversity that should aide in the park's ability to handle
the introduction of future pests.
Tree care and maintenance practices can also have an impact on the rate of
infestation. Like many pests, those mentioned above are drawn to trees that are in
distress. The area of the park,like all of S. California,receives little rain,particularly in
the summer and fall. Because of this, these trees may be stressed by lack of water. The
deterioration of the trees over the course of the summer is an indicator of this: many of
the trees that looked healthy at the start of the survey in May began looking very brown
and defoliated as July came to a close. Although the park has a rather extensive
irrigation system,the method of irrigation may not be helping these trees. It is best not to
water every day or even every other day but rather water deeply once or twice a week.
This is a contrast to the water required for lawns and turf. The recommendation here is to
reduce watering frequency in areas with no grass and to increase the duration of the
remaining watering cycles to ensure that the water reaches deep in the soil to the roots as
opposed to only watering the top few inches of soil as one would want for sustaining
healthy grass. From experience growing trees and working in landscaping jobs,this is a
personal recommendation I would give anyone attempting to grow large trees.
Another tree care point that the UC IPM advocates is the timing of trimming. It is
good to avoid trimming trees when pests that are attracted to fresh cuts are active. This
applies to a pest that was present in the park but did not appear significant, the
Eucalyptus Long Horned Borer. If the trees are trimmed in the summer when these
insects are active, the freshly cut wood attracts them and can spread infestations.
Therefore it is recommended to trim during the winter months when the borers are less
active.
To summarize, there are a number of ways to control pests and still keep large,
shade giving Eucalyptus in Huntington Central Park. Choosing appropriate and diverse
species, along with biological control of pests and appropriate watering and trimming
will allow the city of Huntington Beach to maintain its trees in a healthy and safe manner.
SYCAMORES—GENUS PLATANUS
The sycamores are the second largest group of trees in the park behind the
eucalyptus. Within this group, there are two species of trees,one is the native California
5
Sycamore and the other is the London Plane, a hybrid between the Oriental and the
American Sycamore. Anthracnose, a fungal disease, was the primary concern in this
group according to city certified arborist Randy Menzel. The reason for this is the ability
of this disease to cause not only defoliation but branch and trunk failures. As such, this
was the only disease catalogued on my ISA sheets and in the corresponding spreadsheet
included in this report. However, as I investigated the situation, I began to see that there
is another pathogen affecting these trees: powdery mildew.
This came to my attention due to the numbers of trees that became included in
the survey. As I worked through my sections of the park, I realized I was including far
more London Planes in the survey when compared to the number of California
Sycamores. The numbers supported this observation, with two and a half times more
London Planes. In addition to the disparity between the tagged trees, there are a number
of areas in the park with large groups of untagged Sycamores, most of which are London
Planes. These areas contain trees in decline that would likely meet the tagging criteria if
the survey were to take place again in three to five years. These areas can be viewed on
maps 5, 7 and 9.
There were two explanations for this. The first was that there were just that many
more London Planes. The other possibility was that something was causing the London
Planes to have poorer health than the California Sycamores. Since I did not do a total
tree survey, there is no way for me to know the exact numbers. However, it did appear
that there were more London Planes, but it did not seem to me that there were 2 to 3
times as many. So, was anthracnose (the disease I was told was causing the poor health
of both species of Sycamore) hurting the London Planes more than the California
Sycamore? This was puzzling because the London Plane is supposed to be more
anthracnose resistant than the California Sycamore.
The answer came to me while I was reading about anthracnose control on the ever
helpful University of California Integrated Pest Management (Svihra, 2003)website.
While reading information on anthracnose resistant varieties, I read these two sentences:
1. "California sycamore (P. racemosa) should be avoided in the north, but it is not
affected in the southern part of the state."
2. "When planting London plane (also called planetree), decide whether
anthracnose or powdery mildew resistance is more beneficial based on prevailing
environmental conditions at that site . . . "
As I read this I realized that I had seen numerous trees with leaves that had the white
coating that is indicative of powdery mildew,not the dark patches that are more
indicative of anthracnose. The combination of these factors lead me to suspect powdery
mildew. According to the UC IPM, there are strains of London Plane that are resistant to
powdery mildew, but they are not so resistant to anthracnose. On the other hand,the
variety resistant to anthracnose is not resistant to powdery mildew (Svihra 2003).
Because California Sycamores are susceptible to Anthracnose and the London
Planes were planted in anticipation of having resistance to anthracnose(Randy Menzel,
personal communication, July 2008) and London Planes resistant to anthracnose are
vulnerable to powdery mildew, it seems likely that the mildew is the culprit. Another
thing to take away from this might be that California Sycamores are somewhat resistant
6
to powdery mildew. I could find no evidence or information comparing the powdery
mildew resistance of California Sycamore to that of the non resistant London Plane
varieties. My personal observation of the park certainly indicates that there is something
affecting the London Planes far more than the California Sycamores. I think that the
likely culprit here is powdery mildew.
To control this fungal disease is not easy. It is spread easily during warm weather
and is actually favored by the dry conditions of Southern California. In fact, free water
on the leaf surface can help to reduce the spread of the fungus. One of the best ways to
control this fungus is to have sufficient space between trees to allow sunlight to reach as
many of the braches as possible. Densely planted trees with leaves in the shade are more
likely to grow and spread the disease. This pattern may be another explanation for the
pattern we see in the park. Many of the London Planes are younger trees planted in
groups with little space for airflow and sunlight between the trees when they are fully
foliated. On the other hand, most of the California Sycamores are larger older trees that
have more space around them.
Based on these findings I think the control of this fungus will be achieved best
with thinning the groves of densely planted London Planes as well as taking a long hard
look at the species to be planted in the future. Further investigation is needed to
determine if the reason for the poor performance of the London Planes is due to their
susceptibility to powdery mildew or the denser planting of the trees. The UC IPM
website also lists some success against this fungus with chemicals on smaller
ornamentals,but the size of the trees makes a spray application virtually impossible.
Because of this, the need to thin and allow circulation and sunlight is the best way to
reduce the infestation on trees already in the park. Future control should rely on proper
spacing when planting trees prone to powdery mildew along with choosing varieties that
are as resistant as possible while still balancing the need to be resistant to Anthracnose.
Perhaps this means a shift back to the California Sycamore or finding a variety of London
Plane resistant to both powdery mildew and anthracnose.
OTHER
The most significant remaining concerns come from two other deciduous species.
The first of these is Black Poplar. This tree species (Populus nigra) is native to Europe
and when planted in the US is often a columnar variety commonly known as a Lombardy
Poplar. The trees in the park, mostly along the edges of green space in the NE and NW
quadrants of the East side of the park, are clearly not the columnar variety; I was not able
to positively identify the specific variety of these trees.
As the summer began, a few of these trees appeared to be in decline,but nothing
serious across the species. After completing a large portion of the park, I walked the NW
quadrant and discovered that every single tree of this species had bronzing and dropping
leaves. Upon closer inspection the leaves had rust colored spots at the beginning phase,
which grew and coalesced and eventually turned black as the leaves fell from the trees.
From a distance the trees appeared to be in fall mode, looking a pretty bronze color.
However, it was early July: there should not have been a fall-like leaf drop yet. Some of
these trees were tagged when they appeared as individual specimens but in other places
they were not tagged and are shown as groups on maps 1 and 5.
7
According to the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign(1989) there are two
fungal rusts that cause these symptoms on the leaves of poplars and aspens of many
species,including Black Poplar. Of the two, one is a rust complex involving hemlock
and poplars and the other is more general, transferring between conifers and species of
the genus Populus. Since there are no hemlock (Tsuga) specimens in the area I am aware
of, I suspect the more general rust,Melampsof a medusae. The description of the
symptoms fit well with my notes, asserting that the infestation of leaves often begins on
the lower branches and moves up the tree, which was an observation I made in my notes
about the infested trees.
Though the University of Illinois Extension IPM web page does seem to indicate
that the rust is rarely fatal, it is not esthetically pleasing for trees in a park to be losing
leaves in mid July (1989). Recommendations for controlling this fungus include planting
varieties that are resistant,removal and destruction of infected leaves to stop re-infecting
of more conifers from the spores on the leaves and planting the poplars as far form the
nearest conifers as possible. In this area of the park, I did not observe any closely located
conifers, so it appears that the spores can travel a relatively long way. This observation
indicates that there is no location in the park that would be far enough from conifers to
protect poplars from infection. The final option is to water and fertilize the trees to
increase growth and vigor and just let the rust continue. At the end of my time in the
park I walked the areas with infected poplars (essentially every Black Poplar in the park)
and those that had be defoliated earliest in the summer were already producing a new
flush of growth. If kept vital with water and nutrients, this mid summer leaf drop and re-
growth might continue for the foreseeable future, giving the park a time with fall like
color twice a year.
The final tree species worth noting is the White Alder. Most of large trees of this
species date to the early stages of the park, about 40 years ago. This is the age that city
arborist Randy Menzel expects trees in this species to begin aging out. What this means
is that the city can expect many of the larger White Alders in the park to begin senescing
and need replacement in the next five years or less. There is no way to prevent this since
it is the life cycle of the organism. In this case, the species seems well adapted to the
location and replacement of the dying trees with saplings of the same species are
desirable, so long as it is not a location where a long lived tree is desired, as they will
likely need replacement in another 40 to 50 years.
DISC GOLF COURSE
The last portion of the park I surveyed is the very popular disc golf course. This
area is one of concern for a number of reasons. First of all, there are a significant number
of trees in this area that are dead or dying and in need of prompt attention. This need is
increased by the near constant use of the course. However, it is a lower priority than other
playground areas of the park die to the age and mobility of those using the area. Also,
weather conditions that promote limb and trunk failure(high wind in particular)tend to
discourage the use of this park facility.
Of particular concern in this area are so called high impact trees (image 1). These
trees receive a high number of impacts from thrown discs as part of the course activity.
These impacts create a large number of wounds, greatly increasing the risk of the trees
for becoming infected with previously mentioned diseases along with other rot type
8
diseases that can weaken the stems. This is a concern because it increases the risk of
failure on trees that are in the direct path of the course, therefore they are trees that are
most likely to have a disc golf player below them. To deal with this problem I
recommend that the city invests in protective shrouds for the lower portion of the trunks
of trees indicated as being high impact trees. This was not a factor rigorously noted in
my survey so a follow up survey of the disc golf course is needed to identify these trees
in a more precise manner.
To accomplish this trunk protection might not be simple. I was told by the
workers at the stand that they have seen trees on other course wrapped in some type of
impact absorbent plastic material. I was unable find specific information regarding the
materials or methods used for this practice, so increased research is needed. Also of
concern with this type of protection is the fact that the trees are continuing to grow,
meaning that any protective covering should not only be absorbent and permeable to air,
but also must be adjustable so that the covering does not restrict the radial increase in
trunk diameter. The difficulty in determining the proper materials, cost of the materials
and the cost of maintaining space around the trunk may prove to make this practice too
costly for implementation.
9
Images
x/.
t.
u
s t�
Y
yea
s k #
e�
s
r.
YF y, q
Image 1. Trees showing numerous impacts from discs throw on the disc golf course. Pictured tree is
#928.
10
Figures
Species
.01
;Aleppo Pine,20 2/
0
14% o Y F r
Sugar Gum,2S,3%
, '�`;,�„ '� Lemon Gum, Fla/ t{ee,1
Eucalyptus Spin,112,12% \ —
CA Sycamore,40,4%
1 CA Pepper,4—
London Plane,105,11% Wht Poplar,3 in�ls Spp,1
\
1
icus Spp,2— B x Elder,1
F I
WhtAlder,47,5% Redwood,2 Torrey Pine,1
Bushy Y ate,2
Blue Gum,2 River S he-Oak,1
Figure 1. Composition of survey by species. The left hand chart shows the largest species segments,
including name,number of trees and percent of total trees. The right hand chart shows the detail of
the 9%labeled other from the left hand chart. The sections of this chart are labeled with species
name and number of individual trees in that species surveyed.
11
Potential Problem
350 Rating
309
300 —�
m
250 240 i
~ 200
c 183
150
E 114
Z 100 .
50 46 � 28
9 >:; 5 1 0
0 mom
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Rating Value
Figure 2. Number of trees from survey at each rating value. The rating is derived from the
International Society of Arboriculture tree evaluation form and ranges from 3 to 12(x axis),with low
values the least likely to cause a problem and high values most likey to cause a problem and in need
of immediate remediation. The distribution of trees shows a relatively normal distribution from least
potential danger to most. This is not a surprising outcome due to the inclusion of only potential
problem trees as opposed to ratign every tree in the park regardless of condition.
Recomended Actions
Monitor,
Remove- a
t
Disease/Declining, 167,
k 4p}
Remove-Dead, 63, 7%
Remove-Poor
Trim, 626, 66%
Structure, 27, 3% ` mot.
Remove-S pacing, 15,
2%
Figure 3. Composition of survey by recommended action. The chart displays the recommended
action,number of trees in that category and what percentage of trees that specific action represents.
12
TokkV
NW NE '
.! Quadrant Quadrant
a
y SW SE
Quadrant Quadrant
f
Shipley NC CP Dr.
Central
Section
i>
Disc
SW Section Golfs ,
S.Lake Sectio
Section
a
4
Figure 4. This figure displays the divisions I used when doing my survey. 'These
sections correspond to the sections listed on each tree's fSA sheet,the map area
indicated in the data spreadsheet, and the maps that follow
13
Maps
Huntington Central Park Problem 'gees
East -lvTE Qwdrant
F
� M1
n � ^
,f
X "
�w�� s �,^ 3 � ,•s`,+�Eli °' �s"`qA'�„�`�"s�s
a h
Legend Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
Tree Rating 0 7 the West side of trees except where conditions did not
a 3 a g Poplars allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
0 4 o g Syeainores the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
0 5 0 10 N poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
0 6 0 11 W+E diseased sycamores that without tags.
Feet 0 40 80 160 240 320 S
Map 1.
14
Huntington Central Park Problem Trees
Exist - 5E Qik�cl�aiit
M �
'z^,c- N 9 3 ( � S�µs S ,g L� °''s -�ry ✓ nrGy y:^ t �$ "
c � f
f+
r
a
A r
G �h7i
d" e"
4
al pf';t k et1.
r
Legend
Tree Rating o 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
� Poplars the West side of trees except where conditions did not
° 3 ° 8 allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
4 a g Sycamores of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
o a 1U N the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
U 6 a 11 VV� E diseased sycamores that without tags.
Feet
0 55 110 220 330 440
KTU+A,
Map 2.
15
Huntington Central Park Problem Trees
East - SW lr�iirt
120
n ��� � �� %`Y ^''l ��H5 � i✓ ( � � of
�F
N
g `� s � � 7,• ��x� n rz
At 91 At At %1 *1 it *1 ,t
E �
� 14 14 IAtt
. y
Legend
Tree Rating 0 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on the
0 3 0 8 Poplars West side of trees except where conditions did not allow
this. The color of each tree indicates the level of risk for
0 4 ° each potential problem tree as indicated in the legend at
CD Sycamores p p g
0 5 0 10 N left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased poplars not
0 G 0 11 W �'�� E tagged and areas with dots indicate diseased sycamores
�}' that without tags.
Feet S
0 45 90 180 270 360
Map 3. Southwest quadrant of East half of park map A.
16
Huntington Central Park Potential Problem Trees
SW Quadrant
,aar
i
u
2 ,
i n;
s „
Legend
Tree Rating a 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
3 a s Poplars N the West side of trees except where conditions did not
a 4 a 9 allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
a f. Sycamores W ,_ — E" of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
5 a 10 the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
S
a s a 11 poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
diseased sycamores that without tags.
Feet
0 50 100 200 300 400
Map 4. Southwest quadrant of East half of park map B.
17
Huntington Central Park Problem Trees
East-IvAV Quach-felt
10
I 6
� A M P,�,• ~�Yc
i..m
k,
1 f®
y f
n:
a �
111
1<
r .a �" �"*h'in'-� 1, 5 r } ;�, ,�ue+` xA s •,. .,
€ � yYe .YJS $ 4 � �a n f,F5 a,✓ �'+n.F y�"F
5
Legend
Tree Rating ° 7 Poplars Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
the West side of trees except where conditions did not
° 3 ° (� sycamores allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
® 4 ° 9 N of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
° g ° t0 the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
° G ° 11 GN E poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
Feet g diseased sycamores that without tags.
0 55 110 220 330 440
Map 5.
18
Huntington Central Park Problem Trees
YVest- 3144ey N('tc)Celitral park Dr.
Legend
Tree Rating 0 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
3 0 8 <� Poplars the West side of trees except where conditions did not
allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
0 4 0 9 Sycamores of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
0 5 0 10 N the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
0 6 0 11 Wei poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
- Feet S diseased sycamores that without tags.
0 65 130 260 390 520
Map 6.
19
Huntington Central Parr Problem Trees
N`'est -Central Section
v. Y
c
� as
3
a
Legend
Tree Rating 0 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
the West side of trees except where conditions did not
0 3 0 g Poplar allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
0 4 0 9 of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
0 10
Sycamores N the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
0 5
poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
0 6 0 11 W E diseased sycamores that without tags.
k
Fes
0 60 120 240 360 480
Map 7.
20
Huntington Central Park Problem Trees
West - South`N' est Section
tiF
a v F
r�
w
■ 'Its
_
3`
Legend
Tree Rating 0 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
0 3 0 8 Poplars the West side of trees except where conditions did not
0 4 0 g allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
0 5 0 a' Sycamores N of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
t0 the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
° 0 11 W - E poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
diseased sycamores that without tags.
fiet
0 40 80 160 240 320
Map 8.
21
Huntington Central Park Problems Trees
West - South lake Section
s
.s
Legend
Tree Rating 0 7 Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
0 3 o g Poplars
the West side of trees except where conditions did not
N allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
0 4 0 9 1� Sycamores of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
0 5 0 10 W - E the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
a 6 0 11 S diseased sycamores that without tags.
Feet
0 40 80 160 240 320
Map 9.
22
Huntington Central Park Problem 'frees
West -Disc Gt)lf SectuOn
b. # 4 Pff`1'h Yw 2 y IDY 3
gWq,
h/
y
t
z s„
r
Legend Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
Tree Rating o 7 � Poplars the West side of trees except where conditions did not
n $ allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
3
? Sycamores N of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
4 ° 9 W E the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
m 5 0 10 S poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
C 6 a 11 diseased sycamores that without tags.
Feet
0 45 90 180 270 360
Map 10.Disc golf course map A.
23
Huntington Central Park Problem 'Frees
«Vest -Disc CT(}lf Sectiatr
OR
r
a
� s
y,p
t
x.
Ti
6�n
.u,
Legend Numbers match tags placed on each tree,located on
Tree Rating O 7 ,fr" Poplars the West side of trees except where conditions did not
3 n 8 N allow this. The color of each tree indicates the level
��a Sycamores of risk for each potential problem tree as indicated in
° 4 ° 9 W E the legend at left. Areas with stripes indicate diseased
o g o 10 poplars not tagged and areas with dots indicate
n &
S diseased sycamores that without tags.
a 11
Feet
0 45 90 180 270 360
Map 11. Disc golf course map B.
24
Work Cited
Brenzel, K.N., ed. Western Garden Book. Menlo Park: Sunset Publishing,2001.
Clark, James R., and Matheny,Nelda P. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of
Hazrd Trees in Urban Areas. 2nd edition. Urbana: International Society of
Arboriculture, 1994.
"Leaf Rusts of Poplars and Willows in the Midwest." UIUC Integrated Pest
Management. 1989. University of Illinois Extension. 12 Sept. 2008.
http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/diseases/scries600/rpd605/
Millar, J. G. et al. "Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle." UC IPM Online Statewide Integrated
Pest Management Program. 2003. University of California—Agriculture and
Natural Resources. 11 Sept. 2008.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74104.htmi
Paine, T. D. et al. "Eucalyptus Redgum Lerp Psyllid." UCIPM Online Statewide
Integrated Pest Management Program. 2006. University of California—
Agriculture and Natural Resources. 11 Sept. 2008.
htW://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/'r)n7460.html
Svihra,P. "Anthracnose." UC IPM Online Statewide Integrated Pest Management
Program. 2003. University of California—Agriculture and Natural Resources.
12 Sept. 2008. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7420.html
Acknowledgements
I would like to personally recognize Randy Menzel, head of the Huntington
Beach Tree Department. Without his tireless help in identification and training I would
never have been able to complete this project. I would also like to thank Jean Nagy and
the Huntington Tree Society for bringing me this project and helping to get my results
unto the hands of city officials. Many thanks go to Mr. Dennis Lovens for providing the
digital image that allowed for the creation of my maps. I would also like to thank West
Coast Arborists and Steve Brown for allowing me to train on their Arbor Access software
as well as helping to identify the Sugar Gums in the park. Final thanks go out to the Edna
Bailey Sussman Fund Environmental Internship Program for providing funding to allow
me to complete this project. Without their generous support I would never have been
able to afford the supplies and travel costs associated with this project.
25