Assessing Health and Vulnerability of Large ​Pseudotsuga menziesii​ in Hendricks

Forest, Eugene, Oregon

Owen Collins, Jackson Dailey, Sky Doble, Betsy Finn, Ben King, Haley Nicholson, Nick
Richardson, Haley Santos, Kiana Seto, Kelly Shull, Charlie Stapleton

Spring 2019

University of Oregon Environmental Leadership Program

1
 Table of Contents
Abstract 4

Introduction 4
Objective: 5
Tree Metrics: 6
Fungus: 6
Invasive Species: 7
Wildlife: 8

Methods 9
Study Area: 9
General Information: 11
Individual Tree Information and LIDAR: 12
Tree Health: 13
Wildlife Use: 15
Invasive Species: 15
Forest Pathogens: 15
Photopoints: 15
Data Analysis: 16

Results 16

Discussion 32
Tree Metrics: 32
Invasive Species: 33
Fungal Pathogens: 34
Porodaedalea pini: 34
Cryptoporus volvatus: 34
Wildlife Use: 35
Dendroctonus pseudotsugae: 35

Acknowledgements 37

Caveats 38
LIDAR and GPS Units: 38
Subjective Collection: 38
Dead Trees: 40
Misconceptions: 40

2
References 42

Appendices 45
Appendix 1: Tree and Shrub Species and 6-letter Codes 45
Appendix 2: Notes for Each Management Unit 47
Appendix 3: Data Tables 49
Appendix 4: Fungi Sheets 52
Appendix 5: Labeled GPS Points to Show Error 54
Appendix 6: Big Tree Map 55

3
 Abstract

During Spring 2019, the Environmental Leadership Program partnered with the City of

Eugene to collect data on Hendricks Park, located in Eugene, Oregon. Data was collected to

assess tree health. The presence of insects, fungal pathogens, wildlife habitats, and invasive

species were recorded for trees larger than 36 inches diameter at breast height. The data revealed

that Hendricks Park Forest is healthy but is at risk because of climate change. Continuous

monitoring and management of trees over 55 inches in diameter at breast height, ​Hedera helix​,

and ​Dendroctonus pseudotsugae​ is recommended to maintain the old growth trajectory of

Hendricks Park Forest.

Introduction

The effects of climate change on forests include reduction of growth, an increase in

stress, and mortality of large trees (Allen et al., 2010). Climate-induced drought reduces the

ability for nutrient transport and photosynthesis (Nogués & Baker, 2000, Ciríaco da Silva et al.,

2010). Warmer climates shift the distribution of species and aid in the fitness of some pathogens

(Dale et al., 2001). As a result of climate change, storms will grow in frequency and size causing

damage to tree health (IPCC, 2007a). All stresses combine to magnify the threat to a forest.

Hendricks Park forest (HPF) is already feeling the effects of climate change. In February

of 2019, an uncommonly intense snow storm swept through Hendricks Park (HP). The 2019

snowstorm overwhelmed trees with over 14 inches of snow and caused branches to weaken,

loosen, or collapse. A snowstorm could make the forest more susceptible to invasive species by

thinning the canopy and allowing light to reach the lower forest strata (Doherty et al., 2015).

Furthermore, the summer after a climate induced disturbance has an increased likelihood of a

4
bark beetle infestation (Eriksson et al., 2005). Historically, storms of this magnitude have

occurred roughly once every hundred years, but with the effects of human-induced climate

change, they will occur in higher frequency (IPCC, 2007a).

Objective:
In 1997, the City of Eugene appointed a committee to evaluate and remove trees within

the park for safety reasons, but the public expressed concern about a lack of information and

understanding about HPF (Reed et al., 2000). In response to public concern, data on vegetation,

habitat features, recreational uses, and the presence of invasive species were collected to inform

the HPF management. In 1999, a long term management plan was proposed to address the

management needs of the park and adequately recommend forest management practices for

sustainable tree health (Reed et al., 2000). Ultimately, the management plan outlined four

assessment objectives: forest health, resource protection, education, and recreation (Reed et al.,

2000).

In the twenty years since the introduction of the 1999 Hendricks Park Forest

Management Plan (HPFMP), the climate has changed significantly. As stated above, climate

change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of drought

(Dale et al., 2001). Changes in climate also affects introduced species, insects, and fungal

pathogens (Dale et al., 2001). The 2019 Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) coordinated

with the City of Eugene to reassess HPF. Tree health was assessed by tracking the abundance,

fitness, and vulnerability of large trees. The data provided insight into the current state of

Pseudotsuga menziesii ​(Douglas-fir)​ ​trees and will help to update the 1999 HFPMP. To update

the 1999 HFPMP, this report will focus on tree metrics, fungus, invasive species and wildlife.

5
Tree Metrics:
Measuring large diameter trees will help determine the health of the forest in its current

condition. An abundance of large trees means HPF is progressing well into becoming an old

growth forest (Ravaioli et al., 2019). Progression can be measured by a continual increase in the

number of large diameter trees (Ravaioli et al., 2019). The greater amount of large diameter trees

that have been left standing after exposure to drought, disease, storms, fungal pathogens, and

insects, the healthier and more resilient the forest (Locosselli et al., 2019, Sergent et al., 2014).

Crown dieback, foliage transparency, and crown density are metrics that indicate

individual tree health. Crown dieback encompasses the percentage of dead branch edges,

needles, and treetops, and is used to evaluate the health of trees by assessing whether or not

dieback is occurring and its extent (Brouwers et al., 2012). Weather-related stress, pests, and

disease all contribute to the degree of dieback in the live crown (Brouwers et al., 2012).

Furthermore, drought events reduce crown condition and increase tree mortality (Sergent et al.,

2014).

While the lean of a large tree is not a significant indicator of its health, it can be used as a

risk assessment tool. Lean of greater than 15 degrees observed within a five year period,

however, can be an indicator of immediate failure as this is a characteristic of soil not being in

contact with a tree base (Oregon OSHA, 2008). With increasing climatic events, such as wind

and snow storms, trees with high lean can fall creating hazardous conditions.

Fungus:
Fungi occupy three main functional guilds: mutualistic, pathologic, and decomposition

relationships (Dunster et al., 2014). Assessing the presence of fungal pathogens is a metric to

6
determine tree health. However, it is important to note that fungi show significant variability in

their form and ability to cause decay (Dunster et al., 2014).

Porodaedalea pini​ is a woody conk that is common in ​P. menziesii​ in the Pacific

Northwest (Dunster et al., 2014). ​Porodaedalea pini​ is a white rot that attacks both live and dead

wood but is most common on older trees (Dunster et al., 2014). This form of decay can move

from the heartwood into the sapwood and may kill the tree it inhabits (Dunster et al., 2014). It is

considered one of the most destructive heartwood decays in North American conifers (Dunster et

al., 2014).

Cryptoporus volvatus​ is also a common fungus present on conifers in North America.

Crypotporus volvatus​ frequently fruits on the surface of decomposing or dead bark one or two

years following the transmission of the fungus (USDA, 2017). It is​ ​a saprot fungus that is often

carried into trees by ​Dendroctonus pseudotsugae​; however​ i​ t is not the only way that this fungus

is transmitted, so this fungus alone is not a diagnostic feature of ​D. pseudotsugae​ (USDA, 2017).

Invasive Species:
HPF is threatened by the spread of invasive species which affects the health of the ​P.

menziesii​ population. The popularity of HPF and its subsequent frequency of visitation by the

public indirectly threatens ​P. menziesii​ by increasing the likelihood of invasive plant

introduction. Specifically, ​Hedera helix ​(English Ivy), ​Rubus armeniacus​ (Himalayan

blackberry), and ​Rubus vestitus​ (European blackberry) have the potential to contribute to ​P.

menziesii​ vulnerability (Appendix 1).

Hedera helix​, a rapidly spreading vine originally from Western Europe, presents a

significant threat to HPF due to the species’ behavior of hindering seedling germination of

7
competing native species (Biggerstaff & Beck, 2007). Furthermore, ​H. helix t​ ends to cover and

dominate the herbaceous and shrub layers. This restricts native species’ access to sunlight;

ultimately decreasing the abundance and health of native species in the forest understory (Reed

et al., 2000). Future climate change conditions present additional challenges for native seedling

germination, as studies have observed abnormal morphology in ​P. menziesii​ seedlings under

elevated temperatures (Agne et al., 2017). The ​H. helix​ induced harms will persist as global

temperatures increases because it is resistant to drought and suitable to future climate conditions

(“English Ivy”, n.d.).

Wildlife:
Presence of wildlife use can also inform management if these trees are conducive for life

of cavity excavating bird species (Steeger, 2002). For example, if woodpecker cavities were

found it reveals the forests suitability for these species (Steeger, 2002). Generally, woodpeckers

choose their nest site in dead or dying trees because of access to food, vulnerability to predation,

and ease of excavation (Jackson et al., 2004). Cavities are an avenue for future fungal pathogens

to invade the tree while also corrupting the structural integrity of the tree if in abundance

(Jackson et al., 2014). Fungal development is often perpetuated by the cavity excavation from

woodpeckers (Jackson et al., 2004). Typically, larger cavities create greater opportunities for

fungal invasion.

Insects play an integral role in forest ecosystems as herbivores, pests, and prey; however,

pests are most notable for management of trees. Specifically, climate change increases the range

and reproduction rates of ​D. pseudotsugae (​ Cudmore et al., 2010). ​Dendroctonus pseudotsugae

are commonly associated with drought stress (Oregon Department of Forestry, 2016).

8
Dendroctonus pseudotsugae ​lowers the fitness of ​P. menziesii ​by eating away tree bark, thus,

removing the tree’s protective layer and exposing it to bacterial and fungal attack (Cudmore et

al., 2010).

Once established, a bark beetles infestation kills tree stands rapidly (Cudmore et al.,

2010). Not only do ​D. pseudotsugae e​ at the tree and turn needles of ​P. menziesii​ reddish or

yellow, or shed, but ​Cryptoporus spp.​ establish residency (Cudmore et al., 2010). ​Cryptoporus

spp.​ steal nutrients from ​P. menziesii​ and begin to decompose them (Schmitz & Gibson, 1996).

Cryptoporus spp. i​ ndicates the presence of ​D. pseudotsugae. M

​ oreover, streaming pitch is

indicative of bark beetle attack because pitch it is a response defense mechanism (USDA, 2016).

Pitch streaming plugs insect holes and drowns insects (USDA, 2016). The success rate of insect

infection in trees with large amounts of streaming pitch is lower than trees that do not display

this response (USDA, 2016). Furthermore, homogenous, dense, well-connected forests are more

susceptible to ​D. pseudotsugae​ infestations than heterogeneous and low density forests (Fettig et

al., 2007).

Methods

Study Area:
HPF is owned by the City of Eugene and managed by the Parks and Open Space division

in conjunction with local organizations, such as the Friends of Hendricks Park. The park consists

of a Rhododendron garden, an oak knoll and a Douglas-fir forest (Figure 1). The climate of the

Pacific Northwest has mild to cold winters with regular precipitation and hot dry summers which

presents ideal wildfire conditions. Although the summers in the Pacific Northwest are hot, dry

9
and fire-prone, fire is unlikely in HPF because the area is maintained by the city and protected by

a residential area.

The climate directly influences the species distribution within HPF. Currently, 58 acres of

the park are dominated by ​P. menziesii​ with ​Acer macrophyllum​ (Big leaf Maple) trees also

present (figure 1); however, when the park was first established, most of the land was made up of

Quercus garryana​ (Reed et al., 2000). ​Pseudotsuga menziesii​ now dominates the majority of the

forest due to a lack of fire disturbance in HPF ​(Devine & Harrington, 2013)​. Other species in the

park include ​Hedera helix (​ English ivy), ​Prunus avium (​ Sweet cherry), ​Ilex aquifolium​ (English

holly), ​Prunus laurocerasus​ (English laurel), ​Prunus lusitanica (​ Portuguese laurel), ​Rubus

armeniacus​ (Himalayan blackberry), and ​Rubus vestitus​ (European blackberry) which are

invasive species (Appendix 1). Native species include ​Quercus garryana​ (Oregon white oak),

Arbutus menziesii (​ Pacific madrone), ​Oemlaria cerasiformis​ (osoberry), ​Rubus ursinus​ (trailing

blackberry) and ​Symphoricarpus albus ​(snowberry).

10
Figure 1: Hendricks Park Map
Map of Hendricks Park Forest showing trails, elevation and facilities (City of Eugene Parks and
Open Space, n.d.)

General Information:
The first section of data collected was the unit specific data. Hendricks Park is divided up

into 37 management units (Map 21). The units consist of 34 dominantly ​P. menziesii​ units and

three units in the Oak Knoll. The data included the unit number, representative percent slope,

general aspect (azimuth degrees and compass direction), and the management unit condition

(Appendix 2). The management unit number was found on a map provided by the City of

Eugene (Map 1). Garmin Gpsmap 64ST and landmark recognition was used in combination with

the map to locate the correct unit. The approximate average slope and the general aspect would

11
be recorded once per unit. For both the average slope and the general aspect, a location best

representing the unit would be determined. The average percent slope was found in each unit

using a clinometer and the general aspect was found by using a compass (Appendix 2). An

additional step is creating photopoints. Photopoints were taken in each unit in the four cardinal

directions. Photopoint sites were areas within the unit that were representative of the unit as a

whole.

Map 1: Map of Units

This map shows the 37 management units in Hendricks Park, originally created for removing
invasive species (City of Eugene Parks and Open Space, 2019).

Individual Tree Information and LIDAR:

Each tree would have the following data recorded in a ​Tree Information​ section. First we

measured the diameter at breast height (DBH) of the tree, which is the diameter at 4.5 meters.

12
The DBH was recorded at the side of the tree if on a slope or, if the tree is leaning severely, the

DBH was recorded from the bottom of the bole. If the tree had a DBH of 36 inches or greater, it

would be included in the large tree data collection and data collection would continue. If a tree is

measured between 24 and 36 inches in diameter, the UTM, DBH, and species were recorded on

the medium diameter tree data sheet.

Next, trees that were greater than or equal to 36 inches in diameter were marked with a

waypoint on a GPS unit in UTM and be labeled a number that corresponded to the unit and to the

current tree. For example, 5-1 would represent the first large diameter tree within unit 5. Each

tree was also assigned a species code. For example, ​P. menziesii​ is PSEMEN (Appendix 1).

The final two pieces of data refer to LIDAR maps that the City of Eugene acquired

(Appendix 7). There are two different things that are marked on the maps; trees that are taller

than the surrounding trees (canopy analytics) and trees that have a DBH greater than 36 inches

(big mapped trees). Matching up the UTMs taken from the GPS to the UTMs on the LIDAR

chart was the primary way of determining if a tree was a big mapped tree or canopy analytics

tree. The second approach used the location of the tree relative to the aerial photos while in the

field. For canopy analytics tree data, a rating of high, medium or low was also given to determine

the level of confidence that the tree matched the LIDAR data.

Tree Health:
This section includes canopy position, lean of bole, crown diameter, canopy ratio, canopy

density, canopy transparency, dieback, and vigor (Table 1). The canopy position was categorized

out of five choices: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, subcanopy or open growth/isolated.

Multiple views would be considered, ranging from near the tree or farther away to get an

13
understanding of what canopy position it would be classified as. The lean of tree would be

recorded as none/slight (N/S) for 0-10°, moderate (M) for 11-20°, and high (H) when a tree had

lean greater than 20°. To best obtain the correct data, perpendicular views of the tree were

examined. Crown diameter was recorded using a 50-meter measuring tape by first measuring the

widest part of the crown then at a perpendicular angle to the widest point. Live crown ratio,

foliage transparency, and crown density were determined using a Forest Inventory and Analysis

(FIA) card. Crown dieback was recorded as 0-5%, 6-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76%-95%, or

96%-100, and is a visual estimate of the percent of the total crown affected. Lastly, vigor

evaluated foliage. Three rankings were given: high (normal, not visibly affected), medium (looks

less healthy than normal trees, but not severely affected but possibly suppressed by competition

or disease) and low (foliage is clearly sparse or unhealthy in a significant portion of the canopy).

Table 1: Categories of Data Collection of Tree Health Metrics

Tree Health Factor Descriptor

Canopy Position Dominant, Co-Dominant, Intermediate,

Subcanopy, Open Growth/Isolated

Lean N​one/​S​light (N/S)= 0-10°, ​M​oderate =

11-20°, ​B​ig = >20°

Crown Diameter Measure diameter of crown at widest part and

perpendicular to widest point

Live Crown Ratio Use FIA card to estimate to the nearest 5%

Canopy Density Use FIA card to estimate to the nearest 5%

Canopy Transparency Use FIA card to estimate to the nearest 5%

Crown Dieback Crown dieback using Daubenmire method -

0-5%, 6-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-95%,
96-100%

Location of dieback on crown edges, top or

needles (red or yellow)

14
 Vigor High, Medium or Low
The categories of tree health metrics in Hendricks Park Forest.

Wildlife Use:
Wildlife use consists of woodpecker holes, sapsucker holes, streaming pitch, and

galleries. Insect holes were recorded as “holes observed on the bole” and the number of holes

were recorded as less than 5, 5-30 or greater than 30. Other observations included frass or boring

dust.

Invasive Species:
The presence of ​H. Helix​ was recorded as none, present, and/or treated on the bole. Also,

H. Helix​ was noted if present on the ground or within 10 feet of the tree. Multiple categories

could be recorded for a single tree.

Forest Pathogens:
The presence of fungus was recorded for location (base, bole), frequency (few,

occasional, common), visible fungi on outer bark, or none observed. The type of fungi such as

shelf/conk ​C. volvatus​ was also recorded. The data recorder also wrote notes on the species and

other observations. One of the other expected species was ​P. pini​.

Photopoints:
Photopoints were taken in each management unit at a point that was representative of the

entire unit. These were established by placing a pin flag at that location, recording the GPS

waypoint and writing “PP-MU#-2019” on the flag. Photos were taken at that GPS point facing

north, east, south, and west. A description of the photopoint location was written.

15
Data Analysis:

All data was entered into Microsoft Excel within 48 hours of collection. Qualitative data

was analyzed for percent abundance found within trees sampled in a unit. Quantitative data was

analyzed for average within a unit. Maps were made in ArcMap using GPS points to represent

data spatially.

Results

The tree metrics of DBH, lean, crown dieback, foliage transparency, and foliage density

were used as indicators of tree health. Within the 19 units, 306 trees were analyzed with a DBH

greater than or equal to 36 inches (Figure 2). 15 units had an average DBH of over 40 inches.

Notably, unit 7 has an average DBH of almost 50 inches. 11 trees were found to have a DBH of

over 55 inches (Map 2). Those trees are located in units 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, and 20 (Map 2). 13

units contained trees with moderate amounts of lean. Units 1, 2, 9, and 13 contained the highest

quantity of trees with moderate lean per capita (Figure 3).

Unit 1, 4, 6, and 20 had the most trees with crown density of less than 40% (Map 3).

Units 1, 4, and 6 have a high abundance of trees with foliage transparency greater than 60%

(Map 4). The trees with low crown density and high foliage transparency appear to be similarly

distributed, but overall, few trees have high foliage transparency compared to crown density.

Dieback over 51% to 75% occurs a few times across the park on the border of units 17

and 18, once in unit 14 and a few times in unit 2 (Map 5). Dieback ranging from 76-95% is

located in unit 6 for one tree. Dieback greater than 96% is located in unit 5 for two trees, once in

unit 15 and once in unit 19.

16
 The highest concentration of ivy on the ground occurs in the eastern and southeastern

sides of the park (units 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) as well as a on a few trees in units 4, 5, 6 and 7

(Map 6). Distribution of treated ​H. helix​ is focused in units 1, 4, 5, 6, 20 as well as 13, 14, 15, 17,

18, and 20.​ ​In units 1, 2, 4 and 6, there was no ivy present (Map 6). Present ​H. helix​ was found

more on the eastern and southeastern areas of the park with high concentrations in units 14, 15,

16 and 17 (Map 6). Trees with no ​H. helix​ were more concentrated in units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 20

which is located in the northern areas of the park (Map 7). One occurence of no ​H. helix​ occured

on the edge of units 10 and 13 which is the only large tree found with no ​H. helix​ on the eastern

side of the park.

Fungus was found in 26% of trees samples. 15 management units contained either ​C.

volvatus​ or ​P. pini (​ Figure 6)​. O

​ nly unit 14 contains fungus with an abundance in over 50% of

trees samples. The presence of fungi is concentrated in units 4, 5 and 6 in the central area of the

park as well as 10, 13, 14 and 15 in the northeastern area of the park (Map 8). Fungus appears

mostly on the bole of trees when found, but in some units it is found on the base and bole (Map

9). The units with high concentrations of fungus on the bole are 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 19 (Map 9).

The trees with common frequency of fungus are located in units 5, which has three trees and unit

6 with two trees (Map 10).

Woodpecker cavities and nest/cavity/other were used to indicate wildlife uses throughout

the various units. Over 50% of trees sampled in units 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 have

woodpecker holes (Figure 4). 40% of trees in units 3, 14, and 16 contain nest/cavities/other

(Figure 5). In units 1, 2, 8, 11, and 12 half or more of the trees contained streaming pitch (Figure

7 and Map 11).

17
Figure 2: Average DBH.​ The values of the average DBH in each surveyed management unit are
the following: 1=43.97, 2=40.43, 3=37.69, 4=41.68, 5=42.79, 6=44.96, 7=49.30, 8=39.84,
9=42.48, 10=43.33, 11=37.80, 12=43.00, 13=40.16, 14=39.46, 15=40.49, 16=41.60, 17=43.71,
18=44.61, and 20=43.73.

18
Map 2: DBH>55.​ Management units of HPF with trees larger than 55 inches in DBH. Error was
reported from 3 to 10 meters.

19
Figure 3: Lean. ​Abundance of trees with a moderate amount of lean in each surveyed
management unit is the following: The values of abundance 1=25%, 2=24%, 3=0%, 4=9%,
5=14%, 6= 11%,7= 0%, 8= 6%, 9=25%, 10=0%, 11=0%, 12=0%, 13=33%, 14=13%,
15=14%,16=17%, 17=13%, 18=19%, 20=0%.

20
Map 3: Crown Density. ​Distribution of trees with a crown density of less than 40%. Error was
reported from 3 to 10 meters.

21
Map 4: Foliage Transparency > 60%. ​Distribution of trees with > 60% foliage transparency.
Error was reported from 3 to 10 meters.

22
Map 5: Crown Dieback > 51%. ​Location of trees with crown dieback greater than 51%. The
three categories shown are 51-75%, 76-95% and 96-100%.

23
Map 6: Location of Present ​H. helix,​ Treated ​H. helix​, and ​H. helix​ on the Ground.
Management units in HPF with present ivy, treated ivy and ivy on the ground. Error was reported
from 3 to 10 meters.

24
Map 7: Trees with No ​H. helix.​ ​Management units in HPF with no ivy present. Error was
reported from 3 to 10 meters.

25
Figure 4: Woodpecker Cavities. ​Abundance of woodpecker cavities

Figure 5: Nest/cavity/other. ​Abundance of nest/cavities/other in percent. The values of

abundance are 1=8%, 2=4%, 3=43%, 4=14%, 5=7%, 6=4%, 7=0%,8= 25%, 9=0%, 10=0%,
11=0%, 12=0%, 13=0%, 14=44%, 15=0%, 16=33%, 17=22%, 18=6%, 20=12%.

26
Figure 6. Presence of Fungus. ​Abundance of fungus present on outer bark. The values of
abundance are 1=17%, 2=24%, 3=43%, 4=35%, 5=24%, 6=25%, 7=40%, 8=31%, 9=25%,
10=33%, 11=0%, 12=0%, 13=22%, 14=63%, 15=21%, 16=0%, 17=13%, 18=25%, and 20=0%.

27
Map 8: Trees with Fungus Visible on Outer Bark ​Management units in HPF of trees with
fungus visible on the outer bark and trees that do not have fungus located on the outer bark. Error
was reported from 3 to 10 meters.

28
Map 9: Location of Fungus: Base, Bole or Base and Bole. ​Management units in HPF with the
location of fungus in the units assessed such as on the base, the bole or the base and bole.

29
Map 10: Frequency of Fungus. ​Management Units in HPF with frequency of fungus on
trees.The categories include common, few and occasional.

30
Map 11: Streaming Pitch. ​Management units in HPF with trees with streaming pitch and the
location of trees without streaming pitch across the management units assessed.

31
Figure 7: Streaming Pitch. ​Abundance of streaming pitch across management units. The values
abundance are 1=58%, 2=60%, 3=43%, 4=33%, 5=17%, 6=21%, 7=0%, 8=50%, 9=0%,
10=17%, 11=100%, 12=100%, 13=44%, 15=31%, 16=29%, 17=17%, 18=9%, 19=44%, and
20=36%.
Discussion

The data revealed that Hendricks Park Forest is healthy but is at risk because of climate

change. The categories assessed for management and recommendations are tree metrics, invasive

species, fungal pathogens and wildlife use.

Tree Metrics:
Tree metrics are an indicator of trajectory of developing old growth stands (Freund,

Franklin, & Lutz, 2015). As increased change to climate conditions occur, disturbances within

the forest will alter the growth and functioning of forest stands. ​Pseudotsuga menziesii​ shows

great plasticity to responding to such events (Pelt & Sillett, 2008). Six trees with crown dieback

of 51-95% were found (Map 5), and each should be critically assessed and monitored by

continuing ELP groups to track their chances for recovery. Four trees with crown dieback of

95-100% were found (Map 5), and each should individually be assessed for the presence of fungi

32
and ​D. pseudotsugae​ to monitor their future spread. Crown density can also indicate tree health,

but these factors mostly indicated intraspecific competition or growth due to aspect. For

example, trees growing with an aspect on the eastern slope of the park had a majority of limbs

with growth habits towards the east to maximize daily sunlight. For public safety, hanging and

unstable limbs should be managed within the park. Developing old-growth forests are headed

toward a trajectory that provide suitable structural stability and do not need active management

for these trees (Freund et al., 2015). 11 trees were found to have DBH greater than 55 inches

(Map 2), which all should be continuously monitored by future ELP groups.

Invasive Species:

Hedera helix​ has proven to be a threat to Hendricks Park throughout the existence of the

park and management of the invasive plant has been successful. Walama Restoration has created

a detailed brochure identifying how to manually remove ​H. helix​ (“English Ivy,” n.d.). Efforts of

removal are noticeable within the management units 1-12 in the center of the park where none to

only treated ivy are present. It was evident that the dispersal of ​H. helix​ was found abundantly

near the borders of the park which are adjacent to neighboring residents (Map 6). Continuing ​H.

helix​ removal efforts by local volunteers and park management should target the eastern

management units 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, as these all show the most susceptible to further spread

(Appendix 4). Once removed, further monitoring is needed for new growth from remnant roots,

as well as the planting of native seeds for new colonization (Biggerstaff & Beck, 2007).

Although no data was collected on the presence of ​Rubus armeniacus, ​Unit 17 on the

eastern edge of the park had new growth of ​R. armeniacus,​ and should be monitored for

33
continued dispersal within the park. Although removal is necessary to decrease its competition

with other native species, managing some thickets of ​R. armeniacus ​to block off unwanted paths

could be beneficial for limiting their creation. ​Rubus armeniacus​ can also facilitate in promoting

pollinator interactions with native flowers (Shelby & Peterson, 2015). Therefore management of

invasive ​R. armeniacus​ should be prioritized, but to the extent of limiting its overall abundance

in the forest.

Fungal Pathogens:
Porodaedalea pini:
The identification of ​P. pini i​ s important because it is a metric used in assessing the

structural stability of a tree (Glaeser & Lindner, 2010). Units 5 and 6 contain the highest

abundance of ​P. pini ​and the spread of​ ​conks should be monitored in the surrounding areas (Map

​ ill rise within and outside of those units

9). It can be expected that the concentration of ​P. pini w

when trees are stressed by climate change (Hepting, 1971, Sinclair and Lyon, 2005). However,

reproduction of ​P. pini​ are improved in moist areas. Climatic differences that induce drought

conditions will inhibit the ability of ​P. pini ​reproduction (Wyka et al., 2018). Since, ​P. pini

decreases the structural stability of trees, the spread should be monitored; however, the presence

of ​P. pini i​ s not of concern currently and the abundance may decrease in future years due to

climate change.

Cryptoporus volvatus:

Cryptoporus volvatus​ is important for nutrient cycling and provides areas of habitat for a

variety of plants and animals (Service & Filip, 2001). It is not of concern for management;

however, the presence of ​C. volvatus i​ ndicates the presence of another infecting agent; such as

34
the ​D. pseudotsugae​ (Service & Filip, 2001). In future management plans, ​C. volvatus s​ hould be

indicated as present or not as an indication of ​D. pseudotsugae.​

Wildlife Use:
Dendroctonus pseudotsugae:
February 2019 winter snow storm events have downed many trees within Hendricks

Park. These newly deceased trees provide critical habitat for wildlife in the area but are also very

susceptible to ​D. pseudotsugae​ colonization (Fettig et al., 2007). Although ​D. pseudotsugae​ is a

natural part of forest ecosystems, climate change will increase the effects, and forests are more

susceptible to further infestation (Fettig et al., 2007). ​Cryptoporus volvatus​ an indicator of ​D.

pseudotsugae​ was present in 15 management units, which each should be assessed as critical

areas to decrease the spread of ​D. pseudotsugae​ and community safety. Focusing on recently

​ ill help
fallen trees and the surrounding standing trees that are infested with ​D. pseudotsugae w

prevent further colonization (de Groot et. al., 2018). Many of these recently fallen trees remain

within the forest or are bordering trails for eventual decomposition. Efforts should be made to

find units with a high abundance of ​D. pseudotsugae​ and remove infested logs and trees to

decrease the spread.

The first summer after a disturbance infestation rates are higher (Eriksson, Pouttu, &

Roininen, 2005). Therefore action to prevent continued colonization will protect the forests

health, but also create a safer forest for neighboring residents and recreation within the park.

Monitoring the abundance before and after summer 2019 will be an important management tool

to track the spread throughout the forest and understand what areas to focus resources. Focus

should primarily start on units with high abundance, then units nearby.

35
 If removal of trees is necessary, and possible, then surrounding trees will become less

susceptible to ​D. pseudotsugae​, due to less stress, tree competition, and pheromone plumes

(Fettig et al., 2007). The first step after removal should be to diversify the forest stands since less

heterogeneity in the forest creates more susceptibility (Fettig et al., 2007). Diversifying the

amount of conifer trees will not only help prevent ​D. pseudotsugae​ occurrence, but will allow for

more biodiversity and structural forest diversity. Therefore, management tactics to reduce ​D.

pseudotsugae​ colonization further into Hendricks Park will be necessary after recent snow storm

events, as well as having a management protocol ready for when a future disturbance occurs.

36
 Acknowledgements

The team would like to acknowledge everyone involved in the development and success

of this project. First, thank you to Peg Boulay, the co-director of the ELP, for guiding the team’s

work throughout the past six months. Thank you to Chelsea Obeidy, the team’s project manager,

for providing support and feedback both in the field and in developing this report. The team

would also like to thank the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space division and Friends of

Hendricks Park. Specifically, the team would like to acknowledge Emily Steel and Christina

Bentrup for dedicating their time to developing the protocol and training the team in the field.

Lastly, thank you to the Robert and Catherine Miller Foundation for sponsoring ELP and this

project.

37
 Caveats

This section notes some of the errors in data collection that were observed and

suggestions for improvement.

LIDAR and GPS Units:

Throughout the data collection process, the team found that GPS error made it difficult to

correlate the LIDAR data with the GPS points of large trees. The error on the GPS units ranged

anywhere from 3 to 10 meters. This ample margin of error also added difficulty to relocating and

distinguishing between trees in close proximity to one another. About two weeks into data

collection, the protocol was edited to include a high, medium or low confidence section to match

up trees, but the team still found that matching GPS with LIDAR data persisted in difficulty due

to the error. The dense canopy cover in some sections may, therefore, warrant stronger GPS units

to more accurately match up the LIDAR data with data collected by future ELP teams.

Subjective Collection:

The team found that there is an inherent subjectivity in using the FIA card. This included

live crown ratio, crown density, and foliage transparency measurements. For each, the protocol

specified to be at approximately 1-1.5 tree lengths away and to estimate to the nearest 5%. For

live crown ratio, the protocol specified to hold the card parallel to the tree and to adjust it until

your eye perceives the “0” mark at the top of the tree and “99” at the base. Depending on the

traversability of each unit and the visibility of the tree being measured, it was not always

possible to measure live crown ratio at an appropriate distance. Furthermore, the estimations

38
(even at proper distances) were “eyeball” estimates which varied depending on the person

assessing them.

Crown density and foliage transparency measurements were taken by comparing

referential illustrations to the tree’s crown and proceeding to find which category seemed to most

closely resemble the tree being observed. These were, therefore, also “eyeball” estimates. Much

like the live crown ratio, the appropriate distance of 1-1.5 tree lengths away was not always

feasible or followed for crown density and foliage transparency. The team typically had two

people taking these measurements for each tree to compare their judgments in an effort to reduce

bias/subjectivity, but very often the two people would have numbers differing by 10% or greater.

However, if subteams only had three people, they relied on only one person to take these

measurements and subsequently had a larger margin for error.

Apart from the FIA card measurements, subjective judgments were also inherent in

assessing tree vigor and dieback. Nearly half of the team were not aware that vigor entailed only

foliage (as opposed to broader tree health) until late in the data collecting process and can be

assumed to have made some inaccurate subjective judgments on broader tree health instead of

centering their focus on foliage. In addition, each individual’s idea of high, moderate, and low

vigor differed and resulted in a lack of team calibration for assessing tree vigor.

Dieback assessments were made without any reference (such as an FIA card) and were

meant to be approximated initially to the nearest 5% but was later changed to the Daubenmire

method. The lack of reference made dieback assessments particularly difficult to approximate

and resulted in low-confidence for the team members assessing it. This was the reason for the

protocol switch to the Daubenmire method instead of estimations to the nearest 5%. In an

39
attempt to decrease error induced by subjective judgment, the team switched members of each

subteam every two weeks but the team did not feel confident that this measure, alone, adequately

addressed the concern of subjectivity. A more calibrated system for collecting data may be

beneficial to reduce subjective judgments in the future.

Dead Trees:

There was an inconsistency among subgroups in regard to the inclusion or lack of

inclusion of dead trees/snags. Dead trees were meant to be recorded in the first weeks of data

collection, but halfway through data collection the team was told to collect only live trees (which

may add error to the data). Before this change, the decision to include or not include a tree was

ambiguous in the sense that each group subjectively decided on their own if a tree was dead or

not. This affects the data because it has the potential to add/subtract trees from data analysis in

the analytic phase of the project. One conclusion we came to as a team was if the tree still had

needles it would be considered alive and be included in the analytic phase. There were several

large diameter trees which appeared to be snags but, after this conclusion they were counted in

our data collection. For future projects, it would be valuable to analyze dead tre dlife use, or

other factors.

Misconceptions:

A primary misconception that the team encountered was the proper method for measuring

DBH of a tree on a slope. Some subteams measured DBH from the upslope side of the tree while

others measured from the side of the tree. This inconsistency will likely cause error in the DBH

measurements depending on which method was used for each tree. This misconception arose as a

40
result of conflicting information; however, measuring DBH from the side of the tree was clearly

written in the protocol. These misconceptions could be resolved by having a calibration day with

the whole team every time the protocol changed. Protocols should be learned in the winter to

give adequate time for calibration, and calibration continued within the team every three weeks

during data collection.

41
 References

Agne, M.C, Beedlow, P.A, Shaw, D.C., Woodruff, D.R., Lee, E.H., Cline, S.P., & Comeleo,
R.L. (2018). Interactions of predominant insects and diseases with climate change in
Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington, U.S.A. ​Forest Ecology and
Management, 409,​ 317-332.
Allen, C. D., Macalady, A. K., Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., McDowell, N., Vennetier, M., …
Cobb, N. (2010). A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals
emerging climate change risks for forests. ​Forest Ecology and Management​, ​259​(4),
660–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001
Biggerstaff, M. S., & Beck, C. W. (2007). Effects of Method of English Ivy Removal and Seed
Addition on Regeneration of Vegetation in a Southeastern Piedmont Forest. ​The
American Midland Naturalist​, ​158​(1), 206–220.
Brouwers, N., Matusick, G., Ruthrof, K., Lyons, T., & Hardy, G. (2013). Landscape-scale
assessment of tree crown dieback following extreme drought and heat in a Mediterranean
eucalypt forest ecosystem. Landscape Ecology, ​28​(1), 69-80.
Ciríaco da Silva, E., Jurema Mansur Custódio Nogueira, R., Silva, M., & Albuquerque, M.
(2010). Drought Stress and Plant Nutrition. ​Plant Stress​, ​5​, 32–41.
City of Eugene Parks and Open Space. (2019). Management Unit Map.
City of Eugene Parks and Open Spaces. n.d. Hendricks Park Map.
Dale, V. H., Joyce, L. A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R. P., Ayres, M. P., Flannigan, M. D., …
Wotton, B. M. (2001). Climate Change and Forest Disturbances Climate change can
affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought,
introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or
landslides. ​BioScience​, ​51​(9), 723–734.
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD]2.0.CO;2
de Groot, M., Ogris, N., & Kobler, A. (2018). The effects of a large-scale ice storm event on the
drivers of bark beetle outbreaks and associated management practices. ​Forest Ecology
and Management,​ ​408,​ 195–201.
Divine, W. D., & Harrington, C. A. (2013) Restoration release of overtopped Oregon white oak
increases 10-year growth and acorn production. ​Forest Ecology and Management, 291,
87-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.10.053
Doherty, T. S., Dickman, C. R., Nimmo, D. G., & Ritchie, E. G. (2015). Multiple threats, or
multiplying the threats? Interactions between invasive predators and other ecological
disturbances. ​Biological Conservation,​ ​190,​ 60–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.013
Dunster, J.A., R. Edmonds. (2014). Common Fungi Affecting Pacific Northwest Trees
Implications for Tree Risk Assessment. Dunster & Associates Ltd.
English Ivy: The Hazards and Removal Strategies. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2019, from
http://walamarestoration.org/resources/english-ivy-the-hazards-and-removal-strategies
Eriksson, M., Pouttu, A., & Roininen, H. (2005). The influence of windthrow area and timber
characteristics on colonization of wind-felled spruces by Ips typographus (L.). ​Forest
Ecology and Management​, ​216​(1), 105–116.

42
Eriksson, M., Pouttu, A., & Roininen, H. (2005). The influence of windthrow area and timber
characteristics on colonization of wind-felled spruces by Ips typographus (L.). ​Forest
Ecology and Management​, ​216​(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.044
Fettig, C. J., Klepzig, K. D., Billings, R. F., Munson, A. S., Nebeker, T. E., Negrón, J. F., &
Nowak, J. T. (2007). The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for
prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and
southern United States. ​Forest Ecology and Management,​ ​238(​ 1), 24–53.
Fettig, C. J., Klepzig, K. D., Billings, R. F., Munson, A. S., Nebeker, T. E., Negrón, J. F., &
Nowak, J. T. (2007). The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for
prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and
southern United States. ​Forest Ecology and Management,​ ​238(​ 1), 24–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.10.011
Freund, J. A., Franklin, J. F., & Lutz, J. A. (2015). Structure of early old-growth Douglas-fir
forests in the Pacific Northwest. ​Forest Ecology and Management​, ​335​, 11–25.
Glaeser, J., & Lindner, D. (2010). Use of fungal biosystematics and molecular genetics in
detection and identification of wood-decay fungi for improved forest management.
Forest Pathology,​ ​41,​ 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0329.2010.00681.x
Growth.” ​IForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry​.​ 12​(3):246-253.
doi:10.3832/ifor2620-012.
Hepting, G.H. (1971). Diseases of Forest and Shade Trees of the United States. Washington, DC:
USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 36.
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3441/Hendricks-Park-Forst-Manage
https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/ForestBenefits/Drought_2016.pdf
IPCC, 2007a. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.),
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
Jackson, J.A., & Jackson, B.J.S. (2004). Ecological relationships between fungi and woodpecker
cavity sites. ​The Condor, 106(​ 1), 37-49. ​https://doi.org/10.1650/7483
Kolb, T.E., M.R. Wagner, and W.W. Covington. (1994). Concepts of forest health: utilitarian
and ecosystem perspectives. ​Journal of Forestry​ 92(7):10-15.
Liang, S. (2012). Above-Ground Biomass. ​Advanced Remote Sensing​. Elsevier, Acad. Press,
2012, pp. 467–499.
Locosselli, Giuliano Maselli, et al. (2019). The Role of Air Pollution and Climate on the Growth
of Urban Trees. ​Science of The Total Environment​.
management plan. City of Eugene​ 1​:1-101.Management Plan. Retrieved 29 May 2019,
from ment-Plan?bidId=
Nogués, S., & Baker, N. R. (2000). Effects of drought on photosynthesis in Mediterranean plants
grown under enhanced UV-B radiation. ​Journal of Experimental Botany,​ ​51(​ 348),
1309–1317. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/51.348.1309
Oregon Department of Forestry. (2016). Drought Stress in Conifers. Retrieved from
Pearse, Grant D, et al. (2018). Comparison of Models Describing Forest Inventory Attributes
Using Standard and Voxel-Based Lidar Predictors across a Range of Pulse Densities.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation

43
Pelt, R. V., & Sillett, S. C. (2008). CROWN DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL
PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII​ , INCLUDING A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR TALL
CONIFERS. ​Ecological Monographs​, ​78​(2), 283–311.
Ravaioli, D, et al. (2019). Disentangling the Effects of Age and Global Change on Douglas Fir
recurrent drought episodes and recovers less well on less fertile sites. ​Annals Of Forest
Science, 71(​ 6), 697-708.
Reed, D., Salix Associates, Sperry Tree Care Company, W. Lueck. (2000). Hendricks Park
Forest
Sergent, A., Rozenberg, P., & Breda, N. (2014). Douglas-fir is vulnerable to exceptional and
Service, O. S. U. E., & Filip, G. M. (2001). Managing tree wounding and stem decay in Oregon
forests.
Shelby, N., & Peterson, M. A. (2015). Despite Extensive Pollinator Sharing, Invasive Blackberry
has Negligible Impacts on Reproductive Success of a Rare Native Wildflower. ​Northwest
Science,​ ​89(​ 1), 47–57.
Singh, K. K., Gagne, S.A. & Meentemeyer, R.K.. 2016. Urban Forests and Human Well-Being.
In S. Liang (Ed.), ​Comprehensive Remote Sensing​, (pp. 287–305). ​ScienceDirect​,
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10421-X.
Steeger, Christoph, and Jakob Dulisse. "Characteristics and dynamics of cavity nest trees in
southern British Columbia." ​Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; Shea, Patrick J​ (2002): 2-4.
Oregon OSHA. (2008). Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response.
https://osha.oregon.gov/OSHAPubs/reserve-trees.pdf
USDA. (2017). Douglas-Fir Beetle. apps.fs.usda.gov/r6_decaid/views/douglas_fir_beetle.html.
USDA. (2017). Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 184.
Wyka, S. A., Munck, I. A., Brazee, N. J., & Broders, K. D. (2018). Response of eastern white
pine and associated foliar, blister rust, canker and root rot pathogens to climate change.
Forest Ecology and Management,​ ​423,​ 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.011

44
 Appendices

Appendix 1: Tree and Shrub Species and 6-letter Codes

Code Scientific Name Invasive?

Trees – Conifers

Grand fir ABIGRA Abies grandis

Incense cedar CALDEC Calocedrus decurrens

Ponderosa pine PINPON Pinus ponderosa

Douglas-fir PSEMEN Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pacific yew TAXBRE Taxus brevifolia

Western red cedar THUPLI Thuja plicata

Trees - Hardwoods

Big-leaf maple ACEMAC Acer macrophyllum

Norway maple ACEPLA Acer platanoides x

Horse chestnut AESHIP Aesculus hippocastanum x

Pacific madrone ARBMEN Arbutus menziesii

Pacific dogwood CORNUT Cornus nuttallii

Oregon ash FRALAT Fraxinus latifolia

Black cottonwood POPBAL Populus balsamifera ssp.

trichocarpa

Plum spp. PRUZZZ Prunus spp. x

Sweet cherry PRUAVI Prunus​ ​avium x

Oregon white oak QUEGAR Quercus garryana

45
California black oak QUEKEL Quercus kelloggii

Cascara RHAPUR Rhamnus purshiana

European mountain-ash SORAUC Sorbus aucuparia x

California bay laurel UMBCAL Umbellularia californica x

Shrubs and Small Trees

Vine maple ACECIR Acer circinatum

Pacific serviceberry AMEALN Amelanchier alnifolia

Oregon grape BERAQU Berberis aquifolium

California hazel CORCOR Corylus cornuta var.

californica

Hawthorn spp. CRAXXX Crataegus spp. (x)

Scotch broom CYTSCO Cytisus scoparius x

Spurge laurel DAPLAU Daphne laureloa x

Salal GAUSHA Gaultheria shallon

Lewis’ mockorange PHILEW Philadelphus lewisii

Ocean spray HOLDIS Holodiscus discolor

English holly ILEAQU Ilex aquifolium x

Western crabapple MALFUS Malus fusca

Osoberry OEMCER Oemlaria cerasiformis

Pacific ninebark PHYCAP Physocarpus capitatus

English laurel PRULAU Prunus laurocerasus x

Portugese laurel PRULUS Prunus lusitanica x

Red-flowering currant RIBSAN Ribes sanguineum

46
 Rose spp. ROSXXX Rosa spp.

Thimbleberry RUBPAR Rubus parviflorus

Trailing blackberry RUBURS Rubus ursinus

Himalaya or RUBXXX Rubus spp. x

European
blackberry

Evergreen blackberry RUBLAC Rubus laciniatus x

Red elderberry SAMRAC Sambucus racemosa

Snowberry SYMALB Symphoricarpus albus

Poison oak TOXDIV Toxicodendron

diversilobum

Appendix 2: Notes for Each Management Unit

Management Management unit condition General aspect Average slope

unit (az. and dir.) (%)

1 Unit dominated by Douglas-fir trees, with 276 W 19

relatively open under canopy. Herbaceous
understory with downed trees

2 A lot of downed trees and woody debris NW 27

covering the ground from the recent storm

3 Variety of tree sizes. Some developed 305 NW 52

understory shrubs but not very high...still
some open space. Slight steepness but still
easy to walk or climb in or out of.

4 Large downed trees on the north side of unit. 296 NW 15

Douglas fir dominated, lots of big tree
maples. Lots of herbaceous understory

47
5 Fairly open. Some woody debris and 280 W 35
downed trees.

6 Large unit with varying slope, mostly steep. 345 NW 45

Herbaceous understory, not a lot of large
trees for unit size. Lots of branches on the
ground.

7 Very steep. Has water runoff stream. New 30 NE 65

downed trees. Thick understory with large
opening due to adjacent roads.

8 Lots of vegetation. Small clearings. Dense 295 NW 20

high areas. Lots of woody debris.

9 Small understory, some shrubs, low to the 48 NE 35 (2.5)

ground. Mostly smaller trees (24-36), but
some very large trees. Lots of branch,
foliage debris on ground.

10 Woody debris from storm and management 51 NE 20

short (height) vegetation

11 Open management unit consisting of five 300 NW 5

live trees, and single dead log

12 Open grassy area with no understory and N 2 (4)

few trees near the parking lot and picnic
tables

13 Presence of large maples withe dense 70 NE 40

understory vegetation. Mostly treated ivy on
trees. Occasional snags. High abundance of
trailing blackberry. Invasives presence such
Portugese laurel, Enlgish holly, English Ivy.

14 Heavy English Ivy, Overgrown herbaceous 90 E 35

plants in under canopy

15 Douglas-fir dominated with Big-leaf maple 200 S 25

present. understory heavily overgrown with
blackberry and english ivy present on the
trees and on the ground; dense understory
and steep slope; difficult to walk around unit
b/c dense blackberry and ivy on the ground

16 Many downed trees, open canopy, full 80 E 32

understory, many broken tree tops, large

48
 downed tree marks the edge of the unit

17 Lots of storm damage, south end of unit has 90 E 30 (2.5)

more dead trees, edge effect? Bark beetles in
unit on smaller trees

18 Douglas-fir dominated, numerous Big-leaf 105 E 32

maple, covered by blackberry and ivy and
ferns. Lots of fallen logs

20 Many fallen trees, large spot of all dead trees 18 N 33

in middle of unit, very very tall understory,
possible site for bark beetle invasion

Appendix 3: Data Tables

Table 1: Average Tree Conditions in Each Unit

Crown Crown
Diameter Diameter Live Foliage Crown
Unit DBH Axis 1 (m) Axis 2 (m) Crown % Transparency % Density %
1 43.97 13.98 11.83 45.00 53.33 38.54
2 40.43 13.58 11.53 22.08 47.92 44.58
3 37.69 12.19 10.18 28.57 37.86 57.86
4 41.68 12.82 10.76 32.14 39.29 56.43
5 42.79 13.01 11.67 23.66 47.80 45.15

6 44.96 12.06 11.67 26.92 50.56 47.04

7 49.30 14.33 14.61 38.75 62.00 42.00

8 39.84 11.78 12.25 21.25 42.19 49.06

9 42.48 12.10 10.09 35.00 42.50 47.50

10 43.33 12.75 11.85 42.50 51.67 49.17

11 37.80 10.60 16.80 100.00 40.00 65.00

12 43.00 11.64 13.33 40.00 55.00 45.00

49
13 40.16 12.77 11.89 35.56 57.22 41.67

14 39.46 12.57 10.71 27.50 49.38 45.63

15 40.49 13.25 12.47 32.78 50.37 47.78

16 41.60 10.54 9.65 37.92 62.08 30.83

17 43.71 10.17 11.29 30.65 46.52 43.91

18 44.61 13.04 12.58 28.75 49.17 49.17

20 43.73 11.40 12.20 33.54 43.13 47.08

Total 42.21 12.35 11.97 35.92 48.84 47.02

Table 2: Occurrences of Different Observed Tree Health Conditions

1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 20 TOTAL
Lean (N) 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
1
Lean (S) 0 0 0 3 4 0 1 6 0 2 1 0 2 4 0 1 12 0 0 46
4
Lean (N/S) 9 18 7 7 20 23 1 9 3 4 0 1 4 0 12 9 8 11 23 209
Lean (M) 3 6 0 5 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 3 5 0 40
Lean (H) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4
Crown Dieback(0-5%) 9 11 6 2 20 14 2 11 2 4 1 0 4 9 10 9 15 16 19 204
Crown Dieback(6-25%) 2 7 1 8 6 3 2 3 1 2 0 1 4 4 3 3 7 0 3 60
Crown
Dieback(26-50%) 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 7
Crown
Dieback(51-75%) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6
Crown
Dieback(76-95%) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Crown
Dieback(96-100%) 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Crown Dieback (Branch 2 1
Edges) 7 18 0 6 21 7 2 16 2 6 0 1 8 5 10 10 23 7 24 203
Crown Dieback (Top) 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 11
Crown Dieback
(Needles) 1 0 3 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17
Vigor (L) 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 17

50
 3
Vigor (M) 7 12 0 7 9 14 3 7 2 4 0 0 4 9 4 7 11 12 10 152
1
Vigor (H) 2 11 7 8 16 12 1 6 2 2 1 1 5 6 10 3 11 4 11 129
Ivy (P) 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 9 10 6 18 7 1 63
4 1
Ivy (T) 5 11 3 9 25 21 5 12 4 5 0 0 9 4 13 11 20 15 18 240
1
Ivy (G) 0 0 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 10 9 18 13 0 80
Ivy (N) 6 13 3 8 3 5 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 50
2 1
Woodpecker Cavities 5 8 3 8 14 16 4 4 1 2 1 1 3 0 9 7 21 11 16 164
Nest/Cavity/Other 1 1 3 8 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 5 1 3 40
Sapsucker Holes 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3
Fungus (none) 10 18 3 6 21 20 3 11 3 4 1 1 7 6 11 12 20 12 17 216
Fungus (visible on outer 2 1
bark) 2 6 3 0 7 7 2 5 1 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 3 4 0 77
2 1
Fungus (bole) 1 6 3 1 7 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 4 7 73
Fungus (base) 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
1
Fungus (few) 2 3 3 9 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 41
Fungus (occasional) 0 3 3 7 6 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 2 37
Fungus (common) 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Holes in Bole (None
Observed) 3 6 3 1 3 2 4 4 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 35
Holes in Bole (<5) 0 6 3 2 13 3 0 9 1 0 0 0 4 1 3 4 3 0 2 54
3
Holes in Bole (5-30) 0 8 3 1 8 13 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 4 5 5 10 3 4 101
2
Holes in Bole (>30) 9 4 3 2 4 9 1 1 2 2 0 0 4 9 6 1 9 13 13 112
Galleries Observed 0 0 3 2 0 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 6 2 5 0 9 6 45
Frass and Boring Dust 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1
Streaming Pitch 7 15 3 9 5 6 0 8 0 1 1 1 4 5 4 2 2 7 9 99

51
Appendix 4: Fungi Sheets

52
53
Appendix 5: Labeled GPS Points to Show Error

54
Appendix 6: Big Tree Map

55