The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutForestry Letters Tree Removal Hartstene Island - OT General - 10/9/2012 WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F C I 38%'943-1723 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C FAX 3601943-4128 Otympia,WA 98501 October 9, 2012 Ron Brookins HPMA 202 Pointes Drive West Shelton,WA 98584 RE: Tree Evaluation at Hartstene Point — Shelton, WA Dear Ron: I have completed tree evaluations at 8 sites in the Hartstene Pointe community. The purpose was to determine the condition of the trees and make recommendations for cultural care and removal. Findings The following table provides a description of the evaluated trees and my recommendations. I have attached photos of 2 of the subject trees. Tree competition made it difficult to get quality photos of the other trees. The methodology used in the evaluation is in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards as described in Matheny and Clark's text.1 Further, the principles detailed in the new ISA publication Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment (2011), the companion publication to the ANSI A300 (Part 9) Tree Risk Assessment and Structure Assessment were applied in consideration in designating the tree as imminent, non-imminent,or not a hazard. All data required in the HPMA new form is included in the table below. The new form would require at least 23 pages (I page per tree) plus my necessary other documentation, while taking significantly more time to prepare. Further, posting of 30 pages of documentation on the HPMA clubhouse wall as required, does not seem practical. ' Nelda P. Matheny and James R.Clark. (1994). A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas(2nd Edition). International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign,IL. 85 page. URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL • HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS * VEGETATION MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 9 CONTRACT FORESTERS , 7 Hartstene Point Tree Evaluation The summary table below greatly condenses my findings and recommendations. Table 1. Sum ma of recommendations. All common area trees. DBH Hazard Address # Species n Condition Targets Recommend Desi nation Heavy burls on lower 12 ft.of stem; Crown reduce to Dieback in crown- remove Bigleaf likely verticillium deadwood in Non- 736 Promontory #7 maple >50 1 wilt;Not reversible, House 2012 or 2013 Imminent Sound in SW quadrant;Unsound in NE quadrant; Good live crown ratio;Adequate sound wood to 736 Promontory #5 1 Redcedar 42 support tree; House No Work Not a Hazard —50%unsound; Leans to Puget 736 Promontory #6 Redcedar 40 Sound; None No work Not a Hazard —50%unsound; Adequate sound wood to support 736 Promontory #8 1 Redcedar 38 tree; House No work Not a Hazard Douglas- Sound,healthy;Live 736 Promontory #4 fir 32 crown ratio is 55%; House No work Not a Hazard Douglas- Sound,healthy; Live 736 Promontory #3 fir 28 crown ratio is 55%; House No work Not a Hazard Douglas- Sound,healthy;Live 736 Promontory #2 fir 36 crown ratio is 45%; House No work Not a Hazard Sound,healthy, Douglas- Previously lost top; 736 Promontory #1 fir 12 Good vigor; House No work Not a Hazard Lost codominant leader; Remaining Oregon stem imminent to Remove Hazard 152 Barnacle #1 1 ash 13 fail; Driveway Tree 313 Pointes Dr. Pacific Dying; Supported A00S r. Cut dead top out Property East #1 madrone 24 by redcedar tree; above'Y' Mgt. Sound,healthy; In deck;Lateral and terminal branch growth good,Bark 324 Pointes Dr. Douglas- vigor-medium to East #1 fir 28 low; House No work Not a Hazard Bigleaf nve East maple 20 435 Pointes Douglas- Positive I.D. on Remove Hazard Drive East #1 fir 40 laminated root rot; House Tree Within 17 ft. of#1 - 435 Pointes Douglas- poor live crown; Remove Hazard Drive East #2 fir F Suspect laminated House Tree Washington Forestry Consultants,Inc Page 2 Hartstene Point Tree Evaluation DBH Memard— Address # Species In Condition Targets Recommend root rot; Sound,healthy; 435 Pointes Minor stem damage Drive East #3 Redcedar 48 on 1 side; House No work Not a Hazard Healthy;Minor internal stem decay; 43 5 Pointes Leans away from Drive East #4 1 Redcedar 36 house; House No work Not a Hazard Pacific Re #1 madrone 28 Bluff Tree gt- Pacific Cut and allow-to #2 madrone 15 Bluff ^res rout "0 Pacific #3 madrone 15 Bluff Try Pacific VW LU e #4 madrone 24 Bluff t U7�Ot. Douglas- *NPN"D West #1 fir 9 d1sw Bluff Jim Mgt. Waii1owr. Douglas- Re NOW West #2 fir 8 Bluff M 5 Douglas- West 1 #3 fir 8 Bluff Mgt. The removal recommendations for Pacific madrone and bigleaf maple are made to encourage stump sprouting and regeneration of a new tree, while providing bluff stability. These are species, slope and 'property management' recommendations since the bluff is the target in most cases. They do not fit into the hazard designation criteria of the form, since the targets are the bluff and area below the bluff in most cases, and not houses, other structures, roads, driveways, or parking areas. The above recommended tree work should be completed as soon as possible. Please give me a call if you have additional questions. Respectfully submitted, Washington.Forestry Consultants, Inc. AA_--)>/ . Galen M. Wright,ACF, ASCA ISA Board Certified Master Arborist No. PN-0129BU Certified Forester No. 44 Washington Forestry Consultants,Inc. Page 3 Hartstene Point Tree Evaluation Attachment#1: Photos of Trees WFCI 8/17/12) Photo A.View of tree at 402 Pointes Dr.East-a dying bigleaf maple-Cutting tree now will allow it to resprout and continue to su rt slo e. s t' r ,r• M Photo B. View of i of the 4 dying Pacific madrones at 470 Chesapeake. Washington Forestry Consultants,Inc. Page 4 Hartstene Point Tree Evaluation Attachment#2: Glossary of Arboricultural Terms ABBRV. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CC Crown Pruning of dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or defective branches Cleaning over 1/2 inch in diameter—includes removal of dead tops CT Crown Pruning of branches described in crown cleaning, plus thinning of Thinning up to 20% of the live branches over '/2 inch diameter. Branch should be 1/3 to '/2 the diameter of the lateral branch. Thinning should be well distributed throughout crown of tree, and should release healthy, long-term branches. RC Crown Reduction of the crown of a tree by pruning to lateral branches. Reduction Generally used to remove declining branches or to lighten end wei ht on long branches. CR Crown Pruning of lower branches to remove deadwood or to provide Raising ground or building clearances. RMV Remove Remove tree due to decline or hazardous conditions that cannot be mitigated by pruning. RS Remove Remove basal sprouts from stem of tree. Sprouts Rep Replace Tree is small — is in decline or dead. Replace with suitable tree species. HT Hazard Tree is hazardous and cannot be mitigated by pruning. Tree Recommendation is to remove tree. None No Work No work necessary at this time. Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual monitoring by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or the timing of the failure. It is considered an Act of God'when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by man's actions. Washington Forestry Consultants,Inc. Page 5 1 VASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. DRESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F C I i0/943-1723 RECEIVED 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C \X 3601943-4128 Olympia, WA 98501 NOV 2 8 2012 426 W. CEDAR STo iv.4 nr 4. y ........... `i'iMfTY ::: N �:: ,i1-::::: i' :�:� l$l..•�' .r : 4 ';:;:fir;v.:.,.v.::F:;;.f.;. r••• rf:. Hartstene Pointe Maintenance Association East Hartstene Pointe Shelton, WA Prepared for: HPMA Board of Directors Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Date: February 26, 2002 Kr RA( Pursuant to your request, I have conducted an evaluation of trees located on the bluff of Hartstene Pointe, located on the northerly tip of Hartstene Island. v� Y(y • The purpose of the evaluation was to identify trees that require removal or cultural care to �C prevent acceleration of mass wasting of the bluff soils. Topography The majority of the bluff area is steep to vertical and heavily eroded. Patches of vegetation and scattered trees occur on the slope. In all cases movement of surface soils and mass wasting of soils has impeded the establishment of contiguous vegetation. The tree species that have colonized the slope or are remnants of less eroded time period. They include western red cedar, Pacific madrone, bigleaf maple, red alder, Douglas-fir, 'J ' and western hemlock. Shrubs and forbs include western hazelnut, swordfem, grasses, and broadleaf weeds. r Soils The soils on the majority of the bluff area are Sinclair shotty loams. These are relatively deep, moderately well-drained soils developed from compact glacial till. A weakly cemented glacial till hardpan occurs at depths of 20-40". This is underlain by interbedded layers of sand and till over brown or blue clay. The blue clay is only visible INI on the east side of the point. URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL • HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS • VEGETATION MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of international society of Arboriculture and society of American Foresters HPMA—Bluff Tree Evaluation Past Tree Failures Examination of past failures found that most failures occur because of mass wasting events from the face of the bluff. The events are often triggered by slippage of the compacted till layers at the clay interface. Sloughing of upper surface soil horizons occurs simultaneously or shortly afterwards. In some cases tree roots have penetrated the clay layers, allowing water penetration into P the layer causing cracks and sloughs from the toe of the bluff. Coarser soils above usually fail following losses from the toe slope. y Surface erosion is constant from wind, water, and wildlife. All trees on the slope exhibit the pistil butting attributed to surface erosion and deeper soil creep. Trees that make up the second-growth forest above top of bank, often fail due to undercutting of the bank by erosion. The weight of the tree, coupled with action of the wind and water in the soil cause an avalanche of trees, shrubs, and soils. i j Assessing Trees that Fail p The weight of trees and the action caused by wind stress transmitted into the root system Il results in the mass wasting of soils at the top edge of the bank. This is exacerbated by saturated soil conditions that often accompany winter storm events. Assessing which trees are likely to fail (accompanied by large masses of soils) and the appropriate method of mitigation, is often debated among geologists working with foresters. In most cases, the only clear areas of agreement are that each tree needs to be l individually evaluated. Mitigation usually includes tree removal, crown reduction, or crown thinning to reduce the mass and windsail oft e tree. lI Tree species that resprout and form a new tree often can be cut without loss of the root system that helps bind the soil together. Bigleaf maple and Pacific ma drone are the best ! examples that occur at Hartstene Pointe. Trees that do not resprout (conifers), or that I� have low probability of producing a new tree (red alder) will lose their ability to bind the soil together as roots decay several years after cutting. Methodology for the Evaluation (� All trees at the top of bank, from the top of bank back 15', and all trees on the bluff were viewed from the top, beach, and in some cases from the middle of slope where accessible. I Areas which had no houses or other improvements within 100' were considered lower priority for mitigation. Mitigation prescribed in areas with houses close to the top of bank were more likely to include tree removal. II I: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 2 I, HPMA—Bluff Tree Evaluation Trees expected to fail and cause substantial mass wasting within the next 5 years were marked for mitigation. In all cases this mitigation was removal of the tree. In most of these cases trees were substantially undercut by erosion, had structurally defects with their root systems (such as shallow roots due to cemented hardpan), leaving the tree exposed to failure. I also looked for soil cracks indicating imminent failure of soils and trees. Findings A total of approximately twenty-four trees were marked for removal. The primary cause for removal was that the tree had been undercut, or roots significantly exposed by erosion causing the likely failure within the next 5 years. Areas where trees occurred at the top of bank, but were located above less steep or eroded slopes, or where substantial cover of trees and shrubs occurred below, were lower priority for mitigation. All tree removals were marked with blue paint slashes at eye level and a blue painted K number at the base. The number, listed in table 1 corresponds to the mapped location of the tree. Locations are only approximate. The majority of the tree removals suggested for mitigation were on the east slope of Hartstene Pointe. Houses along this east bluff are generally closer to the top of bank, and the slope and top of bank area is less well vegetated than the west bluff. Due to the larger separation of houses from top of bank and the heavy stocking of evergreen { huckleberry and trees above the west slope, the risk of significant property damage is lower. The only area of soil cracking behind top of bank occurred adjacent to the recent failure of the larger Douglas-fir and soil. The crack will include a small area of additional soil (approx. 4 cubic yards). fl The following is a listing of trees marked for removal. I do not believe crown thinning or crown reduction is a viable treatment alternative for any of these trees. Table 1. Tree list for MI*ti ation. # SPECIES DBH in COMMENTS RECOMMEND 5/ 1 Douglas-fir 15 Remove 2 Douglas-fir 14 Remove �y,, 3 Pacific Madrone 16 Tree 99% defoliated; Leave Remove 6" stum ; / 4 Pacific Madrone 25 98% defoliated; Leave 6" Remove �( stump; 5 Pacific Madrone 16 98% defoliated; Leave 6" Remove stump; Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 3 HPMA—Bluff Tree Evaluation # SPECIES DBH(in) COMMENTS RECOMMEND 6 Douglas-fir 15 Remove 7 Douglas-fir 11 Remove 8 Pacific Madrone 25 50% defoliated; Undercut; Remove Heavy lean; 9 Douglas-fir 23 Undercut; Remove 10 Douglas-fir 22 Undercut; Remove (L I 1 Douglas-fir 15 Undercut; Remove -� 12 Douglas-fir 12 Undercut, Remove 13 Pacific Madrone 17-20 5 trees, Undercut or dead; Remove 14 Douglas-fir 16 Heavy lean; Undercut; Remove 15 Douglas 21 Undercut; Remove 16 Pacific Madrone 30 90% defoliated; Heavy lean; Remove Leave 6" stump-, !/- 17 Douglas-fir 22 Undercut; Remove r , 18 1 Douglas-fir 11 Undercut; Remove 19 1 Douglas-fir 14 & 7 2 trees; Undercut; Remove All trees were assessed to determine if removal, crown thinning, or crown reduction was the appropriate mitigation measure. In all cases, removal is the best option. Pacific Madrone Management Several additional dead or severely declining Pacific madrone's (not marked) occur along the bluff. These trees had no impact on bluff stability, however removal would be prudent since trees will cast branches, and ultimately fail several years after mortality. The recommendation for declining Pacific madrone is to cut them down leaving a 6" stump height. The trees should be cut when they reach 80% defoliation. This will allow them to resprout and form a new tree. If trees are allowed to die, then— the root system will also fail. One of the leading methods of reproduction of Pacific madrone is through (i resprouting. Cutting the declining trees to encourage resprouting is called "coppicing", and is a common practice to regenerate selected species. Summary A total of 24 trees were marked for mitigation through removal of the entire tree. Disposal of the trees, along with recommended revegetation was previously discussed in our report dated December, 2000. 1 These removals were targeted due to their position at the edge of the top of bank coupled with the stage of erosion, presence of vegetation on the slope below, and proximity of houses. All trees expected to fail within 5 years were marked. The tree evaluation should be conducted again in 5 years, or when substantial changes in the bluff stability occur from storms, earthquakes, or other abnormal events. Follow-up with the Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 4 HPMA—Bluff Tree Evaluation reve etation plan prescribed in December of 2000 will reduce surface erosion nd 1 g p pa sow mass wasting of bluff soils. Respectfully submitted, 1 W n Forestry Consultants, Inc. Ga en M. Wright, F, ACF Certified Arborist/ ertified Forester attachment: figure 1 —map of trees j tE Y S F i I i i I t Washington Forestry Consultants,Inc. 5 i 9 jy �vi7'Ag .'/� ' ye {^" mod Y� "` � i,+. •spa" '�' b / • I I I HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION Figure 1. Tree-Bluff Stability Evaluation. Prepared by WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. Olympia, WA 3601943-1723 t 2-26-0 A10A,1E .71�7 rf ws 114 01 1P 0 r" 12N01AN COV) . fps Vk 12. awv__� -- ----------------- restio5n t 04 In ox fy �D 32 16 re 0 Im lot 0 wir CASE ........ ..... PICKERING PASSAGIS LEGEND WE Approximate Tree Location (all removals) (Marked with blue paint and numbers) w i0 •r IM / N rl r7`� rB to Y r♦ — NONE Y N••� --. 1•�Nw Y Y 1 f;. la q - la ... ..__... Ewa q ^ o ne Its 41t so 1�, m ...7 r .y .alb... too �wi q M fpw n �T �/ T ~ M N w• 1 107 w F •1 q M :A •i M q �l PLAY EONr w Y n M •n 'n • N •n '1-ter--••y e � � '-. '�_..� .�� w p /• q M A � � q y r - BM � N ...•n 71 /npB A N •i N M ai BB • .w ./w• M IB « •Ni• 71 N �M q M = rw w sum q O 2r« NaNE ` BB H• _ " '•, •w w rt m >b BB BOAT LAUNCH to � w N / INLET (f 17,IF HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A community on Harstine Island 202 E Pointes Drive East ` Shelton,WA 98584 October 29, 2012 Grace Miller Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 OCT � 0 2012 Shelton WA 98584 426 W. CEDAR ST. Re: Danger trees at Hartstene Pointe bluff area Dear Grace, With reference to David Mackey's recent telephone conversation, this letter is a request for approval to allow cutting of several danger trees along the edge of the high bluff of Hartstene Pointe. The Pointe has experienced numerous instances where large bluff-edge trees have fallen intact and taken significant portions of root-mass soil and vegetation with them. This loss exacerbates the bluff erosion and further threatens the homes along the bluff. The practice of cutting specific trees larger than 6" DBH at the bluff edge and leaving the stump and root mass in place has been recommended by our forestry consultant Galen Wright and in the past has resulted in numerous very visible success examples from previous work. A copy of Galen's October 2012 report is included with this letter. Photos of typical conditions and several specific madrona trees are also included which show typical beneficial results of this practice. This letter requests approval to cut the following specific trees which are on the bluff edge, are dead or in advanced state of dying, and would likely cause significant bluff edge damage if allowed to fall intact. The trees are identified in the Galen Wright report by address. 402 PDE - f)i „�3y 470 Chesapeake #1 470 Chesapeake #2 470 Chesapeake #3 r C. 470 Chesapeake #4 557 PDW #1 557 PDW 42 557 PDW #3 If you need any additional information please contact me at your earliest convenience as winter storms will be soon arriving and increasing the bluff erosion exposure. avi . klso' __�� Acting Manager HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A community on Harstine Island 202 E Pointes Drive East `T Shelton,WA 98584 RECEIVED NOV 15 2012 426 W. CEDAR ST. 11/13/12 Grace Miller Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 Re: Request to approve removal of danger trees at Hartstene Pointe bluff area dated 10/29/12 Dear Grace, This letter is with reference to our 10/29/12 letter requesting approval to allow cutting of several danger trees along the edge of the high bluff of Hartstene Pointe. As per Mason County Resource Ordinance, Revised June 16, 2009, Section F. 5, c., well more than 10 days have passed and there has been no response to our request. Can we accept this as approval to our request and proceed with our tree removals as requested? If you need any additional information please contact me at your earliest convenience as winter storms Ze P,soon arriving and increasing the bluff erosion exposure. N son Acting Manager PeoN `u ,:N MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 y BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360) 482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us November 15, 2012 Dave Nelson Harstene Pointe Maintenance Association 202 E Pointes DR E Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter is in response to your letters (dated 10/29/12 and 11/13/12) requesting authorization to cut several danger trees along the edge of the high bluff of Harstene Pointe. In order to proceed with the removal of trees as requested, the Planning Department will require a Geologist's recommendation be submitted for our review. Once we have a Geologist's recommendation, the Planning department will determine whether or.not a Mason Environmental Permit will be required for the proposed action. I have enclosed the applicable Landslide Hazard Area Chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Section (D)(2)(c) of this chapter states that "Danger trees shall be identified with recommendation of a member of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture, or with the recommendation of a person qualified to prepare a geotechnical report if removing trees for slope stabilization purposes." Therefore, in addition to your already submitted arborist's report, the Planning Department requires that the association submit a recommendation of a person qualified to prepare a geotechnical report In addition, if the association does not intend to replant as mitigation in those areas where the trees are being cut, the geologist must also address why replanting is not recommended in the bluff areas. In addition to being considered a Landslide Hazard Area, the marine bluffs at Harstene Pointe are considered to be a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, regulated by the Resource Ordinance. The area within 200' of the shoreline contains a FWHCA buffer between the residences and the shoreline. This area is to be retained with native vegetation. I have enclosed this Chapter for your information. There are specific allowances for removing vegetation within the buffer both with and without a Mason Environmental Permit. This chapter must also be considered when proposing removal of danger trees on the bluff. That is why a Mason Environmental Permit may be required for this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, j ,/�Cf' Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT b c. Existing and ongoing agriculture, aquaculture, floriculture, horticulture, general farming, dairy operating under best management practices (BMP) of the Washington State Department of Ecology's Storm Water, Water Quality, Hazardous Waste, Wetland, and Solid Waste Program and BW from the Departments of Health, Agriculture, Transportation, and State Conservation District Office. 2. Permit Required Uses Permits are required for all new construction, grading, land clearing, and other uses subject to Section 17.01.050, and any Class IV Conversion Permit pursuant to the State Forest Practices Act which involves conversion to a Permit Required Use, and are within a Landslide Hazard Area or its buffer. Permit Required Use in or within 300 feet of a landslide hazard areas requires a Special Report, see Section 17.01.100.E. UMEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Any land use on Landslide Hazard Areas or their buffers shall conform to the following standards: 1. Grading a. No grading shall be performed in landslide hazard areas prior to obtaining a grading permit subject to approval,by the Director,based on recommendations.contained in the geotechnical report with slope stability, drainage, erosion control and grading recommendations. b. Clearing during grading shall be limited to the area of the approved development. c. No fill, dead vegetation(slash/stumps), or other foreign material shall be placed within a Landslide Hazard Area or its associated buffers;with the exception of engineered compacted fill for construction of buttresses for landslide stabilization which shall be in accordance with recommendations specified in a Geotechnical Report. MW Land Clearing a. Within this section, "Land Clearing" is defined as the cutting or harvesting of trees or the removing or cutting of vegetation so as to expose the soil and which is not otherwise exempt from this section. b. Land Clearing in Landslide Hazard Areas or their buffers is permitted when it is consistent with the recommendation and plans contained in the Geotechnical Report and development approval. If there is no Geotechnical Report for the site, land clearing is not permitted: however removal of danger trees, selected removal for viewing purposes of trees less than 6 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) and trimming or pruning of existing trees and vegetation is allowed with the qualifications cited herein. n e the- R of ees ess than 6 inches' -s a to to less than 2 percent of the total number of trees of that size or larger in the hazard area. Removal of multiple trees in a concentrated area, i.e. within a distance of 25 feet of each other, shall be accompanied by replacement by deep rooting native shrubs or other vegetation that serve similar moisture and erosion protective functions to that provided by the removed trees. Trimming and pruning shall be accomplished in accordance with pruning standards of the International Society of Arboriculture, as 3 Revised June 16,2009 HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A community on Harstine Island 202 E Pointes Drive East Shelton,WA 98584 _ RECEIVED NOV 28 2012 426 W. CEDAR ST, November 28, 2012 Grace Miller Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 Dear Grace, In reference to our letter of October 29, 2012, regarding the cutting of danger trees along the edge of the high bluff of Hartstene Pointe; please find the following Geotechnical Reports enclosed: Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services Report Tubbs Report for Judith Greene Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Report Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Evaluation Project I am hopeful that these reports will provide you with the information you need. Hartstene Pointe Maintenance Association 4ai Ne n Interim Maintenance Manager DHN/ksc Enc. HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A community on Harstine Island 202 E Pointes Drive East Shelton,WA 98584 January 24, 2013 Grace Miller Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 Dear Grace, Last November 28t", I sent you copies of four Geotechnical Reports in reference to our October 29t" request for approval of cutting several danger trees along the edge of the high bluff of Hartstene Pointe. To date, we have not had a response from you. I'm sure you can appreciate our concern, as these trees are dead or in an advanced state of dying, and would likely cause significant bluff edge damage if allowed to fall intact. We appreciate your attention in this matter, and look forward to hearing from you soon. Hartstene Pointe Maintenance Association vi . el Interim Maintenance Manager DHN/ksc RECEIVED JAN' 2 5 20 426 W: CEDAR STY P9a�, COUNT MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street ,asr PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us February 22, 2013 Sandra Herndon, President Harstene Pointe Maintenance Assoc. 202 E Pointes DR E Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Authorization for removal of danger trees from Harstene Pointe bluff area. Dear Mrs. Herndon: Thank you for your written requests for removal of several danger trees on the bluff of Harstene Pointe. Staff has had the opportunity to further review your request as well as the four reports submitted on 11/28/12. The submitted information verifies that the proposal meets the criteria listed within the applicable Landslide Hazard Area Chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Therefore, a Mason Environmental Permit will not be required for the proposal at this time. This letter authorizes the removal of those specific danger trees from the top of the marine bluff for slope stabilization purposes. These trees are dead or in an advanced state of dying and could cause significant bluff edge erosion if allowed to fall intact. The potential could threaten residences along the bluff. The proposed tree removal is to occur only as specified within your 10/29/12 letter at the following addresses: 402 PDE (bigleaf maple) 470 Chesapeake 41 (madrone) 470 Chesapeake 42 (madrone) 470 Chesapeake 43 (madrone) 470 Chesapeake #4 (madrone) 557 PDW 41 (douglas fir) 557 PDW 42 (douglas fir) 557 PDW 43 (douglas fir) The trees are identified as part of the 2012 Galen Wright Washington Forestry Consultants Report,by address. The proposal is to cut the trees at the bluff edge and leave the stump and root mass in place. The following reports were submitted as additional information on 11/28/12. The trees identified in the submitted geotechnical letter for Michelle Bell at 587 PDW(David Strong of Bradley- Noble,dated 10/12/11) does not apply to this proposal as they are not on your proposed list. The second letter from Geosciences for Judith Greene does not apply because it was written for four addresses off of Nantucket Drive that are also not on your proposed list. The Washington Forestry Consultants Report from 2002 provides additional information from Mr. Wright regarding the cutting of trees from the bluff in general. The Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Evaluation Project,dated 9/15/2006,prepared for the Puget Sound Action Team also provided general information regarding the proposed type of bluff erosion control. As an entirely separate issue, staff has received some inquiries regarding removal of trees by the association on other properties within the community. The inquiry concerns whether permits or authorization was obtained from the Planning Department to remove those trees within buffers of critical areas. The following three properties were questioned: 1) Cut trees on a slope on community area property waterward of 557 E Pointes DR W. Consistent with the address given,this may be one of the of the sites listed in the current proposal. Enforcement case#ENF2012-00104. 2) Neighbor cut trees on steep slope on community area parcel waterward of 545 Pointes DR W. Enforcement case#ENF2012-00105. 3)Two to three trees within the buffer of a potential landslide hazard area/ravine associated with address: 677 Pointes DR West Please respond to these alleged violations so that we may respond to the inquiries appropriately. Thank you for your time and patience in clarifying this authorization for the current proposal and the alleged violation of the resource ordinance Landslide Hazard Area Chapter for danger tree removal. This authorization for cutting and removal of the trees within the Fish& Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area is approved with the condition that all native groundcover and remaining trees within the Fish& Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Buffer are to be retained to the maximum extent possible. A copy of this letter will be placed within the parcel files. Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 121192222222 121198888888 121195300183 i 121195300167 121198888888 / / 121195300166 j 121195300165 'o / 121195300164 121195300184 // 1 J// T2' V. �-- i 121195300183 121195300163 121195300099 121195300161 i �'� ;� j i� j 121195300100 t /��..., 121195300162 \\ 121195300159 j cce 121195300183 / O `s�l',Q 121195300101 121195300160 1 , / 121195300183 121195300184 / 121195300158 i % f 121195300107 '� \ / Y 121195300106 j f' 121195300108 121195300109 121192222222 121198888888 121195300183 121195300167 F 121195300166 Y y v y a �.0121195300184 K 121195300164 121195300 121195300099 a 12119530 u ` Z M 121195300100 r _ oe 121195300159 ' ',,Fe 121195300183 O � "=a � `r�',Q 121195300101 121195300160 - 121195300183 ^ 121195300184 ,o 121195300107 121195300106 ^21195300108 121195300109 PsoK'`ayra� MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 CO �- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 rt. BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street 7854 PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 www.co.masonma.us March 29, 2013 Sandra Herndon Harstene Pointe Maintenance Assoc. 202 E Pointes DR E Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Follow-up to site inspection of tree removal from Harstene Pointe bluff areas. Dear Mrs. Herndon: Thank you for taking the time for my site inspection of the three alleged violations/inquiries at Harstene Pointe on Tuesday, March 26th.Now that I have observed the various sites and have a better understanding of the sequence of the actions taken by the association, I have a clear idea of what has occurred. It is clear that the tree removal activities undertaken by the upland homeowners above the first two sites have been alleviated by the enforcement actions taken by the association for requiring them to re-plant the denuded areas. The third site was the cutting of a maple tree within the 50'buffer of a potential landslide hazard area/ravine on an upland site. This site does not have an enforcement case number and was considered by staff to be an inquiry. The maple tree would have met the criteria of a "danger tree" as defined within the county ordinance. Because the trunk of the tree was retained, erosion control is not necessary at this time.No further enforcement action regarding this portion of the case will be taken by the county at this time. As the association is aware,before a danger tree may be felled within the landslide hazard area or its 50' buffer, with the exception of an emergency pursuant to Section 17.01.170 of the Resource Ordinance,the landowner shall obtain written approval from the Planning Department. At this time,the Planning Department will leave Enforcement Cases 42012-00104 for Linda Hein-Reece and 4ENF2012-00105 for Harry Visse Open until resolution by re- planting has been accomplished by the upland property owners on the marine bluff. Please contact us once the marine bluff area has been replanted by the upland property ovt=s. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely. Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ti } co-- MASON COUNTY (360) 427-9670 Shelton ext.352 p�,�F DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING• PLANNING• FIRE MARSHAL (360) 482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.masonma.us May 2, 2013 Sandra Hemdon,President HPMA Board of Directors 202 E Pointes DR E Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Follow-up plan for two Enforcement Cases at Harstene Pointe. Dear Mrs. Hemdon: Thank you for the letter outlining the plan of action to resolve the two county enforcement cases: #ENF2012-00104 for Linda Hein-Reece and 4ENF2012-00105 for Harry Visse. As we discussed during the site visit and within your proposed letter dated April 19, 2013, Ms. Hein-Reece may implement her restoration plan as soon as her selected nursery has proper plants in stock. On Mr. Harry Visse's site,the felled trees may remain in place alongside numerous stumps 2' or higher. By late summer,the vegetation should have re-sprouted and return to create a green cover.No further action is necessary on this steep bluff as it may exacerbate the problem. This plan meets with the County's approval. Please contact me sometime around late summer to schedule a site visit for inspection of these two properties. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Grace Miller,Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 9pP...-coLN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 y BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street 7854 rt. PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us June 18, 2013 John Diehl 678 E Portage RD Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Follow up for Enforcement Cases at Harstene Pointe. Dear Mr. Diehl: I just received your voice mail message from this morning, requesting a copy of the letter that I had sent to the association in response to your complaints. A copy of my May 2, 2013 letter is attached. I apologize for not getting a copy of the letter to you sooner. I had tried to return your call when you left me a phone message on May 16th but your phone just rang with no answering machine. I guess I should have tried calling again after that and was reminded by your most recent call to follow up with you. Thank you. I intend to inspect both sites again around late summer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF CON MIUNITY DEVELOPMENT Hartstene Pointe photo notes Fir root mass-PA260011.jpg: An example of the benefit leaving a stump and root mass on the edge of the bluff to help reduce further erosion. The tree trunk was removed long ago to help reduce the wind and weight load on the stump. Root mass-PA260001: Same as above. Leaning trees-PA260002: Leaning dead or dying Madrona trees recommended for cutting by forester (leaving the stump) to reduce wind and weight load on stump to help reduce further bluff edge erosion. Leaning trees-PA260005: Same as above. Bluff edge break-off-PA260014: An example of even smaller trees breaking off the bluff edge and falling with root mass intact when preventative action was not taken. Root and reduced top-PA260015: An example of successful bluff edge wind and weight reduction on large fir trunk and stump which are still in-place. Trunk might also carefully be removed now for additional weight reduction on the stump. Photos taken by me on 10/26/2012 from base of northerly end of east bluff trail section. Above photo-tags are based on my observations and opinions. Photos are typical of trees and bluff conditions. David Mackey i C Try` by :j'"�b �(� /,• Bit J\� f FIR -•• 61/ 11 •• 6111 I• '� yt �•' •? Kati-�_ _ I ROOT TAND REDUCED TOP-PA260015.jpg BLUFF EDGE • 111 „ �.• ,,, LEANING TREES-PA260002,jpg 1111 .. At r K �,t