Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment_1_TR_Tree Assessment_Patekar RVMP_230706_v11 Mrunal Patekar Level 1 Tree Assessment Prepared For: Mrunal Patekar 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059 Prepared By: Ryan Seeley ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: April 10, 2023 *Updated 7/3/2023 to include additional retained trees on property per Alex Morganroth (Pages. 8-10) Contents: Introduction Summary Findings and Recommendations Introduction As requested by Mrunal Patekar, I visited the property on April 10, 2023. I provided an assessment of the trees located at 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059 to discuss the health, condition, and concerns of two trees on the property. Summary I was contacted by Mrunal Patekar to report the measurements, health, and condition of two trees on the property that have been a cause of concern. Our meeting was to determine the health, condition, and measurements of the trees to assess the risk they would pose in the immediate to near future as well as plans to replace with species better suited to such a flood prone area. Findings and Recommendations On the property of 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059 there are 2 significant trees on the property of which are in poor overall condition. Mr. Patekar is requesting to remove these trees. This area of the property is prone to heavy flooding due to the development of the lot and poor drainage which is killing several of the native species surrounding the area not suited for such over saturation. 2 A separate arborist was contracted in 2021 to assess the trees and also requested that the trees should be removed as they will only continue to decline further, which has been shown to be the case. The size, health, and planned course of action for each tree is explained in further detail on the Tree Inventory Matrix located on pages 8 & 9. In my professional opinion after observing the current property conditions and the history of Mr. Patekar and his neighbor’s attempts to remedy the flooding issues on their properties to no avail I suggest that both trees be removed and replaced with species better suited for such an over saturated environment that may also assist with greater filtration and disbursement of water helping to alleviate such severe flooding from occurring in the first place. 3 Figure 1. Location of the trees referred to in this report 4 Figure 2. Trees #1 & 2, Western Red Cedars, Thuja plicata, are both in poor condition. Obvious signs of root rot from constant flooding conditions, bark failing from stems, and significant dieback in the canopy of both trees. Both have continued to decline for years. 5 Figure 3. Tree #1 has obvious signs of root rot, sapwood decay, infestation, and stress fractures along the stem. The bark easily fails on the slightest touch. 6 Figure 4. Heavy flooding is a common occurrence in this area due to the poor drainage after development of the surrounding properties. 7 Mrunal Patekar, Level 2 Risk Assessment/Inventory Prepared For: Mrunal Patekar 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059 Prepared By: Ryan Seeley ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: April 10, 2023 *Updated 7/3/2023 to include additional retained trees on property per Alex Morganroth (Pages. 8-10) Attachments: Tree Matrix with Comments and Action Item Waiver of Liability Contents: Introduction Findings and Recommendations Retention Calculations Glossary Introduction As requested by Mrunal Patekar, I provided an assessment and inventory of the trees located at 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059. I was onsite on April 10, 2023, to measure and assess the conditions of the trees and to create a tree matrix to include comments and action items for each tree in this stand. (Matrix provided on page 7). 8 Findings and Recommendations Trees inventoried on the property of 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059 and recommended actions are as follows: 2 Western Red Cedars, Thuja plicata 1 Red Alder, Alnus rubra 1 Bloodgood Maple, Acer palmatum 'Bloodgood' 1 Vine Maple, Acer circinatum 1 Decorative Maple Variety, Acer var. 1 Fraser Fir, Abies fraseri 1 Apple, Malus var. Mrunal Patekar – (16018 SE 141st Pl) DATE 2/13/2023 Tree # Botanical Name Common Name DBH Vigor Structure Comments/Action Item 1 Thuja Plicata Western Red Cedar 20” Poor Poor Sparse canopy for size, root rot, signs of infestation. Continuing decline. Area has constant flooding which is very poor conditions for species. Remove and replace. 2 Thuja Plicata Western Red Cedar 25” Poor Poor Sparse canopy for size, root rot, signs of infestation. Continuing decline. Area has constant flooding which is very poor conditions for species. Remove and replace. 3 Alnus rubra Red Alder 11” Good Fair Slight lean with correction. Prefers wet conditions, seems to be thriving in area. Retain and monitor. 4 Acer palmatum 'Bloodgood' Bloodgood Maple 2” Good Good Retain and monitor. 9 Tree # Botanical Name Common Name DBH Vigor Structure Comments/Action Item 5 Acer circinatum Vine Maple 2” Good Good Retain and monitor. 6 Acer var. Decorative Maple Var. 2” Good Good Retain and monitor. 7 Abies fraseri Fraser Fir 1” Good Good Retain and monitor. 8 Malus var. Apple 1” Good Good Retain and monitor. 10 Retention Calculations In accordance with Renton code Section 4-4-130 regarding PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, With the lot size of the property of 16024 SE 141st Pl Renton, WA 98059 at .22 net acres (9399 Sqft) would require Mr. Patekar to have 7 retention credits and not remove more than 30% of healthy significant trees on the property. Tree # Botanical Name Common Name DBH Tree Credits 1 Thuja Plicata Western Red Cedar 20” 0 2 Thuja Plicata Western Red Cedar 25” 0 3 Alnus rubra Red Alder 11” 5 4 Acer palmatum 'Bloodgood' Bloodgood Maple 2” 1 5 Acer circinatum Vine Maple 2” 1 6 Acer var. Decorative Maple Var. 2” 1 7 Abies fraseri Fraser Fir 1” 1 8 Malus var. Apple 1” 1 Total Retention Credits - - - 10 Replacement Credits Necessary - - - 0 11 Glossary Arborist: A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. Basic Level 2 Risk Assessment: A detailed visual inspection of a tree and its surrounding site and a synthesis of the information collected. Canopy/crown: Upper part of a tree bearing foliage, limbs, and branches, measured from the lowest branch including all branches and foliage. Codominant Stem: A structurally unstable branch union often associated with a high risk of failure. A term used to describe two or more main stems (or "leaders") that are about the same diameter and emerge from the same location on the main trunk. Crown Cleaning: In pruning, the selective removal of dead, dying, diseased and broken branches from the tree crown. Diameter at Breast Height: A standard measurement of a tree most often taken at 4.5 feet from the base of the tree; however, this can vary depending if the tree has multiple trunks or is growing on a slope. Hazard Tree: A tree that meets all the following criteria: a. Has a combination of structural defects and/or disease which makes it subject to a high probability of failure; b. Is in proximity to moderate to high frequency targets (persons or property that can be damaged by tree failure); and c. The hazard condition of the tree cannot be lessened with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices nor can the target be removed. Live Crown Ratio: The ratio of the size of a tree's live crown to its total height. Used in estimating a tree’s health and its level of competition with neighboring trees. Mechanical Damage: Trees are often wounded by careless use of yard equipment like mowers, weed whackers, and other trimming equipment. These injuries cut through important vascular tissue just inside the bark that can lead to decay and ultimately death of the tree. A ring of natural mulch or arborist wood chips around the tree eliminates the need to trim or mow close to the tree's base. Extreme care should be taken when digging up or tilling the soil under a tree. Many large and small roots will be cut by such digging, especially if it occurs close to the trunk. 12 Monitor: It is important to monitor mature trees on a regular schedule, at least once a year. Monitoring would include a Visual Tree Assessment to look for changes in habit and structure, and to document signs of weakness or decline in health and integrity of the trees. Options for Mitigation of Risk Trees: • Remove the risk altogether, if possible, by cutting off one or more branches, removing dead wood, or possibly removing the entire tree. Extreme risk situations should be closed off until the risk is abated. • Modify the risk of failure probability. In some cases, it may be possible to reduce the probability of failure by adding mechanical support in the form of cables braces or props. • Modify the risk rating by moving the target. Risk ratings can sometimes be lowered by moving the target so that there is a much lower probability of the defective part striking anything. Moving the target should generally be seen as an interim measure. • Retain and monitor. This approach is used where some defects have been noted but they are not yet serious and the present risk level is only moderate. • Convert those trees slated for removal into Wildlife Habitat Snags. Reduce the overall height of the tree using natural fracture pruning techniques to heights relative to the targets. Pruning: Selective removal of woody plant parts of any size, using saws, pruners, clippers, or other pruning tools. The reason for tree pruning may include, but is not limited to, reducing risk, managing tree health and structure and/or improving aesthetics or achieving other specific objectives. Pruning objectives should include pruning out all dead, diseased, weak and/or broken branches in all tree canopies, and crown cleaning. Snag or Habitat Snag: A standing, dead or dying tree, often missing a top or most of the smaller branches important for wildlife in both natural and landscaped settings, occurring as a result of disease, lightning, fire, animal damage, too much shade, drought, root competition, or old age. May also be a component in slope stability and ongoing vegetation management practices. Threshold for Risk: Each individual is entitled to and can determine his or the own threshold for risk. Threshold for risk is subjective, and can be influenced by a person’s view, taste or opinion. Topping: Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or to lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role. Other names for topping include “heading,” “tipping,” “hat-racking,” and “rounding over.” Topping is not a viable method of height reduction and does not reduce future risk. In fact, topping will increase risk in the long term. Topping is not considered an acceptable arboriculture practice. Urban Forestry: Management of naturally occurring and planted trees in urban areas. 13 Vigor: Overall health; the capacity to grow and resist physiological stress. • Good: Shoot growth, leaf size and leaf color are typical of the tree age and species. • Fair: Shoot growth, leaf size, and leaf color are below average for the tree age and species. Some deadwood is evident in the crown. Treatment may be required to foster improved future growth. • Poor: Shoot growth, leaf size, and leaf color are highly stunted, and there is a significant number of dead twigs and branches in the crown. 14 Waiver of Liability There are many conditions affecting a tree’s health and stability which may be present but cannot be ascertained such as root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree’s health and stability. Adverse weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short amount of time. While I have used every reasonable means to examine this plant, this evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree’s root flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only, unless otherwise specified. The inspection may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree. As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional site visits by the ISA Certified Arborist. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If there is a homeowner’s association, it is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) that apply to tree pruning and tree removal. This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for performing recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to ensure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the evaluator’s recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the evaluator’s reasonable expectations, such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc. This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references are confidential and are for the use of the client concerned. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or disseminated in any form without the prior consent of the client concerned and ISA Certified Arborist Ryan Seeley. Thank you for allowing me to be of service. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ryan Seeley (253)-266-5665 ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Tree Worker Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ____% overall Max. dia. ______ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ___________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant __________________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ________________________ Response growth Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________ Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor Moderate  Significant  Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________ Target Assessment Target numberTarget description Practical to move target? Restriction practical?1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Target within drip line Target within 1x Ht. Target within 1.5x Ht.Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent  1 2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely UnlikelyCondition numberPart sizeFall distanceTarget protection Conditions of concern Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood ImprobableImminentPossibleVery lowUnlikelyNegligibleMediumLikelySignificantProbableLowSomewhatMinorHighVery likelySevereConsequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2)Tree part Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Work priority 1  2  3  4  Overall residual risk Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Target number — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ____% overall Max. dia. ______ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ___________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant __________________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ________________________ Response growth Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________ Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor Moderate  Significant  Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________ Target Assessment Target numberTarget description Practical to move target? Restriction practical?1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Target within drip line Target within 1x Ht. Target within 1.5x Ht.Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent  1 2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely UnlikelyCondition numberPart sizeFall distanceTarget protection Conditions of concern Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood ImprobableImminentPossibleVery lowUnlikelyNegligibleMediumLikelySignificantProbableLowSomewhatMinorHighVery likelySevereConsequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2)Tree part Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Work priority 1  2  3  4  Overall residual risk Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Target number