HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Wolde_CAS_August2023
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
13701 SE May Valley Road
CRITICAL AREAS STUDY
Prepared for:
Elias Wolde
August 2023
146 N Canal St, Suite 111 • Seattle, WA 98103 • www.confenv.com
13701 SE May Valley Road CRITICAL AREAS STUDY
Prepared for:
Elias Wolde
13701 SE May Valley Road
Renton, WA 98059
Authored by:
Kerrie McArthur, PWS, and Natalie Dietsch, WPIT
Confluence Environmental Company
August 2023
This report should be cited as:
Confluence (Confluence Environmental Company). 2022. 13701 SE May Valley Road critical areas study. Prepared for Elias
Wolde, Renton, Washington, by Confluence, Seattle, Washington.
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Site Investigation ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Streams/Shorelines ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2.3 Steep Slopes ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Stream ............................................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO UNPERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 6
6.0 UNPERMITTED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................... 8
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURES
Figure 1. Study area....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Delineated and mapped critical areas ............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3. View of lower back yard prior to unpermitted development ............................................................................ 8
Figure 4. View of lower back yard after unpermitted development ................................................................................ 9
Figure 5. Topographic survey of current conditions ..................................................................................................... 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A GIS Database Search Results ................................................................................................................... 1
Appendix B Arborist Report ............................................................................................................................................ 2
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Confluence Environmental Company (Confluence) conducted a critical areas study on tax
parcel 3424059113, located at 13701 SE May Valley Road, Renton, Washington, to assist with a
City of Renton code violation (Figure 1).
On March 28, 2022, Confluence conducted a site investigation to determine the presence and
extent of critical areas on and adjacent to the property. The effort focused on wetlands and
streams. Critical areas such as erosion hazard areas, steep slopes, and landslide hazard areas
were not evaluated in this study. This report discusses the results of the study. For an
assessment of floodplain habitat, Confluence will be preparing a separate Floodplain Habitat
Assessment prepared for the project.
Located within the City of Renton, the property is approximately 22,771 square feet (0.52 acre)
and zoned as residential (R-1) (Renton 2022). The northern portion of the property is developed
with a single-family residence, concrete driveway, and a turf lawn and retaining wall. The
southern portion of the property slopes down into a ravine, which May Creek flows though. A
concrete staircase provides access to a recently built paver patio constructed within the ravine
adjacent to the creek.
On March 8, 2022, the client received a notice of violation from the City of Renton for
unpermitted land-disturbing activity within a critical area. The notice cited the unpermitted
construction of a patio on the north side of May Creek, within a critical area.
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 2
Figure 1. Study area
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 3
2.0 METHODS
Confluence conducted a critical areas study on the property. This section describes the methods
used to confirm the presence or absence of critical areas.
2.1 Desktop Analysis
To develop a strategy for the site investigation, Confluence reviewed relevant regulations and
GIS databases.
Confluence reviewed the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) to determine the standard buffer
requirements for critical areas in the project vicinity.
Confluence reviewed the GIS databases listed below for the documented presence of wetlands,
streams, lakes, or species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered
on or within 200 feet (ft) of the study area. It was necessary to search within 200 ft to determine
whether buffers for off-site critical areas encroach onto the site; 200 ft is the largest buffer
identified in RMC).
City of Renton GIS (Renton 2022)
King County iMap (King County 2022)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS
2022)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey (NRCS 2022)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape (WDFW 2022a)
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) (WDFW 2022b)
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Water Type GIS (WDNR 2022a)
WDNR Wetlands of High Conservation Value Mapper (WDNR 2022b)
Results of the GIS database searches are in Appendix A.
2.2 Site Investigation
On March 28, 2022, Confluence conducted a site investigation to determine the presence or
absence of critical areas on or near the property.
2.2.1 Wetlands
No visual indicators of wetlands were observed during the site visit, so no delineation was
needed.
2.2.2 Streams/Shorelines
The Washington State Code defines the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as follows: “On all
lakes, streams, and tidal water [the OHWM] is that mark that will be found by examining the
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 4
bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and
usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct
from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1,
1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with
permits issued by a local government or the department” (RCW 90.58.030).
Washington State Department of Ecology has published a guide (Anderson et al. 2016) to
interpret the code and provide guidance for field OHWM determinations. Confluence used this
guidance to determine the OHWM of May Creek in the vicinity of the study area.
Confluence identified discrete locations on the right bank of the stream to delineate the OHWM.
Locations were chosen based on presence of field indicators of OHWM identified in Anderson
et al. (2016) and shape of the channel. The location of the OHWMs were marked with pin flags
within the study area, and all OHWM locations within the study area were recorded using a
differential GPS with sub-meter accuracy.
2.2.3 Steep Slopes
Steep slopes shown in this report are from the City of Renton GIS and are for general
informational purposes only (Renton 2022). A separate geotechnical report is being prepared by
Aspect Consulting.
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 5
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Desktop Analysis
The NWI (USFWS 2022), King County (2022), and the City of Renton (2022) do not identify any
wetlands on or adjacent to the property. No wetlands of high conservation value are mapped
on or adjacent to the property (WDNR 2022b).
May Creek, a Type F (fish-bearing) stream, is shown near the southern property boundary
(WDFW 2022a/b, Renton 2022, King County 2022, WDNR 2022a). The May Creek basin includes
approximately 8,960 acres and encompasses 26 miles of mapped streams and over 400 acres of
wetlands (King County 2016). The headwaters of the basin include Cougar Mountain, Squak
Mountain, and the East Renton Plateau. May Creek flows east through the property and
continues in a generally easterly direction for approximately 3 miles before discharging into
Lake Washington. WDFW’s SalmonScape (2022a) maps the reach of May Creek within and
adjacent to the property as having documented presence of coastal cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) and documented spawning of sockeye
salmon (O. nerka) and coho salmon (O. kisutch). Though WDFW does not identify the
documented presence of Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), May Creek is listed as gradient
accessible to the species.
The PHS system also identifies the presence of the above-listed species. No other priority
species of habitats are identified (WDFW 2022b). Soils at the property are identified as Everett
very gravelly loam (8-15% slopes) and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8-15% slopes), neither
of which is mapped as hydric (NRCS 2022a).
3.2 Wetlands
No wetlands were identified on or adjacent (within 200 ft) to the property. Test plots were not
established during the site visit due to the extensive cover of impervious surfaces. No visual
indicators of wetlands, including hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators,
were observed.
3.3 Stream
May Creek, a Type F (i.e., fish-bearing) stream, flows east along the southern boundary of the
property (Figure 2). As described above in Section 2.1, WDFW’s SalmonScape (2022a) maps the
reach of May Creek within and adjacent to the property as having documented presence of
coastal cutthroat trout and steelhead trout and documented spawning of sockeye salmon and
coho salmon. WDFW also maps the reach of May Creek in the vicinity of the property as
gradient accessible to Chinook salmon. The headwaters of the May Creek basin begin in the
foothills of Cougar and Squak mountains. May Creek flows east through the site and eventually
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 6
discharges into Lake Washington approximately 3 miles east of the property. The OHWM
(right bank) was delineated during the site investigation.
Within the study area, the right bank of May Creek consisted of gravel and cobbles and was
mostly unvegetated. In some areas the OHWM was very close to the retaining wall for the patio
(within 1 ft). The OHWM of May Creek was delineated by Confluence and is shown in Figure 2.
The primary indicators used to delineate the OHWM included top of bank, scour marks, and
fine sediment deposits.
A portion of the property has been mapped as being within the 100-year floodplain (Renton
2022) (Figure 2). However, the floodplain is mapped incorrectly compared to the current
OHWM of May Creek. The mapped floodplain should center along the creek. This is likely a
result of the stream channel moving since the development of the floodplain map by FEMA. A
site-specific floodplain analysis is being prepared by Aspect Consulting that will rectify the
incorrect floodplain map.
4.0 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
According to RMC, the following standard buffers apply:
May Creek, a Type F stream, has a standard buffer of 115 ft. Per RMC 4-3-050G.2 note 5,
when a stream buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landscape hazard area,
the stream buffer shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the landscape
hazard area. The standard 115 ft buffer encompasses the protected steep slope.
Figure 2 shows May Creek and its standard buffers. Floodplain and steep slopes mapped by
City of Renton (2022) are also shown on Figure 2 for reference. A separate hydrological study is
under development to discuss the floodplain and a separate geotechnical study is under
development to discuss steep slopes.
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO UNPERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
Prior to the construction of the flagstone patio and associated retaining wall, the lower yard
area was primarily undeveloped and dominated by herbaceous weeds (Figure 3). Small
retaining walls were present along the western and eastern sides of the property boundary and
stairs were present on the steep slope from the upper back yard to the lower back yard. A brick
fireplace was also present. Native species in the lower yard were limited to 2 large black
cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees, sword fern (Polystichum munitum)on the steep slope, and
various herbaceous vegetation that appears to be maintained (i.e., mowed).
West of the property (downstream), the riparian area is forested with a mix of black
cottonwood, Douglas-fir and western red cedar trees.. The understory is a mix of native
vegetation such as salmonberry, Indian plum, and sword fern, along with some invasive
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 7
Figure 2. Delineated and mapped critical areas
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 8
Figure 3. View of lower back yard prior to unpermitted development
species such as English ivy and Himalayan blackberry. West of the property, is a private parcel
that Confluence did not have access to. Therefore, vegetation characteristics were described
based on observations from the property line. East of the property (upstream), the riparian area
is forested with a mix of black cottonwood, and western red cedar trees. The understory is
sparsely vegetated with a mix of native vegetation such as Indian plum and sword fern, and
herbaceous vegetation. An arborist report describes trees on- and off-site of the property
(Appendix B; Tree Solutions 2022).
6.0 UNPERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
Unpermitted development on the site, included the following:
1. Grading of the lower yard (southern portion of the property) to better accommodate a
flagstone patio.
2. Placement of approximately 2,225.61 square feet of gravel to level the area.
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 9
3. Placement of 1,082 square feet of flagstone pavers.
4. Replacement of a stairway from the upper yard to the lower yard.
Figures 4 and 5 show the unpermitted development. The unpermitted development occurred
within the 115-ft stream buffer.
Figure 4. View of lower back yard after unpermitted development
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 10
Figure 5. Topographic survey of current conditions
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 11
7.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the ordinary high water
mark for Shoreline Management Act compliance in Washington State. October 2016 final
review. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance
Program, Lacey, Washington. Ecology Publication No. 16-06-029.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Corps Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Technical Report Y-87-1.
Corps. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual:
western mountains, valleys, and coast region. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ERDC/EL TR-08-13.
Corps. 2020. National wetland plant list, version 3.5 [online document]. Corps Engineer
Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover, New Hampshire. Available at: https://wetland-
plants.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html (accessed on March 28, 2022).
King County. 2016. King County water quality monitoring – stream report (May Creek-0440).
Available at: https://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/watershedinfo.aspx?Locator=0440
(accessed on May 5, 2022).
King County. 2022. King County iMap interactive mapping tool. King County GIS Center,
Seattle, Washington. Available at:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMAP.aspx (accessed on May 5, 2022).
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2022. Web soil survey [online database]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, NRCS, Soil Science Division, Washington D.C. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm (accessed on May 5, 2022).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. National wetlands inventory wetlands mapper
[online database]. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed on May 5,
2022).
Renton. 2022. City of Renton – COR Maps. Available at:
https://maps.rentonwa.gov/Html5viewer/Index.html?viewer=cormaps (accessed on May 5,
2022).
13701 SE May Valley Road Critical Areas Study
August 2023 Page 12
Tree Solutions (Tree Solutions, Inc.). 2022. Response to City of Renton Notice of Violation –
Trees. Prepared for Elias Wolde, Renton, Washington by Tree Solutions, Inc. Seattle,
Washington.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2022a. SalmonScape interactive
mapping [online database]. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html (accessed on
May 5, 2022).
WDFW. 2022b. PHS on the web interactive mapping [online database]. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/ (accessed on May 5, 2022).
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2022a. Forest practices application
mapping tool. Olympia, Washington. Available at: https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx#
(accessed on May 5, 2022).
WDNR. 2022b. Wetlands of high conservation value map viewer. Olympia, Washington.
Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer (accessed on May 5, 2022).
Appendix A
GIS Database
Search Results
1,128
94
City of Renton
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
5/5/2022
Legend
64032
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Feet
Notes
64
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Information Technology - GIS
RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov
City and County Labels
Addresses
Parcels
Special Assessment Districts
City and County Boundary
<all other values>
Renton
Environment Designations
Natural
Shoreline High Intensity
Shoreline Isolated High Intensity
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy
Jurisdictions
Streams (Classified)
<all other values>
Type S Shoreline
Type F Fish
Type Np Non-Fish
Type Ns Non-Fish Seasonal
Unclassified
Not Visited
Streets
Points of Interest
Parks
Waterbodies
NWI
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine an d Marin e D eepwa ter
Estuarine an d Marin e Wetlan d
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub We tla nd
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
May 5, 20 22
0 0.06 0.120.03 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:3,762
This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
SalmonScape
USGS/NHD, Dale Gombert (WDFW), City of Renton, County of King, Bureau
of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies,
Inc., Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA, WDFW
All SalmonScape Species
May 5, 2022
0 0.1 0.20.05 mi
0 0.15 0.30.07 km
1:9,028
Source: Esri, Maxar,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics,CNES/Airbus DS,
Extreme care was used during the compilation of this map to ensureits accuracy. However, due to changes in data and the need torely on outside information, the Department of Natural Resourcescannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany this material.
0 0.1Miles
Date: 5/5/2022 Time: 11:24:53 AM
Map Symbols Additional Information Legal Description
Forest Practices Activity Map - Application #______________
¯
S03 T23.0N R05.0E, S34 T24.0N R05.0E
*Waste Area
~~~Harvest Boundary
Stream
Ç Rock Pit
U Landing
Y Clumped WRT S/GRTS
× Existing Structure
Road Construction
RMZ / WMZ Buffers
WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Counties
5/5/2022, 11:26:32 AM
0 0.05 0.10.03 mi
0 0.08 0.160.04 km
1:4,514
Washington Natural Heritage Program
Washington State Department of Natural Resources | Washington Natural Heritage Program http://www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program | Maxar |
Kin g C ounty, EagleView
King C ou nty iMap
Date: 3 /15 /20 22 Notes:
Th e infor matio n in clu de d on t his map has been comp ile d b y Kin g Count y staf f from a variety of source s an d is su bject to cha ng ewithout n otice. Kin g Co unt y makes no re present ations o r wa rra nties, exp re ss o r im plied , a s to accu ra cy, complet en ess, t ime lin ess,or rig hts to the use of such informa tion . This d ocu me nt is not intended for u se as a survey pr od uct. King Cou nty shall n ot be lia blefor a ny g en er al, sp ecial, indirect, incide ntal, o r conse qu en tial damag es including , but not limited to , lost revenu es or lo st profitsresulting from th e use or m isu se of t he info rmat ion cont aine d on this map . An y sale of this map or in formation o n t his map isprohibited except by written p er mission of King County.
Lege nd
Ad dr es s p oint s
Ad dr es s la bels
Pa rc els
St rea m (19 90 SA O)
cla ss 1
cla ss 2 pe ren nia l
cla ss 2 sa lmon id
cla ss 3
unclassifie d
Wetlan d (1 99 0SAO)
±
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington
(WSS)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/5/2022
Page 1 of 35263040526305052630605263070526308052630905263100526311052631205263130526314052630405263050526306052630705263080526309052631005263110526312052631305263140563360563370563380563390563400563410563420563430563440
563370 563380 563390 563400 563410 563420 563430 563440
47° 31' 7'' N 122° 9' 30'' W47° 31' 7'' N122° 9' 26'' W47° 31' 3'' N
122° 9' 30'' W47° 31' 3'' N
122° 9' 26'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 25 50 100 150
Feet
0 5 10 20 30
Meters
Map Scale: 1:524 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 23, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 25, 2020—Jul 27,
2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington
(WSS)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/5/2022
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
0.3 26.4%
EvC Everett very gravelly sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
0.8 73.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.0 100.0%
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington WSS
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/5/2022
Page 3 of 3
Appendix B
Arborist Report
TreeSolutions.Net 2940 Westlake Ave. N #200
206-528-4670 Seattle, WA 98109
Project No. TS - 8461
Preliminary Arborist Report
To: Elias Wolde
Site: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton, WA 98059
Re: Response to City of Renton Notice of Violation - Trees
Date: July 7, 2022
Project Arborist: Connor McDermott
ISA Certified Arborist #PN-8704A,
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Reviewed By: Haley Galbraith
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #PN-7512BM
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Attached: Table of Trees
Tree Site Map
Summary
On May 11, 2022, I visited the above addressed site to assess the on- and off-site trees in response to a
violation notice issued by the City of Renton (COR). The City requested an Arborist Report to assess trees
on- and off-site in relation to the unauthorized development of a patio within a critical area and to
develop recommendations to remove the unauthorized structures and mitigate effects on the adjacent
trees.
I assessed all trees on-site, and off-site trees with overhanging canopies. Five trees on-site and six off-
site trees with overhanging canopies are within the unauthorized development area. The developed
area is within the May Valley Urban Separator Overlay and within critical areas that limit clearing
vegetation and development outside of soft surface pedestrian trails. The City requires the removal of
the unauthorized structures within the developed area and according to the Renton Municipal Code
(RMC) 4-3-110-D.5. c. unapproved vegetation clearing will require replanting of Northwest native
vegetation and erosion control.
The trees appeared to be in a stable condition, however, the exact impacts to all trees are undetermined
at this time as there was no documentation of root cutting during the development nor was an arborist
present to monitor construction or assess root impacts. I recommend the tree impacts from the
unauthorized structures to be assessed by the project arborist during demolition and restoration work.
Long term tree retention should be assessed over a five-year time frame. In my experience, trees can
take three to five years before displaying signs of negative impact from construction activity. I
recommend the trees be monitored for visible changes in tree conditions over the next five years and be
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 2
reassessed in three years’ time by the project arborist to determine if the trees are viable for long term
retention.
Assignment and Scope of Work
This report outlines the site inspection by Connor McDermott, of Tree Solutions Inc, on May 11, 2022. I
was asked to visit the site and assess all significant trees on and adjacent to the site. I was asked to
produce an Arborist Report documenting my findings and management recommendations for a critical
area permit in response to the unpermitted improvement adjacent to a creek. Elias Wolde, the property
owner, requested these services to be in compliance with development requirements within critical
areas.
Observations and Discussion
Site
The 22,771 square-foot site fronts SE May Valley Rd in the COR. One single-family home with an
attached garage and two patios exist on-site. A gravel patio was developed illegally on the south end of
the site with concurrent stairway and retaining walls constructed to access the patio area (Photo 1 and
Photo 2).
In conversation with the property owner, Mr. Wolde, the patio and concurrent stairway and retaining
walls were constructed adjacent to May Valley Creek between October and November of 2021. Based
on prior imagery Mr. Wolde provided to me, prior to development the area was sparsely vegetated
adjacent to the creek and stone or brick steps were in place the constructed stairway now stands (Figure
1).
I observed a gravel pathway off-site that was likely used to for equipment to enter the site and bring in
materials. If allowed by the city, I recommend this pathway be used for equipment and machinery
needed to haul debris from the site (Photo 3).
During my site visit, vegetation on-site was limited to the steep slope area where I observed
predominantly invasive species including invasive ivy (Hedera spp.) and blackberry (Rufus bifrons) mixed
with several native species including sword fern (Polysticum municum) and vine maple (Acer circinatum).
According to COR Maps, there are Special Flood Hazard (100 year flood), Landslide Hazard, and
Regulated Slope (over 25 and 40 percent) critical areas on-site (Figure 2). The subject property also
resides within the May Valley Urban Separator Overlay that requires 50 percent of the gross land area to
be open space retained by the property owner (RMC 4-3-110-E.2.a.i).
On-site Trees
On-site tree species included bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata).
I observed three of the trees on-site to be considered exceptional as defined in RMC 4-11-200.
The conditions of trees varied between good and fair health and structural conditions. My observations
of the tree conditions were limited to what I could see while on-site, however, the conditions on-site
have changed rapidly due to the development and there is no documentation of root impacts from the
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 3
development activities.
It can take up to five years before trees display a negative response to construction impacts, so the trees
should be assessed for long term retention within this timeframe. I recommend monitoring of the site
trees for changes in condition over the next five years and an updated assessment by the project
arborist in three years or after abnormal weather events. If the condition of the trees the tree
conditions have declined during this time period, the trees should be assessed for potential risk to
adjacent targets.
Tree 232, a Douglas-fir tree that I measured at 42 inches diameter at standard height (DSH) had two
retaining walls built within the tree protection zone (TPZ); one at the top of the slope and one at the
bottom of the slope. Roots from this tree were likely impacted in both areas. A stairway was also built
adjacent to this tree, as close as 6 inches from the base. I observed signs of root disturbance from this
work including one 2-inch-diameter root 10 feet from the base (Photo 4).
Tree 234, a bigleaf maple that I measured at 23.3 inches DSH exhibited unusual trunk anatomy on the
downslope side. I observed a retaining wall above the patio and on the downslope side of the tree which
was constructed up to the base (Photo 5). My ability to assess root impacts was limited due to the
retaining wall, however, based on the cut in the slope, I believe the majority of structural roots on the
south side of the tree were cut possibly as close as right at the base during construction. This tree should
be assessed for retention during demolition of the retaining wall.
Trees 235 and 236 were large mature black cottonwoods in good health and structural condition. This
species is an early-successional, relatively short-lived tree species that is prone to decay and structural
issues upon maturity. Tree wells have been installed with lighting conduits at the base of the trees and
the trunk flares were buried by fill. Based on the photos I reviewed, and through discussion with the Mr.
Wolde, the original soil level was used as the subbase for the gravel and concrete and tile patio. I
observed root cuts towards the creek bed where the retaining wall closest to the creek was constructed
(Photo 6).
Off-site Trees
Off-site tree species included black cottonwood, Douglas-fir, and western redcedar.
I observed varied impacts to off-site trees within the impacted area. Based on the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices (BMPs), construction impacts should be limited to six
times DSH in distance from the trunk of trees to maintain structural stability. The majority of the impacts
were outside of this area and likely limited to the feeder roots.
I have attached an annotated survey of the site to serve as the site map and a table of trees that has
detailed information about each of the on- and off-site trees I assessed.
Invasive Ivy Removal
Invasive ivy should be removed from the tree trunks and bases as the ivy can weaken the tree and cause
it to decline in health or fall more readily with wind storms. According to the King County Noxious Weed
Control Program the most effective control is to remove by hand, “Hand-pulling combined with
loosening the soil with a shovel, cultivator or weeding fork will work on most stands of ivy. Older plants
have thick, woody stems and roots and will require more effort to remove… Pry stems off with a large
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 4
screwdriver or forked garden tool. Make sure to remove the stems from all around the trunk. Large
vines can be cut using an axe or a pruning saw.”1
Discussion—Construction Impacts
This report is preliminary as I have not reviewed design, grading or landscape plans for this area.
Tree Protection
The five on-site trees and six off-site trees are required to be protected throughout site development
(RMC 4-4-130 H.9). According to RMC 4-4-130 H.9.b, a TPZ of 1.25-feet for each inch of trunk diameter is
required.
Work will need to occur up to the base of several site trees, therefore, tree protection fencing for the
work necessary to remediate impacts of the unauthorized development will not meet the defined TPZ.
All grading, trenching, excavation, or fill activities within the TPZ must be coordinated with the project
arborist. Careful and alternative construction methods within the TPZ of on-site trees will be needed to
remediate the rooting area below the trees.
Machinery must not be staged on newly exposed soil. If it is necessary to drive machinery on exposed
soil then 6 inches of arborist woodchips must be laid in the area and composite mats such as
AlturnaMats®, steel plates, or project arborist approved equivalent placed on top.
If the work is not conducted according to the specifications below and in Appendix C, work within the
TPA could cause disturbance and damage to the fine and structural root system leading to health decline
and structural instability of the trees.
Route to remove debris from existing structures should be determined prior to construction.
Removal of Unauthorized Structures- Trees 232, 234, 235, and 236
Removal of Stairway adjacent to Tree 232
The existing staircase is constructed from poured concrete and stone pavers up to 6 inches from the
base of Douglas-fir tree 232. The removal of the existing staircase will need to be performed with hand
implements such as a sledgehammer or jackhammer and the project arborist should be present to
monitor for roots that are exposed.
The stone steps should be pulled by hand and hauled off-site. Removal of the concrete base should start
from the stair furthest from the construction entrance and move down towards where the debris can be
hauled off-site (Photo 7). As excavation approaches the original or finished grade, excavation should be
slowed to prevent damage to surface roots. Foot traffic and materials/equipment must not traffic or be
staged over newly exposed soil.
Once the work is completed, topsoil to a depth of 8 to 12 inches should be placed on top of the exposed
soil along with 4 inches of arborist woodchips. The exposed soil can also be remediated by use of radial
trenching or vertical mulching in order to alleviate compaction in the rooting area of the trees.
1 King County, ‘English ivy identification and control’, Noxious Weed Control Program, 2020, Pg 3,
https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/animals-and-plants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification/english-ivy.aspx
(Accessed 4/1/2021)
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 5
Removal of Retaining Wall Adjacent to Tree 234
A retaining wall was constructed south of base of bigleaf maple tree 234. While the tree appeared stable
at the time of my assessment, there were likely multiple structural roots removed on the south side of
the tree to construct the retaining wall.
The retaining wall should be removed using either a mini excavator staged on the existing hardscapes or
approved soil protection outlined in Appendix C. The removal must be done slowly to allow for the
project arborist to assess the previous root impacts and potential for long term retention. If it is
determined the stability of the tree has been compromised, removal of the tree may be necessary.
Removal of Patio and Fill Adjacent to Trees 235 and 236
There is a stone and concrete patio and extensive gravel fill within the TPZ of black cottonwood trees
235 and 236. The stone patio appeared to be laid on top of the gravel and the concrete patio poured
slab on grade. Based on my observations of the creek shoreline, the existing grade has been raised
approximately 4 feet adjacent to the shore and to a minimum of 2 feet moving north towards the
stairway.
Excavation of the gravel fill should be done with a small excavator staged on the existing fill and moving
from the shoreline north towards the house. A flat-fronted bucket should be used. As excavation
approaches the original grade, excavation should be slowed to prevent damage to surface roots and for
the previous root impacts to be assessed (Photo 8).
Replanting Practices
As part of the restoration process, I recommend that steepest areas of the slope be covered with jute
matt, which can be staked in place and workers can cut holes into it for planting.
Using smaller plants (one or two gallon) will make planting on the slope easier and will likely reduce the
rate of plant mortality during establishment, as younger plants will adapt more quickly to the
challenging site conditions and transplant shock.
I also recommend using coir logs staked in place with wooden stakes perpendicular to the slope. These
coir logs create small “terraces” that help retain woodchip mulch and soil during planting and plant
establishment.
Recommendations
• Provide Tree Solutions with civil plans, including demolition, grading, and landscaping in order to
assess the impacts to the trees.
• Obtain approval from the City of Renton to reduce the required tree protection area from 1.25
times trunk diameter to the area indicated on the attached Tree Site Map for site trees.
• Monitor for visible changes in tree conditions and have the tree reassessed by Tree Solutions Inc
within three years.
• All work within the TPZ of trees must be monitored by the project arborist. Work should be
conducted slowly as the original grade is approached to assess the previous root impacts and
capacity to retain the trees long term.
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 6
• Follow tree protection specifications located in Appendix C throughout the project.
• Remove invasive ivy on the trunk and at the base of site trees using hand implements.
• Existing native understory species should be prioritized to be retained.
• Obtain all required permits from the City prior to construction.
Respectfully submitted,
Connor McDermott,
Consulting Arborist
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 7
Figures
Figure 1. Imagery provided by the client of the conditions prior to development of patio adjacent to May
Valley Creek (provided by Elias Wolde, not dated). The area at the base of the slope was sparsely
vegetated and the existing stairway was built in the pathway of the previous stone/brick pathway.
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 8
Figure 2. Aerial image of the site with the critical areas outlined overlayed on the site (COR Map,
accessed 06/01/2022).
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 9
Photographs
Photo 1. The unauthorized development adjacent to May Valley Creek viewed from the north.
Photo 2. The development viewed from the creek bed to the south.
Existing
stairway
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 10
Photo 3. The gravel pathway east of the property is pointed out above. If allowed the pathway could be
used to haul materials and machinery on and off the site.
Photo 4. Base of tree 232 viewed from the east. A damaged root 2-inches in diameter approximately 10
feet from the base is pointed out in the foreground in yellow.
Tree 232
Gravel pathway
off-site
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 11
Photo 5. Base of tree 234 viewed from the south. The constructed retaining wall was built to the base of
the tree and structural roots were likely cut to accommodate the construction. Capacity to retain the
tree long term should be assessed at the time of demolition of structures.
Photo 6. Observed root cuts outlined in red south of tree 235 and adjacent to the creek bed.
Tree 235
Tree 234
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 12
Photo 7. The staircase viewed from the southeast. Work should be conducted using hand implements
and starting furthest from where materials will be hauled backwards.
Photo 8. The base of Tree 235 viewed from the northeast. Work should be done using a mini excavator
with a flat fronted bucket moving from the stream south to the north. No equipment may be staged on
newly exposed soil. If access into newly exposed soil is required then soil protection of 6 inches of
arborist woodchips must be laid in the area and composite matts such as AlturnaMats®, or steel plates
placed on top.
Tree 235
Excavate
this way
Tree 232
Conduct
Work this
way
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 13
Tree Protection Specifications
The following is a list of protection measures that must be employed before, during and after
construction to ensure the long-term viability of retained trees.
1. Project Arborist: The project arborists shall at minimum have an International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) Certification and ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification.
2. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): The city of Renton requires a tree protection zone (TPZ) of 1.25-feet per
diameter inch. In some cases, the TPZ may extend outside tree protection fencing. Work within the
TPZ must be approved by the project arborist.
3. Tree Protection Fencing: Tree protection shall consist of 6-foot chain-link fencing installed at the
TPZ or as approved by the project arborist. Fence posts shall be anchored into the ground or bolted
to existing hardscape surfaces.
a. Where trees are being retained as a group the fencing shall encompass the entire area
including all landscape beds or lawn areas associated with the grove.
b. Per arborist approval, TPZ fencing may be placed at the edge of existing hardscape
within the TPZ to allow for staging and traffic.
c. Where work is planned within the TPZ, install fencing at edge of TPZ and move to limits
of disturbance at the time that the work within the TPZ is planned to occur. This ensures
that work within the TPZ is completed to specification.
d. Where trees are protected at the edge of the project boundary, construction limits
fencing shall be incorporated as the boundary of tree protection fencing.
4. Access Beyond Tree Protection Fencing: In areas where work such as installation of utilities is
required within the TPZ, a locking gate will be installed in the fencing to facilitate access. The project
manager or project arborist shall be present when tree protection areas are accessed.
5. Tree Protection Signage: Tree protection signage shall be affixed to fencing every 20 feet. Signage
shall be fluorescent, at least 2’ x 2’ in size. Signage will note: “NO TRESPASSING – Protected Trees:
Entry into the tree protection area is prohibited unless authorized by the project manager.” Signage
shall include the contact information for the project manager and instructions for gaining access to
the area.
6. Filter / Silt Fencing: Filter / silt fencing within or at the edge of the TPZ of retained trees shall be
installed in a manner that does not sever roots. Install so that filter / silt fencing sits on the ground
and is weighed in place by sandbags or gravel. Do not trench to insert filter / silt fencing into the
ground.
7. Monitoring: The project arborist shall monitor all ground disturbance at the edge of or within the
TPZ, including where the TPZ extends beyond the tree protection fencing.
8. Soil Protection: No parking, foot traffic, materials storage, or dumping (including excavated soils)
are allowed within the TPZ. Heavy machinery shall remain outside of the TPZ. Access to the tree
protection area will be granted under the supervision of the project arborist. If project arborist
allows, heavy machinery can enter the area if soils are protected from the load. Acceptable methods
of soil protection include applying 3/4-inch plywood over 4 to 6 inches of wood chip mulch or use of
AlturnaMats® (or equivalent product approved by the project arborist). Retain existing paved
surfaces within or at the edge of the TPZ for as long as possible.
9. Soil Remediation: Soil compacted within the TPZ of retained trees shall be remediated using
pneumatic air excavation according to a specification produced by the project arborist.
10. Canopy Protection: Where fencing is installed at the limits of disturbance within the TPZ, canopy
management (pruning or tying back) shall be conducted to ensure that vehicular traffic does not
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 14
damage canopy parts. Exhaust from machinery shall be located five feet outside the dripline of
retained trees. No exhaust shall come in contact with foliage for prolonged periods of time.
11. Duff/Mulch: Apply 6 inches of arborist wood chip mulch or hog fuel over bare soil within the TPZ to
prevent compaction and evaporation. TPZ shall be free of invasive weeds to facilitate mulch
application. Keep mulch 1 foot away from the base of trees and 6 inches from retained understory
vegetation. Retain and protect as much of the existing duff and understory vegetation as possible.
12. Excavation: Excavation done at the edge of or within the TPZ shall use alternative methods such as
pneumatic air excavation or hand digging. If heavy machinery is used, use flat front buckets with the
project arborist spotting for roots. When roots are encountered, stop excavation and cleanly sever
roots. The project arborist shall monitor all excavation done within the TPZ.
13. Fill: Limit fill to 1 foot of uncompacted well-draining soil, within the TPZ of retained trees. In areas
where additional fill is required, consult with the project arborist. Fill must be kept at least 1 foot
from the trunks of trees.
14. Root Pruning: Limit root pruning to the extent possible. All roots shall be pruned with a sharp saw
making clean cuts. Do not fracture or break roots with excavation equipment.
15. Root Moisture: Root cuts and exposed roots shall be immediately covered with soil, mulch, or clear
polyethylene sheeting and kept moist. Water to maintain moist condition until the area is back
filled. Do not allow exposed roots to dry out before replacing permanent back fill.
16. Hardscape Removal: Retain hardscape surfaces for as long as practical. Remove hardscape in a
manner that does not require machinery to traverse newly exposed soil within the TPZ. Where
equipment must traverse the newly exposed soil, apply soil protection as described in section 8.
Replace fencing at edge of TPZ if soil exposed by hardscape removal will remain for any period of
time.
17. Tree Removal: All trees to be removed that are located within the TPZ of retained trees shall not be
ripped, pulled, or pushed over. The tree should be cut to the base and the stump either left or
ground out. A flat front bucket can also be used to sever roots around all sides of the stump, or the
roots can be exposed using hydro or air excavation and then cut before removing the stump.
18. Irrigation: Retained trees with soil disturbance within the TPZ will require supplemental water from
June through September. Acceptable methods of irrigation include drip, sprinkler, or watering truck.
Trees shall be watered three times per month during this time.
19. Pruning: Pruning required for construction and safety clearance shall be done with a pruning
specification provided by the project arborist in accordance with American National Standards
Institute ANSI-A300 2017 Standard Practices for Pruning. Pruning shall be conducted or monitored
by an arborist with an ISA Certification.
20. Plan Updates: All plan updates or field modification that result in impacts within the TPZ or change
the retained status of trees shall be reviewed by the senior project manager and project arborist
prior to conducting the work.
21. Materials: Contractor shall have the following materials onsite and available for use during work in
the TPZ:
• Sharp and clean bypass hand pruners
• Sharp and clean bypass loppers
• Sharp hand-held root saw
• Reciprocating saw with new blades
• Shovels
• Trowels
• Clear polyethylene sheeting
• Burlap
• Water
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 15
Glossary
ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care
crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001)
DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5
feet) above grade (Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers 2019)
ISA: International Society of Arboriculture
Significant tree: A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6"), or an alder or cottonwood tree with a
caliper of at least eight inches (8"). Trees qualified as dangerous shall not be considered significant.
Trees planted within the most recent ten (10) years shall qualify as significant trees, regardless of
the actual caliper (RMC 4-11-200 Definitions “T”)
structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which
may lead to failure (Lilly 2001)
Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting
the pattern of growth (Mattheck & Breloer 1994)
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 16
References
Accredited Standards Committee A300 (ASC 300). ANSI A300 (Part 1) Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody
Plant Management – Standard Practices (Pruning). Londonderry: Tree Care Industry Association,
2017.
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition Second Printing.
Atlanta, GA: The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2019.
Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban-
Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006.
Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual.
Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013.
E. Smiley, N. Matheny, S. Lilly. Best Management Practices: TREE RISK ASSESSMENT. ISA 2011.
Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of
Arboriculture, 2001.
Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees
During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998.
Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure Analysis.
London: HMSO, 1994.
Renton Municipal Code, 4-4-130. Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations
Renton Municipal Code, Title 4, Chapter 11. Definitions
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 17
Methods
Measuring
I measured the diameter of each tree at 54 inches above grade, diameter at standard height (DSH). If a
tree had multiple stems, I measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a single-
stem equivalent diameter by using the method outlined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition
Second Printing published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
Evaluating
I evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind
VTA is the identification of symptoms, which the tree produces in reaction to a weak spot or area of
mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to
re-enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts. An understanding of the uniform stress
allows the arborist to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree.
Rating
When rating tree health, I took into consideration crown indicators such as foliar density, size, color,
stem and shoot extensions. When rating tree structure, I evaluated the tree for form and structural
defects, including past damage and decay. Tree Solutions has adapted our ratings based on the Purdue
University Extension formula values for health condition (Purdue University Extension bulletin FNR-473-
W - Tree Appraisal). These values are a general representation used to assist arborists in assigning
ratings.
Health
Excellent - Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, well-balanced crown. Normal to
exceeding shoot length on new growth. Leaf size and color normal. Trunk is sound and solid. Root
zone undisturbed. No apparent pest problems. Long safe useful life expectancy for the species.
Good - Imperfect canopy density in few parts of the tree, up to 10% of the canopy. Normal to less
than ¾ typical growth rate of shoots and minor deficiency in typical leaf development. Few pest
issues or damage, and if they exist, they are controllable, or tree is reacting appropriately. Normal
branch and stem development with healthy growth. Safe useful life expectancy typical for the
species.
Fair - Crown decline and dieback up to 30% of the canopy. Leaf color is somewhat
chlorotic/necrotic with smaller leaves and “off” coloration. Shoot extensions indicate some
stunting and stressed growing conditions. Stress cone crop clearly visible. Obvious signs of pest
problems contributing to lesser condition, control might be possible. Some decay areas found in
main stem and branches. Below average safe useful life expectancy
Poor - Lacking full crown, more than 50% decline and dieback, especially affecting larger branches.
Stunting of shoots is obvious with little evidence of growth on smaller stems. Leaf size and color
reveals overall stress in the plant. Insect or disease infestation may be severe and uncontrollable.
Extensive decay or hollows in branches and trunk. Short safe useful life expectancy.
Structure
Excellent - Root plate undisturbed and clear of any obstructions. Trunk flare has normal
development. No visible trunk defects or cavities. Branch spacing/structure and attachments are
free of any defects.
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 18
Good - Root plate appears normal, with only minor damage. Possible signs of root dysfunction
around trunk flare. Minor trunk defects from previous injury, with good closure and less than 25%
of bark section missing. Good branch habit; minor dieback with some signs of previous pruning.
Codominant stem formation may be present, requiring minor corrections.
Fair - Root plate reveals previous damage or disturbance. Dysfunctional roots may be visible
around the main stem. Evidence of trunk damage or cavities, with decay or defects present and
less than 30% of bark sections missing on trunk. Co-dominant stems are present. Branching habit
and attachments indicate poor pruning or damage, which requires moderate corrections.
Poor - Root plate disturbance and defects indicate major damage, with girdling roots around the
trunk flare. Trunk reveals more than 50% of bark section missing. Branch structure has poor
attachments, with several structurally important branches dead or broken. Canopy reveals signs of
damage or previous topping or lion-tailing, with major corrective action required.
Preliminary Arborist Report
Elias Wolde: 13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton July 7, 2022
Tree Solutions Inc., Consulting Arborists Page 19
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1 Consultant assumes that the site and its use do not violate, and is in compliance with, all
applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations.
2 The consultant may provide a report or recommendation based on published municipal
regulations. The consultant assumes that the municipal regulations published on the date of the
report are current municipal regulations and assumes no obligation related to unpublished city
regulation information.
3 Any report by the consultant and any values expressed therein represent the opinion of the
consultant, and the consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific
value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, or upon any finding to be
reported.
4 All photographs included in this report were taken by Tree Solutions, Inc. during the
documented site visit, unless otherwise noted. Sketches, drawings and photographs (included
in, and attached to, this report) are intended as visual aids and are not necessarily to scale. They
should not be construed as engineering drawings, architectural reports or surveys. The
reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and
any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of
reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not
constitute a representation by the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the
information.
5 Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in any report by consultant covers only the
items examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the
inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation,
probing, climbing, or coring.
6 These findings are based on the observations and opinions of the authoring arborist, and do not
provide guarantees regarding the future performance, health, vigor, structural stability or safety
of the plants described and assessed.
7 Measurements are subject to typical margins of error, considering the oval or asymmetrical
cross-section of most trunks and canopies.
8 Tree Solutions did not review any reports or perform any tests related to the soil located on the
subject property unless outlined in the scope of services. Tree Solutions staff are not and do not
claim to be soils experts. An independent inventory and evaluation of the site’s soil should be
obtained by a qualified professional if an additional understanding of the site’s characteristics is
needed to make an informed decision.
9 Our assessments are made in conformity with acceptable evaluation/diagnostic reporting
techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
Table of Trees
13701 SE May Valley Rd
Renton, WA 98059
Arborist: C McDermott
Date of Inventory: 05/11/2022
Table Prepared: 07/07/2022
DSH (Diameter at Standard Height) was measured 4.5 feet above grade, or as specified in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition , published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
DSH for multi-stem trees are noted as a single stem equivalent, which was calculated using the method defined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition .
Letters were used to identify trees on neighboring property with overhanging canopies.
Tree protection area is equal to the dripline or 1.25 feet per inch of diameter as required in Renton Municipal Code 4-4-130 H.9.b.
Dripline was measured from the center of the tree to the outermost extent of the canopy.
Tree
ID Scientific Name Common Name
DSH
(inches)
DSH
Multistem
Health
Condition
Structural
Condition
Dripline
Radius (ft)
Tree
Protection
Area (ft)
Landmark
Status Notes
232 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 42.0 Good Fair 21.8 52.5 Landmark Ivy removed from canopy, kink in trunk at 30 feet,
deadwood in canopy, lighting conduit installed on
west side of trunk, light installed at 25 feet above
base, stairway installed at base of tree, likely
structural roots impacted
233 Thuja plicata Western Redcedar 24.2 Good Good 17.0 30.3 - Grown on slope, old blm stumps to north of tree,
staircase 13 ft north
234 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 23.3 17, 16 Good Fair 26.0 29.2 - Codominant at base, likely old stump sprout, south
and eastern trunks removed in past, interesting root
anatomy at base, retaining wall above the patio is
placed at base of trunk, likely structural root impacts
at site of retaining wall
235 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 39.6 Good Good 35.6 49.5 Landmark Heavily impacted by construction, trunk buried, tree
well planted 1 foot around base, lights installed at
base
236 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 74.0 Good Good 38.1 92.5 Landmark Heavily impacted by construction, trunk buried and
backfilled, whole rooting area impacted, 1.5 inch
cavity observed on south side of base,
237 Thuja plicata Western Redcedar 23.0 Good Good 15.0 28.8 - Outside of fence line but within property limits,
north side of root zone compacted by traffic at base
A Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 32.0 Good Good 30.3 40.0 Landmark New fence installed 11 feet from base and root cuts
were likely, deadwood on lower third of canopy due
to forest grown conditions
B Thuja plicata Western Redcedar 11.0 Good Good 12.5 13.8 - New fence installed 5 feet from base, potential
impacts on southwest side of tree,
C Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 45.0 Good Good 12.9 56.3 Landmark Odd anatomy 10 feet above base, lights strung into
tree, tight live canopy, deadwood in lower half of
tree due to forest grown conditions
D Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 48.0 Good Fair 22.0 60.0 Landmark Off-site tree, tear out of codominant trunk at 15
feet, response wood observed, root cuts for
retaining wall observed at 19ft southwest of base
E Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 45.0 Fair Poor 23.9 56.3 Landmark Dieback in canopy, large trunk cavity on north side of
trunk at 40 feet to 50 feet, 15 feet from patio
F Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 22.0 Good Fair 17.9 27.5 - Suppressed, previously topped at 70 feet,
reiteratitice top, 20 ft from patio
Tree Solutions, Inc.
2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 Seattle, WA 98109 Page 1 of 1
www.treesolutions.net
206-528-4670
±
2940 Westlake Ave N #200Seattle, WA 98109206-528-4670
Arborist:
Connor McDermott
ISA #PN-8704A
ISA TRAQ
Date: July 7, 2022Wolde, Elias13701 SE May Valley Rd, Renton,WA, 98059Parcel # 3424059113Site Map
A B
C
232
D
233
234
E
F
235 236
237
EagleView Technologies, Inc.
0 40 8020
Feet
Legend
Assessed Trees
King County parcels