HomeMy WebLinkAboutA_Tree Retention_20171117_v1Routine Vegetation Management Permit Application
Tree Retention and Replacement Report:
1. Identification Scheme:
a. Each tree on the Tree Retention/ Land Clearing Plan is identified by specific number (i.e.
#1, #2, etc.)
2. Species and size of each tree (caliper measured at 54 inches above grade):
#1: Maple – 6” cal.
#2: Dogwood – 6’ cal.
#3: Big Leaf Maple – 9” cal.
#4: Big Leaf Maple – 9” cal.
#5: Big Leaf Maple – 9” cal.
#6: Birch – 9” cal.
#7: Birch – 9” cal.
#8: Birch – 6” cal.
#9: Birch – 9” cal.
#10: Big Leaf Maple – 6” cal.
#11: Birch – 6” cal.
#12: Birch – 9” cal.
#13: Birch – 6” cal.
#14: Birch – 6” cal.
#15: Birch – 18” cal.
#16: Birch – 18” cal.
#17: Big Leaf Maple – 10” cal. (to be removed)
#18: Big Leaf Maple – 9” cal. (to be removed)
#19: Big Leaf Maple – 6” cal. (to be removed)
#20: Big Leaf Maple – 10” cal. (to be removed)
#21: Big Leaf Maple – 10” cal. (to be removed)
#22: Poplar – 4’ cal.
#23: Poplar – 4’ cal.
#24: Poplar – 3’ cal.
#25: Poplar – 3’ cal.
#26: Poplar – 3’ cal.
3. Reason(s) for any tree removal (e.g. poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects,
unavoidable isolation (high blow down potential), unsuitability of species, etc.) and for which
no reasonable alternative action is possible (pruning, cabling, etc.):
a. (5) Big Leaf Maple Trees ranging from 6”-10” in caliper are to be removed due to poor
health and surfacing roots. The tree is a potential risk to fail due to local weather
conditions and a potential hazard to existing residential property. No reasonable
alternative action is possible as the trees are either pruned heavily already, have
suckering sprouts, are multi-stemmed with a non-sufficient branch collar, or have
surfacing roots due to insufficient oxygen to the roots. The current soil conditions are
not ideal for the sustained growth of the proposed removed trees.
4. For trees proposed to be retained, a complete description of each tree' s health, condition, and
viability:
a. No Arborist report containing this information is provided.
5. For trees proposed to be retained, a description of the method(s)used to determine the limits
of disturbance (e.g., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case- by-case basis description
for individual trees):
a. To determine the limits of disturbance we are using the following formula:
(trunk caliper) x (1.5 feet)
6. A description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those
in a grove or on abutting properties:
a. The removal of the proposed trees should not have any impact to the surrounding
significant trees as they are located outside of the critical root zone for all trees to be
retained.
7. The suggested location and species of supplemental trees to be used when required. The
report shall include planting and maintenance specifications:
a. The suggested location of the supplemental trees to be used for tree removal mitigation
will be along the inner perimeter of the existing and proposed fence.
b. Suggested species include:
i. Japanese Maple ‘Coral Bark’
ii. Japanese Maple ‘Bloodgood’
iii. Japanese Maple ‘Butterfly’
iv. Japanese Maple ‘Laceleaf’
v. Japanese Maple ‘Peaches and Cream’
vi. Japanese Stewartia
c. Planting specifications include the following:
i. Standard planting practices to be used. See Figure 38: Standard specification
for street tree planting. Seattle Department of Transportation, 2011 at the
following link for an example of accepted standard practice
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa13037/chap6.cfm
d. Maintenance specifications include the following:
i. We provide low-maintenance, dwarf, native species for all plantings to allow for
little to no routine maintenance.
8. An analysis of retained trees according to Priority of Tree Retention Requirements specified in
RMC 4-4-130H.1.b.
a. No Arborist report containing this information is provided.