HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Arborist_Report_&_retention_251105_V1CASCARA TREE CONSULTING
ARBORIST REPORT
1 | P a g e
TO:
Vision House
REFERENCE:
Tree Inventory & Arborist Report (Vision House Multifamily)
SITE ADDRESS:
Tax Parcel #: 102305-9086
DATE:
11/5/2025
PREPARED BY: Katie Hogan, ISA Certified Arborist PN-8078A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Summary
This report documents the tree inventory and assessment conducted on July 23, 2025, at the site referenced
above. The assessment was requested in preparation for the submission of building permits and to meet the
requirements of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-130 – Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
A total of 31 trees meeting the size threshold for significant1 trees were identified on-site. Of these, seven
qualify as Landmark2 trees. No trees were determined to meet the definition of hazardous trees per RMC 4-4-
130(B)(8).
Per RMC 4-4-130(H), developments must retain a minimum of 30% of significant trees and achieve at least 30
tree credits per net acre of buildable area. For this 1.23-acre site, a minimum of 36.9 tree credits are required.
The project proposes to retain two significant trees (19.0 tree credits), equating to 6.5% retention, and will
therefore be required to replant 18 additional tree credits to meet minimum standards.
1 Significant tree: A tree with a caliper of at least 6", except alder or cottonwood trees, which qualify as significant trees with a caliper of
8" or greater. Trees certified as high-risk shall not be considered significant.
2 Landmark tree: A tree with a caliper of 24" or greater, except for big leaf maples, black cottonwoods, and red alder trees, which qualify
as landmark trees with a caliper of 30" or greater.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2 | P a g e
Table 1. Summary Tree Information
Category Quantity
Existing Trees
Total Significant Trees (6” or 8” DBH or greater) 31
Total Tree Credits 252.0
Proposed Actions
Significant Trees to Retain 2
Significant Trees to Remove 29
Proposed Retention Rate 6.5%
Tree Credits & Density
Buildable Area (acres) 1.23
Required Tree Credits (30/acre) 36.9
Retained Tree Credits 19.0
Replacement Credits Required 18.0
Observations & Discussion
Site Conditions
The 1.23-acre site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and currently contains a gravel parking area, a small
outbuilding, and an outdoor playground. Proposed improvements include construction of a multifamily
residential development with an on-site daycare, parking, and landscaped open space.
Existing Trees & Proposed Actions
Thirty-one trees were inventoried on-site, as well as 11 trees on adjacent properties with overhanging canopies.
For detailed information see the attached Tree Tables.
On-Site Trees
A total of 29 trees are proposed for removal to accommodate grading, utilities, buildings, and parking.
Two trees are planned for retention and protection throughout construction:
• Tree #1: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 42.5-inches DBH
Located in the northwest corner of the property. Tree protection fencing will be established 15 feet
south of the trunk near the proposed driveway. All other sides will remain undisturbed within the
Critical Root Zone (CRZ).
Recommendations:
o The Project Arborist shall be present during driveway grading and excavation to monitor and
manage roots as needed.
o Install and maintain 6-foot-tall chain-link fencing around the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for the
duration of construction.
• Tree #2: Bird cherry (Prunus avium), 12.3-inches DBH
Located north of the existing playground. No impacts are proposed within the CRZ. Tree protection
fencing shall be installed prior to site work.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3 | P a g e
Off-Site Trees
Eleven off-site trees were assessed for potential impacts.
• Trees A-G: located along the northern boundary; no construction impacts anticipated.
• Trees H-K: located on the southern boundary; temporary access will involve minor grade raising with fill
soil. A catch basin insert will be installed in the existing storm drain manhole near Tree H; no root
disturbance or direct impacts are expected.
Tree Retention & Credit Requirements
Per RMC 4-4-130 (H), the project must meet both the tree retention and tree credit requirements:
Table 2. Retention Requirement
Tree Retention Value
Total Significant Trees 31
Minimum Retention Required (30%) 9
Trees Proposed to Retain 2
Proposed Retention Rate 6.5%
The proposed retention does not meet the minimum 30 percent threshold; therefore, mitigation via tree credits
is required per RMC 4-4-130 (H).
Table 3. Tree Credit Requirement
Tree Credits Value
Total Existing Credits 252.0
Minimum Credits Required (30/acre) 36.9
Credits Retained 19.0
Replacement Credits Required 18.0
Replacement Tree Standards (RMC 4-4-130)
Replacement trees shall comply with the following minimum sizes and credit assignments (see also RMC 4-11-
200 Definitions T):
Table 4. Replacement Tree Credits
Tree Size Minimum Planting Size Tree Credits
Small (mature height of <30’) 2-inch caliper deciduous or
6-ft evergreen
0.25
Medium (mature height 30-50’) 2-inch caliper deciduous or
6-ft evergreen
1.0
Large (mature height >50’) 2-inch caliper deciduous or
6-ft evergreen
2.0
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
4 | P a g e
A replanting plan demonstrating at least 18 replacement credits shall be submitted with the final landscape
plans.
Recommendations
1. Project Arborist Monitoring
• The Project Arborist shall be present during grading and driveway excavation near Tree #1 to
oversee root pruning and ensure compliance with RMC 4-4-130.
2. Tree Protection Measures
• Install 6-foot-tall chain-link fencing at the TPZ boundary prior to any site disturbance.
• Post signage every 25 feet reading: “Tree Protection Area - Entry Prohibited.”
• Fencing shall remain until final inspection or approval by the City Planning Official.
3. Restricted Activities
• No excavation, grading, storage, or equipment parking shall occur within the CRZ of protected trees.
• Any necessary work within the CRZ must be supervised by a qualified tree professional and
approved by the City.
4. Replanting Plan
• Provide a detailed plan showing species, sizes, and credit calculations for at least 18 replacement
tree credits.
Attachments
1) Photographs
2) Glossary
3) References
4) Inspection Methods
5) Appendix A – Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
6) Appendix B – Certification of Performance
7) Tree Inventory Map
8) Tree Tables
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
5 | P a g e
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1. Looking north toward Tree #1 slated for retention.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
6 | P a g e
Photo 3. Looking north toward Tree #1 slated for retention and protection.
Photo 2. Looking south toward off-site Trees H through K.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
7 | P a g e
G LOSSARY
ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care
Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage
Codominant Stems: two or more stems (or leaders) of relatively similar size that emerge from the same location
on the main trunk (Gilman, 2002)
Conifer: a tree that bears cones and has evergreen needles or scales
Crown: the above ground portion of the tree comprised of branches and their foliage
DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet)
above grade
Deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves annually and remains leafless generally during the cold
season
ISA: International Society of Arboriculture
Landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plant can have
Lateral: secondary or subordinate branch
Limits of disturbance: The boundary of minimum protection around a tree, the area that cannot be encroached
upon without possible permanent damage to the tree. It is a distance determined by a qualified professional and
is based on the age of the tree, its health, the tree species tolerance to disruption and the type of disturbance.
It also considers soil and environmental condition and previous impacts. It is unique to each tree in its location.
Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority that
regulates tree management
Reaction wood: specialized secondary xylem which develops in response to a lean or similar mechanical stress,
it serves to help restore the stem to a vertical position
Significant tree: a tree measuring a specific diameter determined by the municipality the tree grows in. Some
municipalities deem that only healthy trees can be significant, other municipalities consider both healthy and
unhealthy trees of a determined diameter to be significant
Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to
failure; may be genetic, or environmental
Tree credit: a number assigned to a tree by a municipality that may be equal to the diameter of the tree or a
numerical count of the tree, or related to diameter by a factor conveyed in a table of the municipal code
Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the
pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999) detailed visual inspection of a tree and
surrounding site that may include the use of simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely
around the tree trunk looking at the site, aboveground roots, trunk, and branches (ISA 2013)
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
8 | P a g e
R EFERENCES
Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture,
Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990.
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, J. A. 2003. Preliminary Species Profiles for Tree Failure Assessment. Bowen Island: Dunster & Associates
Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual.
Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013.
Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees,
Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004.
Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture,
2001.
Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas.
Second Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994.
Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During
Land Development. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998.
Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London:
HMSO, 1994
Schwarze, Francis W.M.R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Australia:
ENSPEC Pty Ltd. 2008
Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1987.
Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI
A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management—Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment: Tree
Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011.
Thies, Walter G. and Sturrock, Rona N. Laminated root rot in Western North American. United States
Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest. Resource Bulletin PNW-GTR-349. April 1995.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
9 | P a g e
INSPECTION METHODS
I performed a Level 2 Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) for each tree. I visually inspected the tree from the ground,
walking around the tree to inspect for any basal defects. I then walked further from the tree, looking up into the
crown and branches for any notable defects and symptoms of canopy decline.
I measured the diameter and dripline radius of each tree using a Spencer Logging Tape.
Using the VTA method, I rated the health and structural condition of each tree. This inspection method is an
international industry standard for assessing trees from the ground level and identifies external signs of decay,
physical damage, growth related defects, and abnormal or declining foliage. Tree health and structure are each
assigned their own condition rating. The following ratings are used:
Poor: Lacking a full crown, with more than 50% decline and dieback that especially affects larger branches.
Low life expectancy for the species.
Fair: Crown decline and dieback up to 30% of the canopy. Below-average life expectancy for the species.
Good: Imperfect canopy density in 10% or less of the tree. Typical life expectancy for the species.
Excellent: Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, along with a well-balanced crown. Exceptional
life expectancy for the species.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
10 | P a g e
APPENDIX A - A SSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
1) Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and
ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for
matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under
responsible ownership and competent management.
2) It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other
governmental regulations.
3) The assessment in this report is based on information and data from sources believed to be reliable,
correct, and accurately reported. No responsibility is assumed for false or misleading information provided
by others.
4) The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of the report
unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made including payment of an additional fee for such
services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
5) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
6) Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any
other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of
the consultant/appraiser.
7) Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone,
including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without
the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser – particularly as to value
conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or instate or
to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in her qualification.
8) The report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the
consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated
result, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aid, are not necessarily
to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or survey.
10) Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were
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 or coring. There is
not warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in
question may not arise in the future.
Arborist Report: Vision House Multifamily - Renton
___________________________________________________________________________________________
11 | P a g e
APPENDIX B - C ERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
I, Katie Hogan, certify that:
• I have personally inspected the trees on the property referenced in this report and the statements of
fact contained in this report are true and correct.
• I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no
personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
• The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are my personal, unbiased professional analysis,
opinions, and conclusions.
• My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to
commonly accepted arboricultural best practices.
• No individuals or organizations have provided significant assistance with the preparation of this report,
except those named in the report.
• My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting
of a predetermined outcome or direction that favors the cause of the client, the results of the
assessment, or the occurrence of any subsequent events.
Signed:
Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC
Project: Vision House Multifamily
Address: East of 450 Bremerton Ave NE, Renton, WA
Date: 11/5/2025
Tree Inventory Table
On-Site Trees
Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting
[PN-8078A, TRAQ]
Tree
No.
Species Common Name DBH (in)DBH Multi-
Stem (in)
Health Structure Viable
(Yes/No)
Hazard
(Yes/No)
Dripline
Radius (ft)
Designation Tree
Credits
Proposed
Action
Notes
1 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 42.5 - Good Fair Yes No 22.0 Landmark 13.0 Retain Measured at narrowest point below
union; codominant at base; cable
installed
2 Prunus avium Bird cherry 12.3 7.8,9.5 Good Fair Yes No 16.0 Significant 6.0 Retain Not on survey; codominant; surface
roots
3 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 18.3 - Good Good Yes No 16.0 Significant 7.0 Remove
4 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 16.9 - Fair Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 7.0 Remove Stunted canopy
5 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 6.3 - Fair Fair Yes No 8.0 Significant 4.0 Remove Not on survey; suppressed
6 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 22.1 - Fair Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 9.0 Remove Stunted canopy
7 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 13.9 - Fair Good Yes No 12.0 Significant 6.0 Remove Stunted canopy
8 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 19.4 - Fair Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 8.0 Remove Thin canopy
9 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 20.9 - Fair Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 8.0 Remove Stunted canopy
10 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 21.0 - Good Good Yes No 16.0 Significant 8.0 Remove Decay at 10'
11 Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 30.7 - Good Fair Yes No 32.0 Landmark 11.0 Remove
12 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 19.3 - Good Good Yes No 18.0 Significant 8.0 Remove
13 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 16.8 - Fair Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 7.0 Remove Thin canopy
14 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 20.3 14.8,13.9 Good Fair Yes No 18.0 Significant 8.0 Remove Codominant at base
15 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 12.8 - Good Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 6.0 Remove
16 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 33.1 - Good Good Yes No 25.0 Landmark 12.0 Remove
17 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 41.0 - Good Good Yes No 25.0 Landmark 13.0 Remove
18 Alnus rubra Red alder 10.5 - Good Good Yes No 20.0 Significant 5.0 Remove
19 Alnus rubra Red alder 15.2 - Good Fair Yes No 25.0 Significant 6.0 Remove Codominant at 8'
20 Alnus rubra Red alder 21.0 - Good Good Yes No 25.0 Significant 8.0 Remove
21 Thuja plicata Western redcedar 33.7 - Good Fair Yes No 20.0 Landmark 12.0 Remove Decay base; codominant at base
22 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 30.8 25,18 Fair Fair Yes No 30.0 Landmark 11.0 Remove Codominant trunks; dieback
1 of 5 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC
Project: Vision House Multifamily
Address: East of 450 Bremerton Ave NE, Renton, WA
Date: 11/5/2025
Tree Inventory Table
On-Site Trees
Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting
[PN-8078A, TRAQ]
Tree
No.
Species Common Name DBH (in)DBH Multi-
Stem (in)
Health Structure Viable
(Yes/No)
Hazard
(Yes/No)
Dripline
Radius (ft)
Designation Tree
Credits
Proposed
Action
Notes
23 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 19.4 - Good Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 8.0 Remove
24 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 21.8 - Good Good Yes No 18.0 Significant 8.0 Remove
25 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 18.5 - Good Poor No No 16.0 Significant 7.0 Remove Codominant at 6'; narrow
attachment; perched
26 Thuja plicata Western redcedar 23.4 - Good Good Yes No 16.0 Significant 9.0 Remove
27 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 26.2 - Good Good Yes No 22.0 Landmark 10.0 Remove
28 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 20.0 - Good Good Yes No 17.0 Significant 8.0 Remove
29 Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 10.8 - Fair Good Yes No 15.0 Significant 5.0 Remove
30 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 19.9 - Fair Good Yes No 18.0 Significant 8.0 Remove Stunted canopy
31 Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone 12.1 - Good Good Yes No 10.0 Significant 6.0 Remove
2 of 5 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC
Project: Vision House Multifamily
Address: East of 450 Bremerton Ave NE, Renton, WA
Date: 11/5/2025
Tree Inventory Table
Off-Site Trees
Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting
[PN-8078A, TRAQ]
Tree
No.
Species Common Name DBH (in)DBH Multi-
Stem (in)
Health Structure Viable
(Yes/No)
Dripline
Radius (ft)
Tree Credits Proposed
Action
Notes
A Pinus contorta Shore pine 7.8 - Good Fair Yes 15.0 N/A Retain
B Acer platanoides Norway maple 8.1 - Good Good Yes 17.0 N/A Retain Not on survey
C Pinus contorta Shore pine 10.3 - Good Good Yes 12.0 N/A Retain
D Pinus contorta Shore pine 10.5 - Good Good Yes 15.0 N/A Retain
E Acer platanoides Norway maple 6.3 - Good Good Yes 15.0 N/A Retain Not on survey
F Acer platanoides Norway maple 5.3 - Fair Fair Yes 15.0 N/A Retain Not on survey
G Pinus contorta Shore pine 13.3 - Good Good Yes 16.0 N/A Retain
H Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 11.0 - Good Good Yes 15.0 N/A Retain
I Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 17.8 11,14 Good Fair Yes 20.0 N/A Retain
J Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 9.0 - Good Good Yes 15.0 N/A Retain
K Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 11.0 - Good Good Yes 15.0 N/A Retain
3 of 5 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC
Project: Vision House Multifamily
Address: East of 450 Bremerton Ave NE, Renton, WA
Date: 11/5/2025
Tree Inventory Table
Summary Tables
Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting
[PN-8078A, TRAQ]
Quantity
31
31
252.0
2
29
0
6.5%
53578
1.23
30.0
36.9
19.0
18
Category
Significant Trees Proposed to Remove
Existing Trees
Total Trees (6" or 8" DBH or greater)
Total Significant Tree Credits
Proposed Actions
Significant Trees Proposed to Retain
Significant Trees
Tree Credits & Required Density
Buildable Area (square feet)
Buildable Area (acres)
Minimum Density Required / Acre
Minimum Tree Credits Required
Non-Significant (Hazard) Trees Proposed to Remove
Proposed Tree Retention Rate
Tree Credits Proposed to Retain
Tree Credits Required to be Planted
4 of 5 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC
Project: Vision House Multifamily
Address: East of 450 Bremerton Ave NE, Renton, WA
Date: 11/5/2025
Tree Inventory Table
Definitions
Prepared By: Cascara Tree Consulting
[PN-8078A, TRAQ]
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Excellent Viable Viable Viable Not viable
Good Viable Viable Viable Not viable
Fair Viable Viable Not viable Not viable
Poor Not viable Not viable Not viable Not viable
Health Structure
Excellent High or above
average vigor
No visible defects
Good Vigor is normal
for species
Minor defects
Fair Reduced vigor Major defects
Poor Poor vigor Major defects
that cannot be
corrected
Diameter at Breast
Height (DBH):
Landmark Tree:
Significant Tree:
Developable Area
Supplemental
Trees
Small Tree
Medium Tree
Large Tree
Land area outside of critical areas, critical area and shoreline buffers, and public rights-
of-way that is otherwise developable
Tree Health
Tr
e
e
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet above average grade.
Where a tree splits into several trunks close to ground level, the DBH for the tree is
the square root of the sum of the DBH for each individual stem squared (example with
three trunks: DBH = square root [(stem1)2 + (stem2)2 + (stem3)2]).
A tree with a caliper of twenty four inches (24") or greater, except for big leaf maples,
black cottonwoods, and red alder trees, which qualify as landmark trees with a caliper
of thirty inches (30") or greater.
A tree with a caliper of at least six inches (6"), except alder or cottonwood trees,
which qualify as significant trees with a caliper of eight inches (8") or greater. Trees
certified as high-risk shall not be considered significant.
Supplemental tree planting shall consist of new small, medium, or large species trees,
as defined in RMC 4-11-200, Definitions T. The supplemental trees shall be planted
with a minimum size of two-inch (2") caliper, or evergreen trees with a minimum size
of six feet (6') tall. The Administrator shall have the authority to approve, deny, or
restrict the tree species for proposed supplemental trees.
A tree with a mature height of thirty feet (30') or less.
A tree with a mature height between thirty feet (30') and fifty feet (50').
A tree with a mature height of fifty feet (50') or more.
5 of 5 Cascara Tree Consulting, LLC