Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Arborist_Report_190917_V1.pdfFORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS WFCI 3601943-1 723 FAX 3601943-4 1 28 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C Olympia, WA 98501 URBANIRURAL FORESTRY TREE APPRAISAL HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American Foresters - Revised Tree Protection Plan- CANOPY 4130 Lincoln Ave. NE Renton WA 98056 Prepared for: Core Design, Inc. Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Date of Report: June 3, 2019 Introduction The project proponent is planning to construct a new 55 lot residential subdivision on 10.06 acres at 4130 Lincoln Ave. NE in Renton. The proponent has retained WFCI to:  Evaluate and inventory all trees on the site pursuant to the requirements of the City of Renton Tree Protection Ordinance.  Make recommendations for retention of significant trees, along with required protection and cultural measures. Observations Methodology WFCI has evaluated trees 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger in the proposed project area, and assessed their potential to be incorporated into the new project. The tree evaluation phase used methodology developed by Nelda Matheny and Dr. James Clark in their 1998 publication Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land Development. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Site Description The site was cleared many years ago and portions were replanted. The foundation of a former residence is evident in the western portion of the northern parcel. The three houses that are present in the project area were built in the late 1980’s. There is a wetland on the western edge or the project area and a small stream in the northeast corner. The site slopes mostly to the west at about 10%. It is bordered by Lincoln Ave. NE to the northwest, undeveloped forest land to the east and northeast and residential parcels on all other sides. Soils Description There are three major soil types in the project area: the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, the Everett very gravelly sandy loam, and the Ragnar-Indianola association. AgD, AgC – Alderwood gravelly sandy loam – 34% RdE, RdC - Ragnar-Indianola Association – 61% EvC - Everett very gravelly sandy loam – 5% Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 3 The Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is a moderately deep, moderately well drained soil found on glacial till plains. It is formed in ablation till overlying basal till. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow in the pan. Available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth for trees is 20-40 inches. A perched seasonal high water table is at a depth of 18-36 inches from November to March. The potential for windthrow of trees is moderate under normal conditions. New trees require irrigation for establishment. In areas where grading brings the Alderwood hardpan nearer to the surface, the hardpan must be fractured under new trees to provide soil volume for root development and to improve drainage around the tree. The Ragnar-Indianola association is primarily a loamy fine sand. It is a very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. It is formed in sandy glacial outwash and glacial drift on broad uplands. Permeability is rapid. The available water capacity for plants is mostly low. The effective rooting depth for trees is 60 inches or more. The potential for windthrow of trees is low under normal conditions. Everett very gravelly sandy loam, a very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil found on terraces and outwash plains. It formed in glacial outwash. Permeability i s rapid. Plant available water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more and the hazard of runoff and erosion is slight. The potential for windthrow of trees is slight under normal conditions. Seedling mortality is severe and new trees require irrigation to establish. Existing Tree Conditions There are a total of 323 significant trees in the project area outside of wetland areas and their buffers. Tree conditions on the site range from ‘Dead’ to ‘Good,’ with most trees described as being in ‘Fair’ condition. The size of significant trees ranges from 6 inches to 46 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Tree species include Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), wild cherry (Prunus avium), red alder (Alnus rubra), hawthorn (Crataegus laevigata), Alaska yellow-cedar (Xanthocyparis nootkatensis), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Norway spruce (Picea abies), grand fir (Abies grandis), western white pine (Pinus monticola), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), hybrid plane (Platanus x. acerifolia), Scouler’s willow, and European mountain-ash (Sorbus aucuparia). Table 1: Summary of Trees in Project Area Species DBH Range (in.) Total # of Trees # of Trees in Poor Health* # of Healthy Trees Species Composition of the Stand Red Alder 8 - 13 47 31 16 14.5% Arborvitae 8 - 12 3 0 3 0.9% Bigleaf Maple 6 - 42 127 47 80 39.3% Black Cottonwood 8 - 46 12 4 8 3.7% Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 4 Species DBH Range (in.) Total # of Trees # of Trees in Poor Health* # of Healthy Trees Species Composition of the Stand Cherry 8 – 15 4 3 1 1.2% Douglas-fir 8 - 41 70 7 63 21.7% Grand Fir 19 – 20 3 0 3 1.0% Bitter Cherry 6 - 9 7 0 7 2.1% Hybrid Plane 22 1 0 1 0.3% Mountain-ash 8.5 - 13 2 2 0 0.7% Norway Spruce 19 1 0 1 0.3% Ponderosa Pine 35.5 1 1 0 0.3% Western Redcedar 7 - 38 40 8 32 12.4% Scouler’s Willow 9 1 0 1 0.3% Siberian Elm 25 1 1 0 0.3% Western White Pine 29 1 0 1 0.3% Alaska Yellow-cedar 22 – 34.5 2 0 2 0.7% Sum 6-46 323 104 219 100.00% *Includes trees in ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ Condition The understory vegetation is dense throughout most of the project area. Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) is particularly abundant, forming dense monocultures in many areas. Other understory plants include salal (Gaultheria shallon), English ivy (Hedera helix), Indian-plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), creeping Oregon grape (Berberis repens), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), grasses and broadleaved weeds. Photo 1: View of vegetation in the northern portion of the project area. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 5 Off-Site Impacts Tree removal on this parcel will not impact trees on any surrounding parcels. Discussion Potential for Tree Retention The site plan indicates that an area in the southeast portion of the project area that will be designated as a ‘Green Space.’ This area contains a mixed stand of Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple that is typical of project area. However, many of the multi-stemmed maples in this area are unhealthy and otherwise unsuitable for retention near targets. Of the 66 significant trees in this area, sixteen (16) of these trees are in ‘Fair’ condition or better and suitable for retention. The remaining 50 trees in this area are in ‘poor’ or worse condition and will need to be removed during land clearing. Two additional trees (Tree #9319 and #9321) can be retained near the northern boundary of the project area. The locations of these tree retention areas are illustrated on the site plan in Attachment 2. Tree Density Calculations Title 4-4-130 of the Renton Municipal Code calls for 30% of all healthy significant trees in buildable areas to be retained on the project, or where the required number cannot be retained, replacement trees are to be planted. The following is a summary of the required and planned tree retention as based on the currently proposed plan: Total Number of Significant Trees on Site 377 trees Trees Excluded from Retention Calculation: Trees that are Dead, Diseased, or Dangerous <85 trees> Trees in Proposed Public Streets <11 trees> Trees in Critical Areas and Buffers <47 trees> Number of Healthy, Significant Trees in Buildable Area: 234 trees Required Tree Retention: 30% of healthy significant trees in buildable area: 70 trees Planned Tree Retention <19 trees> Shortfall of Retention under the Minimum Requirement 51 trees Required number of replacement trees: 306 trees There are 234 healthy significant trees in the buildable area of the site. At least 70 of these trees need to be retained to meet the City of Renton Code. The proposed plan retains 19 trees outside of the critical areas and buffers, a shortfall of 51 trees. When the required number of trees Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 6 cannot be retained, 12 caliper-inches of replacement trees must be replanted for each tree removed in excess of this minimum requirement. All broadleaved replacement trees shall be 2 in. caliper and conifers shall be at least 6 ft. tall at the time of planting. A total of 306 trees ( 51∗12 2 ) will be required to replace the 51-tree shortfall outlined in this plan. Up to 50% of the replacement trees (153 trees) may be planted on lots. The remaining 153 trees can be planted in park and green space tracts. We recommend planting Douglas-fir in open areas and western redcedar in areas with partial shade. Trees in the willow family (Salicaceae), and the alder (Alnus), and plane tree (Platanus) genera may not be used to fulfill the tree replacement requirement. The projected cost of the 312 replacement trees is $53,550. A fee in lieu of tree planting, the cost of which can be determined by the City of Renton can also substitute for tree replacement if replanting on-site is not feasible. Recommendations Tree Protection Measures Trees to be saved must be protected during construction by a wooden, temporary chain-link fence (Attachment 7), located at the edge of the root protection zone (RPZ). The RPZ shall be the dripline of the stand of trees, or the limits of construction of the tree tract. Placards shall be placed on the fencing every 50 feet indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING - Protected Trees". The individual tree RPZ is the dripline (6 feet minimum), unless otherwise delineated by WFCI in the field and described in the attached tree list (Attachment 3). Tree protection fences should be placed around the edge of the root protection zone (RPZ). The fence should be erected after logging but prior to the start of clearing. The fences should be maintained until the start of the landscape installation. There should be no equipment activity (including rototilling) within the root protection zone. No irrigation lines, trenches, or other utilities should be installed within the RPZ. Cuts or fills should impact no more than 20% of a tree’s root system. If topsoil is added to the root zone of a protected tree, the depth should not exceed 2 inches of a sandy loam or loamy fine sand topsoil and should not cover more than 20% of the root system. If roots are encountered outside the RPZ during construction, they should be cut cleanly with a saw and covered immediately with moist soil. Noxious vegetation within the root protection zone should be removed by hand. If a proposed save tree must be impact ed by grading or fills more than allowed for by WFCI in the tree list, then the tree should be re-evaluated by WFCI to determine if the tree can be saved with mitigating measures, or if the tree should be removed. Pruning and Thinning All individual trees to be saved near or within developed areas should have their crowns raised to provide a minimum of 8 feet of ground clearance over sidewalks and landscape areas, 15 feet over parking lots or streets, and at least 10 feet of building clearance. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 7 All pruning should be done according to the ANSI A300 standards for proper pruning, and be completed by an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist®, or be supervised by a Certified Arborist®. Hazard Tree Inspection At least one tree (Tree #9014) was found to be hazardous during the tree evaluation. The tree is a black cottonwood with a DBH of 19 inches. It is at a ‘high’ risk of failing and impacting traffic on Lincoln Ave. NE due to a stem defect and some stem decay. It currently grows in a wetland area near other cottonwoods and should be removed immediately. Photo 2. Black cottonwood hazard tree (#9014) leaning over Lincoln Ave. NE. A second inspection of the save trees should occur after the completion of grading to determine if any trees were damaged during grading activity. Tree #9014 Stem Defect, Decay. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 8 Conclusions and Timeline for Activity 1. 19 significant trees are proposed to be retained in tree tracts within the site (outside of critical areas and their buffers). This falls short of the 30% tree minimum retention requirement by 51 trees. 2. The final, approved tree protection plan map should be included in the construction drawings for bid and construction of the project and should be labeled as such. 3. Stake and heavily flag the clearing limits. 4. Contact WFCI to attend pre-job conference and discuss tree protection issues with contractors. WFCI can verify all trees to be saved and/or removed are adequately marked for retention. 5. Complete logging. Complete necessary hazard tree removals and invasive plant removals from the tree protection areas. No equipment should enter the tree protection areas during logging. 6. Contact WFCI to inspect the tree tracts after logging, but prior to land clearing to identify any additional hazard trees that should be removed. 7. Install tree protection fences along the 'limits of construction'. The fences should be located at the limits of construction or at the dripline of the save tree or as otherwise specified by WFCI. Maintain fences throughout construction. 8. Complete clearing of the project. 9. Do not excavate stumps within 10’ of trees to be saved. These should be individually evaluated by WFCI to determine the method of removal. 10. Complete all necessary pruning on save trees or stand edges to provide at least 8’ of ground clearance near sidewalks and trails, and 15’ above all driveways or access roads. 11. Complete grading and construction of the project. 12. Contact WFCI to final inspect the tree protection areas after grading. 13. All save trees within reach of targets should be inspected annually for 2 years by a qualified professional forester retained by the homeowners association, and bi-annually thereafter. The purpose of these inspections is to identify trees that develop problems due to changing micro-site conditions and to prescribe cultural care or removal. Summary The City of Renton Municipal Code calls for 30% of the significant trees be retained on the buildable area of the site or mitigated for. Based on the current site plan, 19 existing trees in 2 tracts will be retained. This falls short of the minimum 30% requirement by 51 trees. Therefore, 306 replacement trees are required. This tree protection plan coupled with the 47 trees growing in the wetlands and buffers, and the healthy red alders and black cottonwoods that exist but were not counted, will help to preserve the forested character of the area. As the street trees and landscape trees fill in the buildable area over time, Canopy will be a very well-treed residential community. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 9 Please give us a call if you have further questions. Respectfully submitted, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Galen M. Wright, ACF, ASCA Riley Stark, Professional Forester ISA Bd. Certified Master Arborist PN-129BU ISA Bd. Certified Master Arborist Certified Forester No. 44 Municipal Specialist, PN-7780BM ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified attachments: 1: aerial photo of project area 2: site plan with tree tracts 3: tree list 4: individual tree rating key 5: description of tree evaluation methodology 6: glossary of terms 7: tree protection fence detail 8: assumptions and limiting conditions Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 10 Attachment 1. Aerial Photo of Project Area (2017 King County iMap) Project Area Boundary N Trees #1 - 7 Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 11 Attachment 2. Site Plan/Tree Map Project Area Boundary Location of Tree to Retain Hazard Tree Location Location of Tree Protection Fencing 9319 9321 9014 8883 8880 8650 8680 8682 8677 9640 9639 8863 8852 8853 8882 8651 8642 8678 8676 N 8869 Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 12 Attachment 3. List of Trees in Canopy Project Area (12 Pages) Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 1 Bitter Cherry 6 Fair Codominant 6 Yes Remove Not surveyed 2 Bitter Cherry 8 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove Not surveyed 3 Bitter Cherry 7 Fair Codominant 7 Yes Remove Not surveyed 4 Bitter Cherry 7 Fair Codominant 7 Yes Remove Not surveyed 5 Bitter Cherry 9 Fair Codominant 9 Yes Remove Not surveyed 6 Bitter Cherry 6 Fair Codominant 6 Yes Remove Not surveyed 7 Bitter Cherry 6.5 Fair Codominant 6.5 Yes Remove Not surveyed 8129 Scouler's Willow 15, 7 Fair Dominant 12 No Remove In ROW 8133 Red Alder 13, 11, 15 Fair Codominant 14S No Remove In ROW 8467 Douglas-fir 19 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 8468 Western Redcedar 38 Good Codominant 26 Yes Remove 8469 Western Redcedar 22, 14 Good Codominant 24 Yes Remove 8510 Douglas-fir 40 Fair Codominant 30 Yes Remove 8514 Bigleaf Maple 12, 12, 8, 10 Fair Codominant 28 Yes Remove Not on Map 8544 Western Redcedar 30 Poor Codominant 24 No Remove 8545 Bigleaf Maple 18, 14, 12 Poor Codominant 8 No Remove Dead Tops, Sparse Foliage 8547 Douglas-fir 39 Fair Codominant 24W Yes Remove Basal Rot 8550 Western Redcedar 19 Poor Codominant 20 No Remove Mostly dead, Not on Map 8557 Bigleaf Maple 25 Fair Codominant 20N Yes Remove 8558 Douglas-fir 34 Good Codominant 22S Yes Remove 8559 Western Redcedar 24 Good Codominant 22E Yes Remove 8564 Western Redcedar 22 Good Codominant 28W Yes Remove 8565 Western Redcedar 26 Good Codominant 28W Yes Remove 8566 Western Redcedar 14 Good Codominant 28W Yes Remove 8571 Bigleaf Maple 8 Poor Intermediate 8 No Remove stem defect Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 13 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 8574 Western Redcedar 24 Good Codominant 16S Yes Remove 8575 Western Redcedar 22 Good Codominant 16N Yes Remove 8576 Black Cottonwood 20 Fair Codominant 16S Yes Remove 8577 Black Cottonwood 22 Fair Codominant 16N Yes Remove 8578 Western Redcedar 27 Good Codominant 22 Yes Remove 8579 Bigleaf Maple 8, 8, 10 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 8580 Douglas-fir 20.5 Fair Codominant 14S Yes Remove 8581 Western Redcedar 9 Poor Intermediate 8 No Remove Dead Top 8582 Western Redcedar 27 Good Codominant 19 Yes Remove 8583 Douglas-fir 20 Fair Codominant 15N Yes Remove 8584 Bigleaf Maple 9 Fair Intermediate 8E Yes Remove 8585 Bigleaf Maple 18, 26 Fair Codominant 22 Yes Remove 8586 Western Redcedar 9 Very Poor Intermediate 8 No Remove Mostly Dead 8587 Western Redcedar 12 Very Poor Intermediate 10 No Remove Mostly Dead 8590 Douglas-fir 29 Good Codominant 22SE Yes Remove 8591 Douglas-fir 13 Fair Intermediate 10 Yes Remove 8592 Alder 10 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 8593 Bigleaf Maple 11, 7 Fair Codominant 12W Yes Remove 8594 Bigleaf Maple 8, 7, 6, 9 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove 8595 Bigleaf Maple 14 Fair Codominant 12E Yes Remove 8596 Western Redcedar 15 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove Major Butt Sweep 8597 Grand Fir 20 Fair Codominant 16N Yes Remove 8598 Douglas-fir 20 Poor Codominant 16 No Remove Forked Top 8599 Western Redcedar 19 Fair Codominant 14NE Yes Remove 8600 Douglas-fir 26 Fair Codominant 19 Yes Remove 8601 Douglas-fir 29 Poor Codominant 22 No Remove Stem Decay 8602 Douglas-fir 16.5 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 8607 Bigleaf Maple 12, 16 Fair Codominant 18NE Yes Remove 8608 Bigleaf Maple 42 Fair Codominant 36 Yes Remove 8609 Douglas-fir 9 Fair Intermediate 8 Yes Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 14 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 8610 Bigleaf Maple 12 Fair Codominant 10S Yes Remove 8611 Bigleaf Maple 8, 9, 12, 12, 14 Fair Codominant 20S Yes Remove 8612 Bigleaf Maple 16 Fair Codominant 14NE Yes Remove 8613 Bigleaf Maple 26 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8614 Douglas-fir 11.5 Poor Suppressed 10 No Remove 8615 Douglas-fir 29 Good Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8616 Douglas-fir 12 Fair Intermediate 8S Yes Remove 8617 Douglas-fir 24 Fair Codominant 18NE Yes Remove 8618 Bigleaf Maple 21 Poor Codominant 18 No Remove Stem Decay 8621 Douglas-fir 18 Good Codominant 14E Yes Remove 8622 Douglas-fir 16 Fair Codominant 13W Yes Remove 8629 Douglas-fir 38 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8630 Douglas-fir 24 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove 8631 Alder 10 Poor Intermediate 10 No Remove Ivy, Sparse Foliage 8632 Douglas-fir 19 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 8633 Douglas-fir 30 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8634 Western Redcedar 9 Poor Intermediate 8 No Remove Dead Top 8635 Bigleaf Maple 28 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove ivy 8636 Alder 10 Poor Intermediate 9 No Remove 8641 Bigleaf Maple 14, 14, 12 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove ivy 8642 Bigleaf Maple 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Save 8645 Bigleaf Maple 13 Poor Intermediate 12 No Remove Leaning 8646 Bigleaf Maple 24, 18, 14, 16, 14 Very Poor Codominant 26 No Remove 8648 Bigleaf Maple 18 Poor Codominant 16 No Remove Low LCR 8649 Bigleaf Maple 12 Very Poor Intermediate 11 No Remove Stem Decay 8650 Bigleaf Maple 14, 16, 18 Fair Codominant 22 Yes Save 8651 Bigleaf Maple 16, 8, 12, 9 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Save 8669 Bigleaf Maple 9, 9, 10, 7 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8670 Douglas-fir 7 Poor Suppressed 7 No Remove Leaning 8671 Douglas-fir 12 Poor Suppressed 10 No Remove 8672 Bigleaf 15 Fair Codominant 12S Yes Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 15 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment Maple 8673 Bigleaf Maple 29 Poor Codominant 22 No Remove Dead Tops, Stem Decay 8674 Bigleaf Maple 16 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove Low LCR 8675 Bigleaf Maple 11 Poor Intermediate 10 No Remove No Top 8676 Bigleaf Maple 7, 15, 8, 13, 16, 23, 13 Fair Codominant 28 Yes Save 8677 Bigleaf Maple 15, 16, 10 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Save 8678 Bigleaf Maple 12,8, 7, 9, 10, 10, 8 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Save 8680 Cherry 15 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Save 8681 Black Cottonwood 34 Fair Codominant 22E Yes Remove Potentially Hazardous 8682 Bigleaf Maple 15 Fair Codominant 12SW Yes Save 8684 Bigleaf Maple 14 Very Poor Intermediate 10 No Remove Stem Defect, Decay 8685 Douglas-fir 8 Poor Suppressed 8 No Remove 8765 Bigleaf Maple 15 Fair Codominant 13 Yes Remove 8766 Alder 16 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove Lost a Codominant Stem 8767 Alder 8.5 Poor Codominant 8 No Remove Low LCR 8768 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 8769 Alder 10 Fair Codominant 9 Yes Remove 8770 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 8771 Bigleaf Maple 32 Very Poor Codominant 26 No Remove Stem Decay 8774 Alder 12 Fair Codominant 10S Yes Remove Ivy 8776 Bigleaf Maple 14 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Remove 8777 Scouler's Willow 9 Fair Intermediate 8 Yes Remove 8778 Alder 10 Dead Codominant 10 No Remove 8782 Bigleaf Maple 14, 13, 16 Poor Codominant 18 No Remove In Decline 8786 Bigleaf Maple 24, 18, 19, 20 Fair Dominant 32W Yes Remove Same Tree as 8787 8792 Western Redcedar 25 Good Codominant 18 Yes Remove 8793 Bigleaf Maple 26, 16 Very Poor Codominant 24 No Remove Stem Decay 8794 Bigleaf 30, 24 Poor Codominant 32 No Remove Dieback, Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 16 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment Maple Decline 8796 Western Redcedar 9 Fair Suppressed 8 Yes Remove 8835 Bigleaf Maple 7, 8, 10 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 8836 Bigleaf Maple 15, 13, 12 Poor Codominant 20 No Remove Dead Stems 8838 Bigleaf Maple 12, 14 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove Defect, Stem Decay 8839 Black Cottonwood 39 Poor Intermediate 30 No Remove Broken Tops, Decline 8840 Bigleaf Maple 6, 8, 8, 6 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove Too Many Stems 8841 Bigleaf Maple 12, 8 Fair Codominant 14S Yes Remove 8842 Bigleaf Maple 11 Fair Codominant 10NE Yes Remove 8843 Bigleaf Maple 16, 7 Poor Codominant 17 No Remove Basal Decay 8845 Bigleaf Maple 17, 20 Fair Codominant 24 Yes Remove 8846 Bigleaf Maple 10 Poor Suppressed 9 No Remove Stem Defect 8847 Western Redcedar 9 Poor Suppressed 8 No Remove Stem Defect 8848 Douglas-fir 25 Fair Codominant 19 Yes Remove 8849 Western Redcedar 17 Fair Intermediate 12W Yes Remove 8850 Douglas-fir 28 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8852 Douglas-fir 29 Good Codominant 20E Yes Save 8853 Douglas-fir 28 Fair Codominant 20W Yes Save 8854 Bigleaf Maple 12, 13 Poor Codominant 14 No Remove Stem Defect 8855 Bigleaf Maple 10 Poor Suppressed 9 No Remove 8856 Douglas-fir 41 Good Dominant 28 Yes Save 8857 Bigleaf Maple 16, 19 Very Poor Codominant 23 No Remove Stem Defect 8858 Bigleaf Maple 14 Poor Intermediate 14 No Remove Stem Defect 8859 Bigleaf Maple 14 Fair Codominant 12S Yes Save 8860 Bigleaf Maple 18, 13, 13 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Save 8861 Bigleaf Maple 18 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 8862 Bigleaf Maple 13, 8 Poor Intermediate 12 No Remove Stem Defect 8863 Douglas-fir 31 Good Dominant 24 Yes Save Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 17 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 8866 Bigleaf Maple 20, 10, 9, 19, 20, 20 Fair Dominant 32 Yes Remove 8867 Douglas-fir 20 Fair Codominant 16NE Yes Save 8868 Western Redcedar 14 Poor Intermediate 10 No Remove Mostly Dead 8869 Bigleaf Maple 20, 8, 8 Fair Codominant 18NE Yes Save 8871 Bigleaf Maple 22 Fair Codominant 18S Yes Remove 8872 Bigleaf Maple 13 Poor Suppressed 10 No Remove stem defect 8873 Bigleaf Maple 21, 20 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove 8874 Bigleaf Maple 26 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 8875 Western Redcedar 20 Fair Intermediate 16 Yes Remove 8877 Douglas-fir 20 Fair Dominant 18NE Yes Remove 8879 Bigleaf Maple 21 Very Poor Codominant 16 No Remove Dieback, decline 8880 Bigleaf Maple 18, 18 Fair Codominant 22 Yes Save 8881 Bigleaf Maple 13 Poor Codominant 10 No Remove Stem Defect 8882 Bigleaf Maple 15 Fair Codominant 13 Yes Save 8883 Douglas-fir 10 Fair Intermediate 8 Yes Save 8885 Bigleaf Maple 22 Poor Codominant N/A No Remove Decline, Stem Decay 8898 Black Cottonwood 42 Fair Codominant 30 Yes Remove Short-term Tree 8899 Black Cottonwood 46 Fair Codominant 32 Yes Remove Short-term Tree 8901 Red Alder 9, 10 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Save Off-Site 8906 Alder 9, 10 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 8908 Black Cottonwood 26 Poor Codominant 18 No Remove No Top 8910 Black Cottonwood 19 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove Potentially Hazardous 8913 Bigleaf Maple 10 Fair Dominant 10 Yes Remove 8915 Alder 10 Very Poor Dominant 8 No Remove Mostly Dead 8940 Douglas-fir 36.5 Good Dominant 28 Yes Remove 8941 Bigleaf Maple 7 Fair Intermediate 6 Yes Remove 8944 Bigleaf Maple 7 Fair Intermediate 6 Yes Remove 8945 Bigleaf 7 Fair Intermediate 6 Yes Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 18 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment Maple 8946 Bigleaf Maple 9 Fair Intermediate 8 Yes Remove 8947 Bigleaf Maple 7 Fair Intermediate 6 Yes Remove 8948 Douglas-fir 21 Fair Codominant 17E Yes Remove 8949 Douglas-fir 19 Very Poor Codominant 16 No Remove No Top 8950 Douglas-fir 21 Fair Codominant 16S Yes Remove 8951 Bigleaf Maple 7 Fair Codominant 16S Yes Remove 8952 Western Redcedar 7 Fair Suppressed 6 Yes Remove 8954 Bigleaf Maple 8, 6 Poor Codominant 8 No Remove Basal Decay 8959 Western Redcedar 38 Very Poor Codominant 30 No Remove Mostly Dead 8961 Bigleaf Maple 18 Fair Codominant 16W Yes Remove 8962 Bigleaf Maple 17 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 8963 Bigleaf Maple 18 Fair Codominant 15 Yes Remove on property line 8970 Douglas-fir 32 Fair Codominant 24 Yes Remove 8971 Bigleaf Maple 13 Poor Codominant 10 No Remove Ivy, Stem Defect 8972 Bigleaf Maple 6, 5 Very Poor Suppressed 7 No Remove 8973 Western Redcedar 18 Good Codominant 12 Yes Remove 8974 Bigleaf Maple 28 Fair Codominant 22 Yes Remove 9008 Black Cottonwood 31 Poor Codominant 22 Yes Remove In Wetland 9009 Black Cottonwood 52 Poor Codominant 33 Yes Remove In Wetland 9010 Black Cottonwood 38 Fair Dominant 22 Yes Save In Wetland 9011 Black Cottonwood 11 Poor Suppressed 8 No Save 9012 Black Cottonwood 42 Very Poor Codominant 32 Yes Remove In Wetland 9013 Black Cottonwood 26 Poor Codominant 20 Yes Remove In Wetland 9014 Black Cottonwood 25 Poor Intermediate 20 No Remove Hazardous 9015 Alder 20 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Save In Wetland 9016 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 6S Yes Save In Wetland 9017 Alder 16 Poor Codominant 12 Yes Save In Wetland 9018 Alder 16 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Save In Wetland Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 19 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 9019 Alder 15 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Save In Wetland 9020 Alder 13 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Save In Wetland 9021 Alder 13 Poor Codominant 9 Yes Save In Wetland 9022 Alder 15 Poor Intermediate 10 Yes Save In Wetland 9023 Alder 8 Poor Suppressed 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9024 Alder 18 Fair Codominant 12N Yes Save In Wetland 9025 Douglas-fir 19 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9026 Douglas-fir 22 Fair Codominant 18S Yes Remove 9027 Douglas-fir 23 Fair Codominant 18NW Yes Remove 9028 Alder 13 Fair Dominant 10 Yes Save In Wetland 9029 Douglas-fir 31 Good Codominant 22 Yes Remove 9030 Douglas-fir 15 Good Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9031 Western Redcedar 14, 19 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 9032 Douglas-fir 21 Fair Codominant 16NE Yes Remove 9033 Redcedar 23.5 Good Codominant 18E Yes Save In Wetland 9034 Douglas-fir 16 Fair Intermediate 14 Yes Save In Wetland 9035 Douglas-fir 15 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Remove 9036 Redcedar 11.5 Fair Intermediate 10 Yes Save In Wetland 9037 Redcedar 12 Fair Intermediate 10 Yes Save In Wetland 9038 Cherry 16 Dead Intermediate 12 Yes Save In Wetland 9039 Douglas-fir 26 Fair Codominant 20 No Remove In ROW 9040 Douglas-fir 32 Good Dominant 22 Yes Remove 9055 Douglas-fir 28 Fair Dominant 20 Yes Remove 9064 Douglas-fir 19 Good Dominant 14 Yes Remove 9069 Douglas-fir 30 Good Codominant 22S Yes Remove 9070 Western Redcedar 18, 16 Good Codominant 16E Yes Remove 9071 Yellow- cedar 16, 17 Good Codominant 16E Yes Remove 9074 Bigleaf Maple 7, 9 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9075 Bigleaf Maple 6 Poor Intermediate 6 No Remove Exposed Roots 9082 Western Redcedar 34 Good Codominant 20 Yes Remove 9083 Western Redcedar 22 Good Codominant 20 Yes Remove 9092 Cherry 9, 7, 6 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove Dieback 9094 Norway Spruce 20 Fair Codominant 16 No Remove In ROW, Ivy 9098 Bigleaf Maple 12, 17 Poor Intermediate 14 No Remove stem defect 9103 Grand Fir 19.5 Fair Codominant 15W Yes Remove 9104 Grand Fir 19 Fair Codominant 15S Yes Remove 9105 Douglas-fir 29 Good Codominant 26 Yes Remove 9106 Mountain- ash 13 Poor Dominant 11 No Remove in decline 9108 Mountain-8.5 Poor Codominant 7 No Remove in decline Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 20 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment ash 9109 Cherry 14 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9110 Hybrid Plane 22 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove Ivy 9111 Siberian Elm 25 Poor Dominant 18 No Remove Nuisance Species 9121 Alder 10, 12 Very Poor Codominant 12 No Remove In ROW, Dead Stem, Ivy, Decline 9122 Bigleaf Maple 12 Fair Intermediate 9 No Save In ROW 9123 Redcedar 14 Good Codominant 10 No Save In ROW 9127 Cherry 8 Dead Intermediate 8 No Remove 9131 Alder 12 Poor Codominant 10 No Save In ROW 9133 Alder 19 Poor Codominant 16 No Save In ROW 9137 Alder 11, 7 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9148 Arborvitae 6, 10 Fair Intermediate 6 Yes Remove 9149 Arborvitae 8, 4 Fair Codominant 6 Yes Remove 9150 Arborvitae 7, 7 Fair Codominant 6 Yes Remove 9152 Bigleaf Maple 40 Fair Dominant 30 Yes Remove 9175 Bigleaf Maple 12 Poor Codominant 11 No Remove Dieback, decline 9179 Douglas-fir 40 Good Dominant 28 Yes Remove 9180 Douglas-fir 27 Fair Codominant 20SE Yes Remove Codominant Stems 9181 Douglas-fir 19 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9182 Ponderosa Pine 35.5 Poor Codominant 26 No Remove 1 dead stem 9183 Douglas-fir 30 Good Codominant 20 Yes Remove 9185 Douglas-fir 30 Good Dominant 22 Yes Remove 9186 Western Redcedar 21 Good Codominant 14SW Yes Remove 9199 Douglas-fir 22 Good Codominant 18N Yes Remove 9200 Douglas-fir 30.5 Good Dominant 22N Yes Remove 9201 Western Redcedar 16 Fair Intermediate 12W Yes Remove 9204 Western Redcedar 20, 7, 22 Good Codominant 18 Yes Remove 9205 Western Redcedar 13, 20 Good Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9206 Western Redcedar 18 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9210 Douglas-fir 18.5 Fair Codominant 12N Yes Remove 9211 Douglas-fir 32 Fair Codominant 22N Yes Remove 9212 Douglas-fir 37 Fair Codominant 24E Yes Remove 9213 Norway Spruce 19 Good Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9214 Yellow-34.5 Good Codominant 22E Yes Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 21 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment cedar 9215 Western White Pine 23, 20 Fair Codominant 20W Yes Remove 9221 Alder 6 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9224 Alder 7 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9225 Alder 7 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9226 Alder 7 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9227 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 7 Yes Remove 9228 Alder 7 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove 9229 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9236 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove Will not Survive Grading 9237 Alder 7 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9238 Alder 6 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9239 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 9 Yes Remove Will not Survive Grading 9240 Alder 6 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9241 Alder 6 Fair Codominant 6 No Remove Not Significant 9242 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9243 Alder 4, 7 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9295 Alder 8, 8 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9297 Alder 8, 9 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9298 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9299 Alder 10 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9300 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9301 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9302 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9303 Alder 14 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9304 Alder 8, 9 Fair Codominant 20 Yes Remove 9305 Alder 12 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove 9306 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9307 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9308 Alder 10 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9309 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9311 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9312 Alder 10 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9313 Alder 10 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9314 Alder 13 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove 9315 Alder 8 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 22 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 9319 Western Redcedar 20 Good Intermediate 16S Yes Save 9321 Douglas-fir 17 Fair Codominant 14SW Yes Save 9339 Western Redcedar 26 Fair Codominant 18S Yes Save Off-Site 9347 Redcedar 34 Good Dominant 20S Yes Save In Wetland 9348 Alder 15 Good Codominant 10S Yes Save In Wetland 9354 Alder 8, 10 Poor Dominant 11 No Remove Dieback, decline 9355 Alder 10 Poor Codominant 9 No Remove Dieback, decline 9356 Alder 8 Poor Codominant 8 No Remove Dieback, decline 9357 Alder 12, 6 Poor Codominant 11 No Remove Dieback, decline 9360 Alder 6, 7 Poor Codominant 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9365 Bigleaf Maple 15, 18, 18 Fair Codominant 26 Yes Save Off-Site 9366 Bigleaf Maple 8 Fair Intermediate 8S Yes Remove 9367 Bigleaf Maple 18, 20 Poor Codominant 24 No Remove Dieback, decline 9368 Black Cottonwood 9 Fair Intermediate 8N Yes Remove 9369 Black Cottonwood 8 Fair Intermediate 7N Yes Save In Wetland 9370 Black Cottonwood 10 Poor Suppressed 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9371 Black Cottonwood 39 Poor Dominant 31 Yes Save In Wetland 9372 Black Cottonwood 13 Poor Intermediate 10S No Remove Leaning 9373 Black Cottonwood 15 Fair Intermediate 12 Yes Remove 9374 Black Cottonwood 8 Poor Suppressed 8 No Remove 9375 Cottonwood 6 Poor Suppressed 6 No Remove Not Significant 9380 Alder 16 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Save In Wetland 9383 Black Cottonwood 39 Fair Dominant 26 Yes Save In Wetland 9392 Alder 10 Very Poor Codominant 9 Yes Save In Wetland 9393 Alder 12 Very Poor Codominant 9 Yes Save In Wetland 9394 Alder 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9395 Alder 8 Poor Codominant 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9396 Alder 8 Poor Codominant 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9397 Alder 10, 10 Poor Codominant 12 Yes Save In Wetland 9401 Douglas-fir 27 Good Codominant 20 Yes Save In Wetland 9410 Bigleaf 46 Very Poor Dominant 32 Yes Save In Wetland Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 23 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment Maple 9412 Hawthorn 6 Fair Intermediate 6 Yes Save In Wetland 9414 Douglas-fir 22 Very Poor Codominant 18 Yes Save In Wetland 9419 Douglas-fir 28 Good Codominant 20S Yes Save In Wetland 9437 Alder 12 Fair Codominant 10S Yes Remove 9438 Alder 9 Poor Intermediate 9 No Remove in decline 9441 Alder 8 Very Poor Dominant 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9444 Alder 6 Poor Dominant 6 No Save Not Significant 9450 Bigleaf Maple 15, 18 Good Codominant 20W Yes Remove 9451 Bigleaf Maple 15 Fair Codominant 14E Yes Remove 9454 Bigleaf Maple 17 Fair Dominant 16 Yes Remove 9457 Alder 9 Poor Dominant 8 No Remove Sparse Foliage 9458 Bigleaf Maple 6, 10, 6, 6, 7 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9463 Bigleaf Maple 16, 10 Fair Dominant 16W Yes Save In Wetland 9482 Bigleaf Maple 14 Fair Codominant 16W Yes Save In Wetland 9489 Alder 12 Poor Codominant 10 Yes Save In Wetland 9490 Alder 11 Poor Codominant 9 Yes Save In Wetland 9493 Bigleaf Maple 19 Fair Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9494 Bigleaf Maple 9 Fair Intermediate 8 Yes Remove 9495 Douglas-fir 16 Fair Codominant 12 Yes Remove 9496 Bigleaf Maple 10 Fair Dominant 9 Yes Remove 9497 Bigleaf Maple 10, 112 Good Dominant 14 Yes Remove 9504 Bigleaf Maple 8 Fair Dominant 8 Yes Remove 9505 Bigleaf Maple 8 Fair Dominant 8 Yes Remove 9506 Bigleaf Maple 8 Fair Dominant 8 Yes Save In Wetland 9516 Bigleaf Maple 15 Fair Codominant 14E Yes Remove 9517 Douglas-fir 21 Good Codominant 16 Yes Remove 9518 Bigleaf Maple 10 Poor Suppressed 9 No Remove 9519 Bigleaf Maple 12 Poor Intermediate 11 No Remove Leaning 9523 Bigleaf Maple 16, 16 Fair Dominant 10 Yes Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 24 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 9561 Yellow- cedar 6, 5 Good Dominant 6 Yes Save Off-Site 9562 Bigleaf Maple 9, 10, 10, 12, 8 Fair Dominant 18N Yes Remove ivy 9566 Bigleaf Maple 12, 8, 10, 11, 12, 10, 11, 10 Fair Dominant 30 Yes Remove ivy 9576 Bigleaf Maple 12 Fair Codominant 10 Yes Remove 9582 Bigleaf Maple 14 Very Poor Codominant 12 Yes Save Off-Site 9587 Western Redcedar 9 Good Intermediate 8 Yes Remove 9588 Bigleaf Maple 16, 8, 7 Very Poor Codominant 17 No Remove Mostly Dead 9589 Douglas-fir 27 Fair Codominant 18 Yes Remove 9590 Douglas-fir 32 Good Codominant 24 Yes Remove 9591 Bigleaf Maple 12, 11, 13, 9, 7 Fair Codominant 20N Yes Remove Same Tree as #9592 - #9594 9595 Bigleaf Maple 12, 10, 7, 9, 10 Fair Codominant 16W Yes Remove Same Tree as #9596 9597 Bigleaf Maple 10, 9 Fair Codominant 12S Yes Remove Same Tree as #9598 9599 Western Redcedar 25 Good Codominant 18 Yes Remove 9600 Western Redcedar 25 Good Codominant 18 Yes Remove 9601 Bigleaf Maple 16 Poor Codominant 14 No Remove 9613 Bigleaf Maple 8, 7, 7, 6 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove 9614 Bigleaf Maple 9 Fair Codominant 8 Yes Remove 9615 Douglas-fir 20 Good Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9616 Bigleaf Maple 10 Poor Codominant 9 No Remove 9617 Bigleaf Maple 19 Fair Intermediate 16NE Yes Remove 9618 Bigleaf Maple 14, 16 Very Poor Codominant N/A No Remove 9623 Bigleaf Maple 16 Fair Codominant 14 Yes Remove 9624 Bigleaf Maple 8 Poor Suppressed 7 No Remove 9625 Bigleaf Maple 8, 9, 12,11, 11, 14 Poor Codominant 16 No Remove Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 25 Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Crown Position RPZ ft. Rad. Save Based on Condition Alone? Yes or No Project Plan. Save or Remove Comment 9626 Bigleaf Maple 14, 12 Poor Codominant 12 No Remove 9627 Bigleaf Maple 8,6,6,7,7 Poor Dominant 14 No Save Off-Site 9637 Bigleaf Maple 13, 14 Very Poor Codominant 14 No Remove 9639 Bigleaf Maple 9 Fair Intermediate 8 Yes Save 9640 Douglas-fir 38 Good Dominant 25 Yes Save 9651 Douglas-fir 39 Good Dominant 26 Yes Remove 9652 Bigleaf Maple 6, 9, 8, 7, 10, 8 Poor Intermediate N/A No Remove Dead stems, broken top Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 26 Attachment 4. Individual Tree Rating Key for Tree Condition RATING SYMBOL DEFINITION Very Good VG  Balanced crown that is characteristic of the species  Normal lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and soil type  Stem sound, normal bark vigor  No root problems  No insect or disease problems  Long-term, attractive tree Good G  Crown lacking symmetry but nearly balanced  Normal lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and soil type  Minor twig dieback O.K.  Stem sound, normal bark vigor  No root problems  No or minor insect or disease problems – insignificant  Long-term tree Fair F  Crown lacking symmetry due to branch loss  Slow lateral and terminal branch growth rates for the species and soil type  Minor and major twig dieback – starting to decline  Stem partly unsound, slow diameter growth and low bark vigor  Minor root problems  Minor insect or disease problems  Short-term tree 10-30 years RATING SYMBOL DEFINITION Poor P  Major branch loss – unsymmetrical crown  Greatly reduced growth  Several structurally import dead or branch scaffold branches  Stem has bark loss and significant decay with poor bark vigor  Root damage  Insect or disease problems – remedy required  Short-term tree 1-10 years Very Poor VP  Lacking adequate live crown for survival and growth  Severe decline  Minor and major twig dieback  Stem unsound, bark sloughing, previous stem or large branch failures, very poor bark vigor  Severe root problems or disease  No or minor insect or disease problems  Mortality expected within the next few years Dead DEAD  Dead Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 27 Cultural Care Needs: ABBRV. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CC Crown Cleaning Pruning of dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or defective branches over 1/2 inch in diameter –includes removal of dead tops CT Crown Thinning Pruning of branches described in crown cleaning, plus thinning of up to 20% of the live branches over ½ inch diameter. Branch should be 1/3 to ½ the diameter of the lateral branch. Thinning should be well distributed throughout crown of tree, and should release healthy, long-term branches. RC Crown Reduction Reduction of the crown of a tree by pruning to lateral branches. Generally used to remove declining branches or to lighten end weight on long branches. CR Crown Raising Pruning of lower branches to remove deadwood or to provide ground or building clearances. RMV Remove Remove tree due to decline or hazardous conditions that cannot be mitigated by pruning. RS Remove Sprouts Remove basal sprouts from stem of tree. Rep Replace Tree is small – is in decline or dead. Replace with suitable tree species. HT Hazard Tree Tree is hazardous and cannot be mitigated by pruning. Recommendation is to remove tree. None No Work No work necessary at this time. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 28 Attachment 5. Description of Tree Evaluation Methodology The evaluation of the tree condition on this site included the visual assessment of: 1. Live-crown ratio, 2. Lateral and terminal branch growth rates, 3. Presence of dieback in minor and major scaffold branches and twigs, 4. Foliage color, 5. Stem soundness and other structural defects, 6. Visual root collar examination, 7. Presence of insect or disease problems. 8. Windfirmness if tree removal will expose this tree to failure. In cases where signs of internal defect or disease were suspected, a core sample was taken to look for stain, decay, and diameter growth rates. Also, root collars were exposed to look for the presence of root disease. In all cases, the overall appearance of the tree was considered relative to its ability to add value to either an individual lot or the entire subdivision. Also, the scale of the tree and its proximity to both proposed and existing houses was considered. Lastly, the potential for incorporation into the project design is evaluated, as well as potential site plan modifications that may allow otherwise removed tree(s) to be both saved and protected in the development. Trees that are preserved in a development must be carefully selected to make sure that they can survive construction impacts, adapt to a new environment, and perform well in the landscape. Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, changes in soils moisture regimes, and soil compaction than are low vigor trees. Structural characteristics are also important in assessing suitability. Trees with significant decay and other structural defects that cannot be treated are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property could occur. Trees that have developed in a forest stand are adapted to the close, dense conditions found in such stands. When surrounding trees are removed during clearing and grading, the remaining trees are exposed to extremes in wind, temperature, solar radiation, which causes sunscald, and other influences. Young, vigorous trees with well-developed crowns are best able to adapt to these changing site conditions. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 29 Attachment 6. Glossary of Forestry and Arboricultural Terminology DBH: Diameter at Breast Height (measured 4.5 ft. above the ground line on the high side of the tree). Caliper: In Issaquah - Caliper is referring to diameter measurement at DBH. Live Crown Ratio: Ratio of live foliage on the stem of the tree. Example: A 100’ tall tree with 40 feet of live crown would have a 40% live crown ratio. Conifers with less than 30% live crown ratio are generally not considered to be long-term trees in forestry. Crown: Portion of a trees stem covered by live foliage. Crown Position: Position of the crown with respect to other trees in the stand. Dominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and from the sides. Codominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and some from the sides. Intermediate Crown Position: Receives little light from above and none from the sides. Trees tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios. Suppressed Crown Position: Receives no light from above and none from the sides. Trees tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios. Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 30 Attachment 7. Tree Protection Fence Detail 6 ft. Temporary Chain Link Fence NO TRESPASSING - Protected Trees Canopy – Tree Protection Plan Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Page 31 Attachment 8. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1) Any legal description provided to the Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership's 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, unless otherwise stated. 3) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information. 4) Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this 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 inva lidated 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 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 7) Neither all or any part of the contents of this 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 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. -- particularly as to value conclusions, identity of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., or any reference to any professional society or to any initialed designation conferred upon Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. as stated in its qualifications. 8) This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., and the fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specifie d value, a stipulated result, the occurrence neither of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding in to reported. 9) Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 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 ins pection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree or other plant or property in question may not arise in the future. Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual inspections by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Fore ster will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or f ail, or the timing of the failure. It is considered an ‘Act of God’ when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by man’s actions.