Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh.30_Arborist_Report.pdfPage 1 of 20 December 16, 2020 December 16, 2020 David Ratliff Vice President DevCo, LLC 10900 NE 8th St, Suite 1200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Site: 2806 NE Sunset Blvd Renton, WA 98056 TPN: 7227801205, 7227801206, 722781405, 7227801406, 722781235 429,643 sq. ft. = 9.8 acres Dear David: Thank you for requesting my services. On October 28, 2020, I performed a Visual Risk Assessment (VRA) for all the significant* trees growing on the site above, as well as the offsite and ROW trees with canopies that included coverage on the property. The information gathered and included in this report is a necessary part of the of the redevelopment process which requires that a Tree Retention Plan to be submitted as part of a proposed site development (RMC 4.8.120). In summary: Tree Density Calculations Total number of onsite trees 34 Total number of exempt trees 20 Total number of viable trees 14 Required number of retained trees (.1 X14) 1.4 Number of required replacement trees (.5 X 12") 6" Number of 2" caliper replacement trees (5"/2") 3 I have included a detailed report of my findings, if you have any questions please contact me. I can be reached on my cell phone: 425.890.3808 or by email: sprince202@aol.com. Warm regards, Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions ISA Certified Arborist #1481 TRAQ Certified Arborist #481 Landscape Designer 425.890.3808 *A “significant” tree is a tree with a caliper of at least 6” or an alder or cottonwood trees with a caliper of at least 8”. Trees planted within the most recent 10 years qualify as significant regardless of caliper. A “landmark” tree is a tree with a caliper of at least 30”. (RMC 4.11.200) Page 2 of 20 December 16, 2020 Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology: To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on my formal college education in botany and the preparation and training used to obtain my ISA certification. In addition to my education and certification, I relied heavily on my training to obtain my certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have been worked in arboriculture since 1995 and been an ISA Certified Arborist since 1999. I have been TRACE/TRAQ qualified since 2009. I followed protocol delineated by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Risk Assessment (VRA). By doing so, I am examining each tree independently as well as collectively as groups or stands of trees provide stability and can lower risk of independent tree failure. This scientific process examines tree health (e.g. size, vigor, and insect and disease process) as well as site conditions (soil moisture and composition, quantity of impervious surfaces surrounding the tree etc.) Introduction: Identifying and managing the risks associated with trees is still largely a subjective process. Since the exact nature of tree failures remains largely unknown, our ability as scientists and arborists to predict which trees will fail and in what fashion remains limited. As currently practiced, the science of hazard tree evaluation involves examining a tree for structural defects, including genetic problems, those caused by the local environmental that the tree grows in and those attributed to man (pruning etc.). The assessment process involves evaluating three components: 1) a tree with the potential to fail, 2) an environment that may contribute to that failure, and 3) a person or object that would be injured or damaged (the target). A defective tree cannot be considered hazardous without the presence of a target. All trees have a finite life-span though it is not pre-programmed internally in the same manner as annual plantings. As trees age, they are less able to compartmentalize structural damage following injury from insects, disease or pruning. Trees in urban settings have a shorter life span than trees grown in an undisturbed habitat. Each species of trees grows differently. Evergreen trees have a “reputation” of growing slowly and defensively. These trees allocate a high proportion of their resources to defending themselves from pathogens, parasites and wounds. As a rule, trees with this type of growth tend to be long lived. Though like all other living things, they have a predictable life span. Examples of this type of tree include the northwest Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir, and Thuja plicata - Western red cedar. Deciduous trees are trees that annually shed leaves or needles. These trees tend to grow quickly and try to “outgrow” problems associated with insects, disease and wounds. They allocate a relatively small portion of their internal resources to defense and rely instead upon an ability to grow more quickly than the pathogens which infect them. However, as these trees age, their growth rate declines and the normal problems associated with decay begins to catch up and compromise the tree’s structural integrity. Examples of this type of tree include Salix, Populus and Alnus. Knowledge of the growth and failure patterns of individual tree species is critical to effective hazard analysis. Species vary widely in their rates of failure. The hazard tree evaluation rating system used by most arborists was developed by the Colorado Urban Forest Council and recognizes this variation in species failure and includes a species component as part of the overall hazard evaluation. Page 3 of 20 December 16, 2020 Method’s used to determine tree location and tree health: Trees were identified previously by numbered aluminum tags attached to the western side of the tree. All the trees on site were examined using the Matheny and Clark1 criteria for determining the potential hazard of trees in an urban environment as well as the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and The Urban/Rural Interface by Julian Dunster2. Tree diameters were measured using a logger’s tape, and tree driplines were measured in four directions if necessary by a Nikon Forestry PRO Laser RangefinderTM. ABBREVIATED LEGEND- SEE REPORT FOR GREATER DETAIL #1 Numerical ordering #2 Tree tag #: numbered aluminum tags attached to the trees in the field #3 Tree species ID: common and botanical names • Apple: Malus sp. • American sycamore: Plantanus occidentalis • Austrian pine: Pinus nigra • Bigleaf maple: Acer macrophyllum • Birch: Betula nigra • Bitter Cherry: Prunus emarginata • Blue atlas cedar: Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’ • Cedar: Thuja plicata • Cherry: Prunus sp. • Dawn redwood: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis • Deodora cedar: Cedrus deodara • Colorado blue spruce: Picea pungens • Cottonwood: Populus trichocarpa • Dogwood: Cornus nuttallii • Douglas fir: Pseudotsuga menziesii • English laurel: Prunus laurocerasus • Filbert: Corylus avellana var. • Grand fir: Abies grandis • Hemlock: Tsuga hetrophylla • Holly: Ilex aquifolium • Japanese maple: Acer palmatum • Leylandii cypress: Cupressocyparis leylandii • Lodgepole pine: Pinus contorta • Mountain ash: Sorbus americana • Mountain hemlock: Tsuga mertensiana • Pear: Pyrus sp. • Plum: Prunus • Red Alder: Alnus rubra • Red maple: Acer rubrum • Walnut: Juglans sp. • Western red cedar: Thuja plicata • Weeping Alaska cedar: Metasequoia glyptostrobides • White pine: Pinus strobus #4 DBH: diameter of the tree measured in inches at 4’ above grade #5 Adj. DBH: multiple trunk tree DBH in inches calculated per municipality directives #6 Dripline Radius: measurement in feet of the tree canopy from tree trunk to outermost branch tip via laser rangefinder #7 Windfirm: whether the tree is not protected by other structures of trees remains windfirm #8 Health: a measurement of overall tree vigor and vitality rated as excellent, good, OK, fair or poor based on an assessment of crown density, leaf color and size, active callusing, shoot growth rate, extent of crown dieback, cambium layer health, and tree age • Excellent: Tree is an ideal specimen for the species with no obvious flaws • Good: Tree has minimal structural or situational defects • OK: Minimal structural issues with poor • Fair: Tree has structural or health issues that predispose it to failure if further stressed but can be retained in a grove of 3 or more trees • Poor: Tree has significant structural and/or health issues. It is exempt from total tree count. #9 Defects/Concerns: a measure of the tree’s structural stability and failure potential based on assessment of specific structural features, e.g., decay, conks, co-dominant trunks, included bark, abnormal lean, one-sided canopy, history of failure, prior construction impact, pruning history, etc. #10 Proposed actions: • Retain • Impacted • Remove due to viability • Remove due to planned development (tree is otherwise healthy) Page 4 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 #11 Limits of disturbance/Tree protection zone: the area surrounding the tree that defines the area that surrounds the trunk that cannot be encroached upon during construction. This may be a multiple of the trunk diameter (1 -1.5 times the trunk diameter converted to feet) or it may be related to the width of the canopy. It is always determined by tree species and environment and is up to the discretion of the ISA Certified Arborist to determine #12 Measure of tree “value” may be determined by municipality formula or a direct measure of the trunk diameter, or a numerical count to determine significance; for the city of Newcastle significant trees are counted numerically and incentives may be included that add more weight to retained trees, these include additional consideration for height or retention in 5+ tree groves. Page 5 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 Specific Tree Observations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value Healthy Tree Credits Retained value Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Retain Non- viable Remove N W E S 1 827 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 2 828 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 3 829 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 4 830 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 5 831 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 Page 6 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value Healthy Tree Credits Retained value Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Retain Non- viable Remove N W E S 6 832 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 7 833 Common hawthorn 6 6 6 Fair Poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, dead twigs, decay throughout, moss and lichen 1 6 6 6 6 1 8 834 Spruce 11 11 6 OK Root crown gall, typical of species 1 6 6 6 6 1 1 9 835 London Plane 14 14 16 OK Typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 1 1 10 837 London Plane 8 8 12 Fair Poor pruning with decay @ 5' towards east, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 1 11 839 London Plane 6 6 16 OK Typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 1 1 12 840 Western red cedar 4, 2, 2, 4 6.5 6 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ root crown, typical of species, flagging, coning 1 6 6 6 6 1 13 841 London Plane 8 8 18 OK Typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 1 1 14 843 London Plane 6 6 16 Y Fair Typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 1 1 Page 7 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value Healthy Tree Credits Retained value Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Retain Non- viable Remove N W E S 15 844 Western red cedar 5, 4 6.5 4 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, flagging 1 4 4 4 4 1 16 845 Western red cedar 4, 4 5.5 4 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, flagging 1 4 4 4 4 1 17 846 Western red cedar 4, 4 5.5 4 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 reduced to 2 @ root crown, thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, flagging 1 4 4 4 4 1 18 847 London Plane 6 6 10 Fair Poor pruning with decay, cavity @ 9' west, typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 1 19 849 London Plane 9 9 16 OK Typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 1 1 20 850 Western red cedar 4, 3 5 4 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, flagging 1 4 4 4 4 1 Page 8 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value Healthy Tree Credits Retained value Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Retain Non- viable Remove N W E S 21 851 Western red cedar 7, 2 7.5 5 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, trunks twisted, thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, flagging 1 5 5 5 5 1 22 852 London Plane 10 10 16 OK Typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 1 1 23 853 London Plane 16 16 22 OK Typical of species 1 22 22 22 22 1 1 24 854 London Plane 16 16 22 OK Typical of species 1 22 22 22 22 1 1 25 855 London Plane 27 27 25 OK Typical of species 1 25 25 25 25 1 1 26 856 Gray Poplar 12, 20 23.5 6 Fair Ivy @ root crown up to 35', co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, roots breaking concrete typical of species 1 6 6 6 6 1 27 857 Gray Poplar 12 12 6 Fair Suppressed canopy, roots lifting asphalt, ivy from root crown to 60' 1 6 6 6 6 1 28 858 Gray Poplar 14 14 12 Fair Girdled by wire fence, previous top loss, roots lifting concrete 1 12 12 12 12 1 29 859 Douglas fir 9 9 14 Fair Girdled by wire fence, previous top loss, roots lifting concrete 1 14 14 14 14 1 Page 9 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Value Healthy Tree Credits Retained value Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Retain Non- viable Remove N W E S 30 865 Ornamental pear 6 6 8 OK Typical of species 1 8 8 8 8 1 1 31 866 Ornamental pear 6 6 8 OK Typical of species 1 8 8 8 8 1 1 32 867 Ornamental pear 6 6 8 OK Typical of species 1 8 8 8 8 1 1 33 868 Ornamental pear 6 6 8 OK Typical of species 1 8 8 8 8 1 1 34 869 Japanese maple 6 6 9 OK Typical of species 1 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 19 14 34 15 1 Offsite potentially impacted trees: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 1 801 Western red cedar 20 20 14 Y Fair Thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs 1 14 14 14 14 Page 10 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 2 802 Western red cedar 16, 14 21.5 14 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 3 804 Western red cedar 9, 13 16 12 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 4', thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs 1 12 12 12 12 4 804 Western red cedar 12, 12 17 12 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs 1 12 12 12 12 5 805 Western red cedar 10, 5 11 12 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, dying 1 12 12 12 12 6 806 Western red cedar 12 12 12 Poor Thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, dying 1 12 12 12 12 7 807 Western red cedar 7, 7, 8, 6 14 12 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 3', thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs, dying 1 12 12 12 12 Page 11 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 8 808 Western red cedar 12 12 12 Poor Dead wood, dead twigs, thin canopy, dying 1 12 12 12 12 9 809 Western red cedar 8, 7, 9 14 18 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 3', dead wood, dead twigs, dying 1 18 18 18 18 10 810 Western red cedar 11 11 18 Poor Dying, dead wood, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 11 811 Western red cedar 13, 10, 10 19 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown, dead wood, dead twigs, asymmetric canopy towards south 1 18 18 18 18 12 812 Western red cedar 18 18 18 Y Fair Typical of species, dead wood, broken branches, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 13 813 Western red cedar 13, 12 17.5 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 4', dead twigs, thin canopy, dead wood 1 18 18 18 18 14 814 Western red cedar 14 14 18 Y Fair Dead wood, thin canopy, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 Page 12 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 15 815 Western red cedar 13, 15 20 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', typical of species, dead wood, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 16 816 Western red cedar 13, 12 17.5 18 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 2', typical of species, dead wood, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 17 817 Western red cedar 10, 15, 8 19.5 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 3', dead wood, dead twigs, flagging 1 18 18 18 18 18 818 Western red cedar 16, 8 18 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 4', thin canopy, dead wood, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 19 819 Western red cedar 13, 14 19 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 2', typical of species, thin canopy, cavity @ root crown up to 4' towards north 1 18 18 18 18 20 820 Western red cedar 14, 10 17 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', thin canopy 1 18 18 18 18 Page 13 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line radius feet Wind- firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Ret. Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 21 821 Western red cedar 10, 16 19 18 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 2', typical of species, thin canopy 1 18 18 18 18 22 822 Western red cedar 13, 13, 13 22.5 18 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 2', thin canopy, typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 23 823 Western red cedar 21, 14 25 18 Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 2', some free flowing sap, typical of species, "planted in 4' strip" 1 18 18 18 18 24 824 Western red cedar 23 23 18 OK Thin canopy, moss and lichen, typical of species, planted in 8' 1 18 18 18 18 25 825 Western red cedar 21 21 18 Y Fair Thin canopy, co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 10', strong leaders 1 18 18 18 18 26 826 Western red cedar 19 19 18 Y Fair Typical of species, thin canopy, "planted in an 8' bed" 1 18 18 18 18 0 21 5 Page 14 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 Locations of trees: Page 15 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 Proposed Site Improvements: Discussion and Conclusion: Tree Density Calculations Total number of onsite trees 34 Total number of exempt trees 20 Total number of viable trees 14 Required number of retained trees (.1 X14) 1.4 Number of required replacement trees (.5 X 12") 6" Number of 2" caliper replacement trees (5"/2") 3 The site shown above is currently referred to as the “Greater Hiland Shopping Center.” There is a total of 31 onsite trees, 18 are non-viable and 13 are suitable for retention. The proposed site improvement requires that the thirteen trees be removed. The east side of the property has a line of right of way (ROW) trees growing in a narrow easement of soil. In some areas the planting easement if 8’ wide, in other areas the planting area is reduced to 4’. It appears that the reduction of the planting area may have been completed after the trees were established because the trees growing in the narrow easement are in significantly worse condition. All the ROW trees are proposed to be removed and replaced. The proposed improvements allow for the retention of one (1) tree, a 6” DBH Japanese maple in average condition located on the north side of the property. Tree Protection should be located at the edge of the dripline, 9’ from the trunk. Mitigation: The required mitigation for the removal of viable onsite trees is .1 * 14 = 1.4”. The minimum caliper tree acceptable per the RMC is a 2” caliper, eight (8) 2” caliper trees meets the requirement. Page 16 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 Page 17 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 Glossary: ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage 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 Crown raise pruning: a pruning technique where the lower branches are removed, thus raising the overall height of the crown from the ground 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 Epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds Evergreen: tree or plant that keeps its needles or leaves year-round; this means for more than one growing season Increment: the amount of new wood fiber added to a tree in each period, normally one year. 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. Limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA 2013) Live crown ratio: the percentage of living tissue in the canopy versus the tree’s height. It is a good indicator of overall tree health and the trees growing conditions. Trees with less than a 30% Crown ratio often lack the necessary quantity of photosynthetic material necessary to sustain the roots; consequently, the tree may exhibit low vigor and poor health. Monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority that regulates tree management Pathogen: causal agent of disease Phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant ROW: Right-of-way; generally referring to a tree that is located offsite on a city easement Page 18 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 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 Self-corrected lean: a tree whose trunk is at an angle to the grade but whose trunk and canopy changes to become upright/vertical 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 Snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife Soil structure: the size of particles and their arrangement; considers the soil, water, and air space Sounding: process of striking a tree with a mallet or other appropriate tool and listening for tones that indicate dead bark, a thin layer of wood outside a cavity, or cracks in wood 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 Trunk area: the cross-sectional area of the trunk based upon measurement at 54 inches (4.5 ft.) above grade 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) Page 19 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 References 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. Page 20 of 20 December 16, 2020 Susan Prince Crea�ve Landscape Solu�ons 425.890.3808 ISA Cer�fied Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Cer�fied #481 Assumptions and 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 thou 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. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of 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.