Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Arborist_Report_Harbour Homes_180601_v2Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 1 July 17, 2016 Jamie Waltier Chris Burrus Harbour Homes 1441 N. 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Site: 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE Renton, Ave TPN: 0923059117 & 0923059116 Square feet: 107,157 Dear Jamie: Thank you for requesting my services. On April 26th, 2016, I visited the site located above in Renton, WA to perform a Visual Risk Assessment (VRA) for all significant trees onsite as well as, those offsite trees with driplines that might extend over the site. The information gathered is included in this report and is a necessary part to be included with the proposal to short plat. In summary: Tree Calculations Total number of trees 57 Trees Total number of exempt trees (ROW + Non-viable) 32 Trees Total number of viable trees 25 Trees Total number of trees removed for construction 16 Trees Total number of retained trees 9 Trees Required 30% retention 25 X 30%= 7.5 Trees I have included a detailed report of my findings. If you have any questions please call 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: PN #1418A TRACE Certified Arborist: #418 17518 NE 119th Way Redmond, WA 98052 * Per city of Renton Municipal Code, a significant tree is one whose Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) is 6” or greater Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 2 Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology My examination was limited to a visual one, and did not involve any root excavation, trunk or limb coring, or any soil testing. To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on my formal college education in botany, preparation and training used to obtain my ISA certification in addition to my certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have been an ISA Certified Arborist for over fifteen years and have been TRACE/TRAQ certified for four years. 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, insect and disease process) as well as site conditions (soil moisture and composition, amount 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). By definition 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. Different species of trees grow 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 fairly 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 have a tendency 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. Site Observations: The site is located South of NE 10th Street immediately off Monroe Ave NE 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 of 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 at DSH (diameter standard height – 4.5’ above ground) using a logger’s tape. Tree driplines were measured using a PRO Laser RangefinderTM. Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 3 Spreadsheet Legend: 1. Tree tag #: Numbered aluminum tags attached to the trees in the field*1 2. Species: The Latin and common name five a tree 3. Species: Species ID: Spreadsheet contains common names of trees which correspond to scientific names as follows:  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  Nobel fir: Abies procera  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 fir: Abies concolor  White pine: Pinus strobus 4. DBH: Diameter of the tree measured at 42” above grade 5. Adjusted Diameter of the tree: Calculated equivalent for multi-stemmed tree 6. Dripline Radius: Measurement in feet of the tree canopy from tree trunk to outermost branch tip 7. Health: A measurement of overall tree vigor and vitality rated as excellent, good, and 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: Tree has minimal structural defects AND minimal environmental concerns  Fair: Tree has structural or health issues that predispose it to failure if further stressed  Poor: Tree has significant structural and/or health issues. It is exempt from total tree count. 8. Defects/Concerns: A measure of the tree’s structural stability and failure potential and rated as good, fair or poor based on assessment of specific structural features, eg., decay, conks, co- dominant trunks, included bark, abnormal lean, one-sided canopy, history of failure, prior construction impact, pruning history, etc.. 9. Proposed action:  Retain  Remove due to viability  Remove due to planned development (tree is otherwise healthy) 10. Limits of disturbance: 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 11. Value: The value the municipality assigns a tree with the specific DBH, species or location of the assessed tree Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 4 Specific Tree Observations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 1 913 Cherry 9, 6, 5, 6 13.5 7 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 3', typical of species, column of decay, cavity @ root crown to 3' on north 1 7 7 7 7 2 914 Madrona 12 12 19 OK Typical of species, column of decay 4' to 10' on west, dead wood, leaf blight, typical of species, non self-corrected lean to west 1 19 19 19 19 3 915 Douglas fir 17 17 10 Good Typical of species, dead wood, dead twigs, moss and lichen, crack @ 3' on east 1 10 10 10 10 4 916 Douglas fir 38.5 38.5 25 OK Elongated branches, previous top loss, red ring rot, abnormal bark, shedding bark, carpenter ants, dead wood, exposed roots, huge wound @ 6' to 14' on west, epicormic branch formation 1 25 25 25 25 5 917 Bigleaf maple 9 9 10 Poor Dead spur @ root crown, typical of species, column of decay @ 2' to 10' on east, column of decay @ 15' to 18' on east 1 10 10 10 10 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 6 918 Douglas fir 13 13 8 Fair Previous top loss, suppressed canopy, no taper, slight self- corrected lean to south 1 8 8 8 8 7 919 Cottonwood 21 21 15 Fair Exposed roots, typical of species, serpentine trunk, dead wood, broken branches, moss and lichen, cavity @ root crown to 2' on south, girdled root 1 15 15 15 15 8 920 Douglas fir 14, 9 16.5 13 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 1', asymmetric canopy to east & west, OK in grove 1 13 13 13 13 9 921 Douglas fir 11 11 12 Fair Suppressed canopy, co- dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 30', dead wood, broken branches, thin canopy, OK in grove 1 12 12 12 12 10 922 Bigleaf maple 10 10 10 OK Exposed roots, typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 11 923 Douglas fir 17 17 15 Good Typical of species 1 15 15 15 15 12 924 Bigleaf maple 11, 8, 6 15 15 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 2', 1 dead, cavity on south @ root crown to 7', dead wood, broken branches, low live crown ratio, hanger, typical of species, OK in grove 1 15 15 15 15 13 925 Filbert 10 10 15 Fair Failing to north, typical of species 1 15 15 15 15 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 14 926 Douglas fir 15 15 10 OK Broken branches, dead twigs, some sap, moss and lichen, low live crown ratio - 20%, OK in grove, free flowing sap, crack @ 6' 1 10 10 10 10 15 927 Bigleaf maple 8 8 12 OK Suppressed canopy, low live crown ratio - 15%, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 16 928 Bigleaf maple 9 9 12 OK Suppressed canopy, low live crown ratio - 15%, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 17 929 Douglas fir 15 15 15 Fair Ivy to 15', elongated branches, asymmetric canopy to south, dead twigs, previous top loss, OK in grove 1 15 15 15 15 18 930 Cottonwood 40 40 22 Fair Typical of species, 1 leader failing to north, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 6', carpenter ants, decay @ root crown to 6' on west with carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, fallen onto Douglas fir #929 1 22 22 22 22 19 931 Bigleaf maple 37 37 20 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x5 @ 6', exposed roots, dead wood, dead scaffold, typical of species 1 20 20 20 20 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 20 934 Cottonwood 22 22 22 OK Exposed roots to south, decay on east @ root crown, typical of species 1 22 22 22 22 21 935 Cottonwood 10 10 14 OK Typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 22 936 Cottonwood 30 30 15 OK Typical of species, trunk growing to tree @ 1', co- dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 15', dead spur @ 15' 1 15 15 15 15 23 937 Cottonwood 40 40 20 Fair Spur @ 3' on east, column of decay @ root crown to 9' on east, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, typical of species, previous top loss 1 20 20 20 20 24 943 Cottonwood 18 18 8 Good Self-corrected lean, serpentine trunk, asymmetric canopy to north, typical of species 1 8 8 8 8 25 944 Cottonwood 20 20 10 Good Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 26 945 Douglas fir 36 36 12 Fair Bulge @ 4' on south, free flowing sap, vertical crack on west, decay, carpenter ants, abnormal bark, popping bark, hanger 1 12 12 12 12 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 27 946 Douglas fir 19 19 12 Fair Free flowing sap, vertical crack on south @ 6', dead wood, broken branches, through and through crack, previous top loss, branch dieback 1 12 12 12 12 28 947 Douglas fir 11 11 11 OK Poor pruning with decay, suppressed canopy, free flowing sap, previous top loss, dead wood, OK I grove 1 11 11 11 11 29 948 Douglas fir 14 14 6 OK Broken branches, dead twigs, low live crown ratio - 15%, asymmetric canopy to west, previous top loss, dead wood, healed wound @ 1' to 3' on south, carpenter ants bark only, OK in grove 1 6 6 6 6 30 949 Douglas fir 37 37 11 Fair/OK Abnormal bark, shedding bark, asymmetric canopy to west, previous top loss, dead wood, dead twigs, broken branches, column of decay on west @ root crown to 9', OK in grove 1 11 11 11 11 31 950 Douglas fir 9 9 6 Fair Abnormal bark, shedding bark, popping bark, previous top loss, asymmetric canopy to south, bulge @ 3' 1 6 6 6 6 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 32 951 Douglas fir 9 9 4 Fair Previous top loss, low live crown ratio - 10%, dead wood, broken branches, stress blisters, healed wound @ 9' on north, OK in grove 1 4 4 4 4 33 952 Douglas fir 19, 12 22.5 8 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, previous top loss, low live crown ratio - 15%, asymmetric canopy to west & east, free flowing sap, carpenter ants bark only, OK in grove 1 8 8 8 8 34 953 Douglas fir 34 34 16 Fair/OK Free flowing sap, typical of species, poor pruning with decay, asymmetric canopy to east, crack on west @ 9', ivy to 6', carpenter ants 1 16 16 16 16 35 954 Douglas fir 24 24 13 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 reduced to 1 @ 7', large column of decay to west, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, asymmetric canopy to south, some stress coning, OK in grove 1 13 13 13 13 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 36 955 Douglas fir 36 36 9 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 9', woodpecker activity, carpenter ants, abnormal bark, shedding bark, typical of species, OK in grove 1 9 9 9 9 37 956 Douglas fir 27 27 11 Fair Dead wood, broken branches, thin canopy, declining, previous top loss, dead twigs 1 11 11 11 11 38 958 Douglas fir 33 33 8 OK Typical of species, broken branches, dead wood, crack @ 9' on east, free flowing sap 1 8 8 8 8 39 959 Douglas fir 14 14 7 Fair Non self-corrected lean to north, vertical cracks, low live crown ratio - 20%, suppressed canopy, dead wood, healed wound @ 3' on south 1 7 7 7 7 40 960 Douglas fir 29 29 12 OK Typical of species, epicormic branch formation @ 18', carpenter ants, abnormal bark, shedding bark 1 12 12 12 12 41 961 Douglas fir 28 28 10 OK Limbed for power lines on west, typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 42 962 Douglas fir 23 23 9 OK Broken branches, dead twigs, abnormal bark, shedding bark, carpenter ants, typical of species, previous top loss, Ok in grove 1 9 9 9 9 43 963 Holly 7, 5 8.5 6 OK Typical of species, co- dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown 1 6 6 6 6 44 965 Cherry 8 8 12 OK Typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 45 966 Douglas fir 33 33 12 OK Typical of species, previous top loss, dead wood, dead twigs 1 12 12 12 12 46 967 Douglas fir 25 25 10 Fair Typical of species, dead wood, broken branches, abnormal bark, popping bark, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, horizontal crack @ 6' on east 1 10 10 10 10 47 968 Douglas fir 34 34 13 Fair Shedding bark, carpenter ants, exposed roots, abnormal bark, broken branches, sap, blisters, wound @ 15' on north, woodpecker activity, elongated branches 1 13 13 13 13 48 969 Beech 9, 9 12.5 9 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, topped multi times @ 2', weak laterals, 2 pictures 1 9 9 9 9 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip- line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Retain Non- viable Exempt Removed N W E S 49 970 Apple 16 16 12 Poor Decay throughout, sapsucker, ants, poor pruning with decay 1 12 12 12 12 50 975 Italian plum? 28, 32 42.5 11 Fair 1 picture, co-dominant leaders with included bark x5 @ 6', dead wood, typical of species, vertical crack on east, twisted trunk 1 11 11 11 11 51 976 Cottonwood 21 21 11 OK Self-corrected lean to west, typical of species 1 11 11 11 11 52 977 Cottonwood 21 21 14 Poor One side failed, co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown reduced to 2, large lateral branch @ 12' with decay 1 14 14 14 14 53 978 Ornamental plum 7, 4 8 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 2', typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 54 979 Beech 35 35 14 Poor Multi failures, co-dominant leaders with included bark x6 @ 6' 1 14 14 14 14 55 980 Cottonwood 15 15 8 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 reduced to 1, failing on north 1 8 8 8 8 56 981 Bigleaf maple 9 9 9 Ok Typical of species 1 9 9 9 9 57 983 Maple 13 13 15 OK Ivy to 25', "heavy", OK if ivy removed 1 15 15 15 15 57 9 17 15 16 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 13 Offsite Potentially Impacted trees: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 1 901 Dogwood 11, 7, 6, 9, 7, 9 20.5 24 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x6 @ root crown reduced to 2, scaffolds dead, shedding bark, abnormal bark, decay, carpenter ants, topped for power lines, moss and lichen, typical of species 1 24 24 24 24 2 902 Western red cedar 10 10 14 Good Typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 3 903 Douglas fir 13 13 14 OK Previous top loss, tip dieback, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 4 904 Western red cedar 9, 9 12.5 14 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 5 905 Holly 8 8 6 OK Poor pruning with decay, typical of species 1 6 6 6 6 6 906 Bigleaf maple 8, 10, 7 14.5 18 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 3', typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 7 907 Douglas fir 17 17 14 OK Vertical crack on east @ 22', moss and lichen, dead wood, dead twigs 1 14 14 14 14 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 8 908 Western red cedar 13 13 10 OK Topped, decay in one leader, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, co- dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 18' 1 10 10 10 10 9 909 Western red cedar 12 12 9 Good Previous top loss, typical of species 1 9 9 9 9 10 910 Douglas fir 16 16 12 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 20' reduced to 1, low live crown ratio, free flowing sap, dead wood, dead twigs, horizontal crack @ 6' 1 12 12 12 12 11 911 Douglas fir 13 13 8 Fair Broken branches, dead twigs, suppressed canopy, low live crown ratio - 20%, dead wood, previous top loss, wound @ 1' on north 1 8 8 8 8 12 912 Douglas fir 17 17 10 OK Typical of species, dead wood, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 reduced to 1 @ 18', hanger, wound healed @ root crown on north 1 10 10 10 10 13 932 Western red cedar 58 58 13 Good Typical of species, woodpecker activity, carpenter ants 1 13 13 13 13 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 14 933 Spruce 11 11 1' over fence OK Asymmetric canopy to south, dead wood, dead twigs, lean to south, non-self-corrected lean 1 1 1 1 1 15 938 Douglas fir 38 38 16 Good Typical of species, wound @ 6' to 8' on south 1 16 16 16 16 16 939 Filbert 13 13 12 Fair Failing to west, typical of species, OK in grove, fence line @ 2' on east 1 12 12 12 12 17 940 Beech 8, 9, 10 15.5 12 Poor Cavity on west, co- dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown 1 12 12 12 12 18 941 Black locust 28 28 18 Good Typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 19 942 Douglas fir 10 10 7 OK Poor pruning with decay, previous top loss, dead wood, broken branches, typical of species 1 7 7 7 7 20 957 Madrona 18 18 6 Excellent Typical of species (Within Existing ROW) 1 6 6 6 6 21 964 Douglas fir 30 30 12 OK Crack @ 9' on south, free flowing sap, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 22 971 Norway maple 14 14 14 OK Asymmetric canopy to west, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line Radius feet Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 23 972 Japanese maple 14, 14 20 7 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 5', multi toppings @ 7' to 12' 1 7 7 7 7 24 973 Norway maple 20 20 15 OK Poor pruning with decay, cavity on east @ 12', typical of species 1 15 15 15 15 25 974 Norway maple 24 24 16 OK Self-corrected lean to east, poor pruning with decay, dead wood, broken branches 1 16 16 16 16 26 982 Bigleaf maple 12, 14 18.5 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 4', ivy to 25', dead wood, broken branches 1 12 12 12 12 27 984 Western red cedar 28 28 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 6', typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 28 985 Western red cedar 18, 12 21.5 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 2', typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 29 986 Western red cedar 22 22 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 7', typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 30 987 Western red cedar 12, 16 20 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 6', typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 17 Site map (See also architect or civil plans): Discussion/Calculations/Conclusion: This two parcel site has two homes that appear to be circa 1940’s and several sheds and out- buildings. A grove of older Douglas fir trees is growing on the northwest portion of the lots. The healthiest of these trees will be retained as a grove and is identified as “TRACT A” on the tree preservation plan. The southwestern part of the grove will be removed to allow for site access by a public street. Based on the relative youth of the pioneer species of trees (Red alders and Cottonwood’s) that now inhabit the eastern side of the sites, it appears that this area was cleared of trees except for a small orchard of fruit trees; these trees are proposed to be removed for eventual building sites. Tree Calculations Total number of trees 57 Trees Total number of exempt trees (ROW + Non-viable) 32 Trees Total number of viable trees 25 Trees Total number of trees removed for construction 16 Trees Total number of retained trees 9 Trees Required 30% retention 25 X 30%= 7.5 Trees Currently, there on a total of 57 onsite trees. There are seventeen (17) non-viable trees and fifteen (15) exempt trees. Of the twenty five (25) viable trees remaining in the tree count, sixteen (16) are proposed to be removed for overall site improvements. Nine (9) trees are proposed for retention, located in two areas. The first is a grove located on the northwest portion of the sites and referred to as “TRACT A,” and contains eight trees. Also located in this tract, though not healthy enough to be counted as retained is tree #959, a Douglas fir failing to the north. It is recommended that the tree be retained in the grove, though cut to habitat height. Tree number 978 will be retained on the east side of the property with a connecting canopy to offsite trees. Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 18 Renton municipal code requires a tree density for properties zoned as R-8 of 2 trees/5000 square feet. If the site doesn’t contain that number of trees, they are required to be mitigated. The two lots are a total of 107,969 square feet; 107,969/5000 = 22 X 2 (the number of required retained trees) = 44. The site is required to contain a minimum total number of forty-four (44) trees. Proposed improvements retain nine (9) trees, therefore 44 –9= 35. Thirty-five (35) trees with a minimum caliper of two (2”) trees need to be replanted; or the equivalent number of caliper inches can be replanted 32 trees X 2” = 64 equivalent inches. The species and location of the replacement trees are shown on the Landscape Plans. Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 19 Tree Protection Fencing: Tree Protection fencing should be erected prior to any site grading First, protect roots that lie in the path of construction. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of a tree's root system is in the top three feet of soil, and more than half is in the top one foot. Construction activities should be avoided in this area. Protect as much of the area beyond the tree's dripline as possible. Some healthy trees survive after losing half of their roots. However, other species are extremely sensitive to root damage even outside the dripline. Do not disturb the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). The CRZ is defined by its "critical root radius." It is more accurate than the dripline for determining the CRZ of trees growing in forests or that have narrow growth habits. To calculate critical root radius, measure the tree's diameter (DBH) in inches, 4.5 feet above the ground. For each inch, allow for 1 to 1.5 feet of critical root radius. If a tree's DBH is ten inches, its critical root radius is 10 to 15 feet. In addition to the CRZ, it is important to determine the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) for preserved trees. Generally this is approximates the CRZ however in previously excavated areas around the dripline the LOD may be smaller, or in the case of a tree situated on a slope the LOD may be larger. The determination of LOD is also subject to the particular tree species. Some tree species do better than others after root disturbance. Tree protection is advised throughout the duration of any construction activities whenever the critical root zone or leaf canopy many be encroached upon by such activities. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) or LOD should be protected with fencing adequate to hinder access to people vehicles and equipment. Fencing detail is provided. It should consist of continuous 4 ft. high temporary chain-link fencing with posts sec at 10’ on center or polyethylene laminar safety fencing or similar. The fencing must contain fencing signage detailing that the tree protection area cannot be trespassed on. Soil compaction is one of the most common killers of urban trees. Stockpiled materials, heavy machinery and excessive foot traffic damage soil structure and reduce soil pore space. The effected tree roots suffocate. When construction takes place close to the protected CRZ, cover the site with 4 inches of bark to reduce soil compaction Tree Protection fencing must be erected prior to soil excavation, boring, grading or fill operations. It is erected at the LOD. If it is necessary to run utilities within the LOD, the utilities should be combined into one cut, as practical. Trenching is not allowed in the LOD. In these areas boring or tunneling techniques should be used. In the event that roots greater than 1” diameter near the LOD are damaged or torn, it is necessary to hand trim them to a clean cut. Any roots that are exposed during construction should be covered with soil as soon as possible. During drought conditions, trees must be adequately watered. Site should be visited regularly by a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to ensure the health of the trees. Tree protection fencing is the last item to be removed from the site after construction is completed. After construction has been completed, evaluate the remaining trees. Look for signs and symptoms of damage or stress. It may take several years for severe problems to appear. In the event that fencing around portions of the CRZ of a tree to be retained are not practical to erect due to construction or obstacles, tree protection fencing should be placed three feet laterally from the obstruction (ex. three feet back of a curb, building, or other existing or planned permanent infrastructure. Tree trunk protection is required where CRZ fencing is not practical. Tree trunks should be wrapped in pine 2X4’s and accessible critical structural root zones covered with wooden pallets. Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 20 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 a given 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 Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 21 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 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 listen ing 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) Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 22 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 Dev elopment. 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. Creative Landscape Solutions 850 & 870 Monroe Ave NE, Renton 23 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.