Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Depasquale Dynaa_Arborist Report_2401251 Dynaa Depasquale Level 1 Tree Assessment Prepared For: Dynaa Depasquale 17218 130th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Prepared By: Ryan M. Seeley ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Date: January 25, 2024 Contents: Introduction Summary Findings and Recommendations Tree Matrix Retention Calculations Glossary Waiver of Liability Introduction As requested by Dynaa Depasquale, I visited the neighboring property of 17218 130th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 on January 25, 2024, with permission from the property owner Senait Beyene, to report the measurements, health, and condition of a Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, on the property that she wishes to remove due to disruptions to underground utilities located directly under the tree. Summary I provided an assessment of the Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, located on the property that has damaged their waterlines and disrupted services, they are also worried about the future of their other underground utilizes and further damage to their driveway. Mrs. Depasquale’s water line was damaged from the roots and needs to be excavated within the Critical Root Area to replace the line and stop the leak so they may receive essential utilities. Soos Creek Water & Billing stated in an email to Mrs. Depasquale, “We verified there was a leak occurring at the property from 10/12/23 to present, based off the results at the meter. You and I discussed that it was more than likely the tree roots of the neighbor’s tree, as it had been a point of contention between your father and them and the worry of it causing issues in your line. You were able to get a plumber out there who confirmed the leak was being cause by the tree roots impacting the line. The pictures our crew were able to take of the tree indicates how close it is to your line, and the neighbor’s line. I was told by our crew that it will start 2 impacting the neighbor’s line soon, along with Soos Creek’s lines on our side of the meter if left unattended.” Artisan Plumbing & Mechanical, LLC. also confirmed in a note, “Plumber arrived to investigate a leak. He found that a fir tree has grown large enough underground that the roots have dislodging meter boxes, surrounded the meter and water line to the point that they have broken the line from meter to the home. There is no way to re-route the line or repair the line without damaging the roots and compromising the integrity of the tree overall.” As shown in Figure 4 on page 6. The Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, needs to be removed from the property for the water line to be repaired and prevent further damage to the remaining underground utilities. Findings and Recommendations The Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, referred to in this report has caused damage to the underground water line and must be removed for excavation to repair the damaged pipes. In my professional opinion, the Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, should be removed to make excavation of major roots within the Critical Root Zone possible. 3 Figure 1. Location of the tree referred to in this report. 4 Figure 2. The Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, referred to in this report and its close proximity to essential underground utilities. 5 Figure 3. The Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii, has caused considerable disruption to services and will continue to cause more damage. 7 Tree Matrix There is One tree on the property of 17218 130th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 being requested for emergency removal. Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii Dynaa Depasquale - 17218 130th Ave SE DATE 1/25/2024 Tree # Botanical Name Common Name DBH Vigor Structure Comments/Action Item 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 49” Good Good Damaging essential utilities with no practical means of mitigation. Remove 8 Retention Calculations In accordance with Renton code Section 4-4-130 regarding PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, With the lot size of the property of 17218 130th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 at .18 net acres (8010 Sqft) would require property to have 6 retention credits and not remove more than 30% of significant trees. Given the circumstances 30% of trees cannot be retained therefore with the removal of the only landmark tree on the property that would require the property to be responsible for making up for a total 13 credits. 9 Glossary Arborist: A person possessing the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees or other woody plants in a landscape setting. Basic Level 2 Risk Assessment: A detailed visual inspection of a tree and its surrounding site and a synthesis of the information collected. Canopy/crown: Upper part of a tree bearing foliage, limbs, and branches, measured from the lowest branch including all branches and foliage. Co-dominant Stem: A structurally unstable branch union often associated with a high risk of failure. A term used to describe two or more main stems (or "leaders") that are about the same diameter and emerge from the same location on the main trunk. Crown Cleaning: In pruning, the selective removal of dead, dying, diseased and broken branches from the tree crown. Diameter at Breast Height: A standard measurement of a tree most often taken at 4.5 feet from the base of the tree; however, this can vary depending if the tree has multiple trunks or is growing on a slope. Hazard Tree: A tree that meets all the following criteria: a. Has a combination of structural defects and/or disease which makes it subject to a high probability of failure; b. Is in proximity to moderate to high frequency targets (persons or property that can be damaged by tree failure); and c. The hazard condition of the tree cannot be lessened with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices nor can the target be removed. Live Crown Ratio: The ratio of the size of a tree's live crown to its total height. Used in estimating a tree’s health and its level of competition with neighboring trees. Mechanical Damage: Trees are often wounded by careless use of yard equipment like mowers, weed whackers, and other trimming equipment. These injuries cut through important vascular tissue just inside the bark that can lead to decay and ultimately death of the tree. A ring of natural mulch or arborist wood chips around the tree eliminates the need to trim or mow close to the tree's base. Extreme care should be taken when digging up or tilling the soil under a tree. Many large and small roots will be cut by such digging, especially if it occurs close to the trunk. 10 Monitor: It is important to monitor mature trees on a regular schedule, at least once a year. Monitoring would include a Visual Tree Assessment to look for changes in habit and structure, and to document signs of weakness or decline in health and integrity of the trees. Options for Mitigation of Risk Trees: • Remove the risk altogether, if possible, by cutting off one or more branches, removing dead wood, or possibly removing the entire tree. Extreme risk situations should be closed off until the risk is abated. • Modify the risk of failure probability. In some cases, it may be possible to reduce the probability of failure by adding mechanical support in the form of cables braces or props. • Modify the risk rating by moving the target. Risk ratings can sometimes be lowered by moving the target so that there is a much lower probability of the defective part striking anything. Moving the target should generally be seen as an interim measure. • Retain and monitor. This approach is used where some defects have been noted but they are not yet serious and the present risk level is only moderate. • Convert those trees slated for removal into Wildlife Habitat Snags. Reduce the overall height of the tree using natural fracture pruning techniques to heights relative to the targets. Pruning: Selective removal of woody plant parts of any size, using saws, pruners, clippers, or other pruning tools. The reason for tree pruning may include, but is not limited to, reducing risk, managing tree health and structure and/or improving aesthetics or achieving other specific objectives. Pruning objectives should include pruning out all dead, diseased, weak and/or broken branches in all tree canopies, and crown cleaning. Snag or Habitat Snag: A standing, dead or dying tree, often missing a top or most of the smaller branches important for wildlife in both natural and landscaped settings, occurring as a result of disease, lightning, fire, animal damage, too much shade, drought, root competition, or old age. May also be a component in slope stability and ongoing vegetation management practices. Threshold for Risk: Each individual is entitled to and can determine his or the own threshold for risk. Threshold for risk is subjective, and can be influenced by a person’s view, taste or opinion. Topping: Topping is the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or to lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role. Other names for topping include “heading,” “tipping,” “hat-racking,” and “rounding over.” Topping is not a viable method of height reduction and does not reduce future risk. In fact, topping will increase risk in the long term. Topping is not considered an acceptable arboriculture practice. 11 Urban Forestry: Management of naturally occurring and planted trees in urban areas. Vigor: Overall health; the capacity to grow and resist physiological stress. • Good: Shoot growth, leaf size and leaf color are typical of the tree age and species. • Fair: Shoot growth, leaf size, and leaf color are below average for the tree age and species. Some deadwood is evident in the crown. Treatment may be required to foster improved future growth. • Poor: Shoot growth, leaf size, and leaf color are highly stunted, and there is a significant amount of dead twigs and branches in the crown. 12 Waiver of Liability There are many conditions affecting a tree’s health and stability which may be present but cannot be ascertained such as root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree’s health and stability. Adverse weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short amount of time. While I have used every reasonable means to examine this plant, this evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree’s root flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only, unless otherwise specified. The inspection may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree. As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional site visits by the ISA Certified Arborist. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If there is a homeowner’s association, it is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) that apply to tree pruning and tree removal. This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for performing recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to ensure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the evaluator’s recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the evaluator’s reasonable expectations, such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc. This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references are confidential and are for the use of the client concerned. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or disseminated in any form without the prior consent of the client concerned and ISA Certified Arborist Ryan Seeley. Thank you for allowing me to be of service. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ryan Seeley (253)-266-5665 ISA Certified Arborist PN-8096AT ISA Certified Tree Worker Climber Specialist ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ____% overall Max. dia. ______ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ______ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ___________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant __________________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments ___________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _______________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ________________________ Response growth Collar buried/Not visible  Depth________ Stem girdling  Dead  Decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Ooze  Cavity  _____% circ. Cracks  Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk _______ Root plate lifting  Soil weakness  Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Dead/Missing bark  Abnormal bark texture/color  Codominant stems  Included bark  Cracks  Sapwood damage/decay  Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze  Lightning damage  Heartwood decay  Conks/Mushrooms  Cavity/Nest hole _____ % circ. Depth _______ Poor taper  Lean _____° Corrected? ________________________________ Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor Moderate  Significant  Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Time frame_____________ Tools used______________________________ Target Assessment Target numberTarget description Practical to move target? Restriction practical?1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests_____________________________________________________ Abiotic ________________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or planned change in load factors _________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Likelihood of failureLikelihood of failure Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Target within drip line Target within 1x Ht. Target within 1.5x Ht.Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent Improbable Possible  Probable  Imminent  1 2 3 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely UnlikelyCondition numberPart sizeFall distanceTarget protection Conditions of concern Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood ImprobableImminentPossibleVery lowUnlikelyNegligibleMediumLikelySignificantProbableLowSomewhatMinorHighVery likelySevereConsequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2)Tree part Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure N e g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options _____________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Residual risk ________ Overall tree risk rating Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Work priority 1  2  3  4  Overall residual risk Low  Moderate  High  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists – 2013 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Target number rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF RENTON Ι PERMIT CENTER TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A minimum retention of thirty percent (30%) of all significant trees (as defined in RMC 4-11-200) is required on site. Please complete the form below to verify compliance with minimum tree retention requirements. • Identify total number of trees 6-inch caliper or greater (or alder or cottonwood trees 8-inch caliper or greater) on site: Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Trees Required Trees Proposed •Deductions – Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: o Trees that are high-risk, as defined in RMC 4-11-200: o Trees within existing and proposed public right-of-way: o Trees within wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: •Total remaining trees after deductions: •Required tree retention (30%): •Identify number of trees proposed for retention: •Identify number of trees requested for replacement in lieu of retention (skip page 3 if no tree replacement is requested):Trees TREE CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Tree credit requirements apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre. Complete the form below to determine minimum tree credit requirements. •Gross area of property in square feet: Square Feet •Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from tree credit calculation: o Existing and proposed public right-of-way: Square Feet o Wetlands, streams, very high landslide hazards, protected slopes, and associated buffers: Square Feet •Total excluded area:Square Feet •Net land area (after deductions) in square feet:Square Feet •Net land area (after deductions) in acres:Acres •Required tree credits:Tree Credits Required rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 2 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET PROPOSED TREE CREDITS Please complete the table below to calculate the total tree credits proposed for your project. Identify the quantity of trees for each tree category, after deducting trees within excluded areas, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS RETAINED TREES Preserved tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 Preserved tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Preserved tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Preserved tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Preserved tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Preserved tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Preserved tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Preserved tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Preserved tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Preserved tree 37” caliper and greater 13 NEW TREES New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 TREE CREDITS PROPOSED: rentonwa.gov/permitcenter | planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov | 425-430-7294 10/6/2022 Page 3 of 3 TREE RETENTION AND CREDIT WORKSHEET TREE REPLACEMENT JUSTIFICATION Replacement may be authorized as an alternative to 30% retention provided the removal is the minimum necessary to accomplish the desired purpose and provided the proposal meets one of the following options: a. There are special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property; or b. The strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of property; or c. The strict application of the code would prevent compliance with minimum density requirements of the zone; or d. The project is a short plat with four (4) or fewer lots. Please attach a written justification demonstrating compliance with the requirements and criteria as descripted above. TREE REPLACEMENT QUANTITY Tree replacement quantity is determined based on the credit value of the trees proposed for removal. Larger, higher priority trees shall be used for calculation of tree replacement. Identify the quantity of each tree requested to be removed in lieu of 30% retention, based on tree size. List the identification number of each tree, as indicated in the arborist report. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TREE INDENTIFICATION # TOTAL TREE CREDITS Tree 37” caliper + 13 Tree 33 – 36” caliper 12 Tree 29 – 32” caliper 11 Tree 25 – 28” caliper 10 Tree 22 – 24” caliper 9 Tree 19 – 21” caliper 8 Tree 16 – 18” caliper 7 Tree 12 – 15” caliper 6 Tree 10 – 12” caliper 5 Tree 6 – 9” caliper 4 REPLACEMENT CREDITS REQUIRED: TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING Identify the quantity of proposed new replacement trees (minimum size of 2-inch caliper). The total replacement credits proposed should be equal to or greater than the replacement credits required, as shown in the previous section. TREE SIZE TREE CREDITS TREE QUANTITY TOTAL TREE CREDITS New small species tree (30' or less at maturity) 0.25 New medium species tree (30' to 50' at maturity) 1 New large species tree (50' or more at maturity) 2 REPLACEMENT CREDITS PROPOSED: