Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Arborist_Report_180928_v1.pdfPage 1 of 23 Maple Highlands September 20, 2018 Chris Burrus Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes, LLC 400 N 34th St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Site: Maple Highlands 16210 SE 134th St Renton, WA 98056 TPN: 1457500025 181,209 sq. ft. = 4.2 acres Dear Chris: Thank you for requesting my services. On July 2, 2018, 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 4.4.130). In summary: Tree Density Calculations Total number of onsite trees 26 Total number of exempt trees 17 Total number of viable trees 9 Required number of retained trees (.3 X9) 3 Number of required replacement trees (3 X 12") 36" Number of 2" caliper replacement trees (36"/2") 18 Minimum Tree density 2/5000 sq. ft. - existing trees 51 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 23 Maple Highlands 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 i n species failure and includes a species component as part of the overall hazard evaluation. Page 3 of 23 Maple Highlands 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  Remove due to viability Page 4 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481  Remove due to planned development (tree is otherwise healthy) 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 Renton significant trees are counted numerically Page 5 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Specific Tree Observations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 1 1802 Apple 8, 7, 4, 9 14.5 14 Fair Woodpecker activity, carpenter ants, poor pruning with decay, moss and lichen, dead wood, co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 3' 1 14 14 14 14 2 1805 Apple 4, 5, 3, 5 8.5 10 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 3', decay @ root crown up to 1' towards south, carpenter ants, moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay 1 10 10 10 10 3 1806 Apple 3, 4, 6, 7 10.5 12 OK Moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay, co- dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 3', typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 4 1807 Apple 8, 10 13 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 Page 6 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 5 1808 Apple 10, 12 15.5 20 OK Carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay, typical of species 1 20 20 20 20 6 1813 Bigleaf maple 13 13 18 OK Slight lean towards north, asymmetric canopy towards west, suppressed canopy, typical of species, moss and lichen 1 18 18 18 18 7 1818 Dogwood 7, 7, 8 12.5 12 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown, vertical crack @ root crown up to 6' towards south, poor pruning with decay, dead scaffolds, buried in black berries 1 12 12 12 12 8 1819 River birch 16, 15, 14 26 21 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown, typical of species, dead scaffolds, previous top loss, woodpecker activity 1 21 21 21 21 Page 7 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 9 1820 Japanese maple 14, 8, 14, 10, 8, 10, 6, 12, 5 30.5 20 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x9 @ root crown, moss and lichen, several vertical cracks towards north, typical of species, moss and lichen, thin canopy 1 20 20 20 20 10 1821 Japanese maple 5, 6, 4, 2, 4, 3, 3, 2 11 16 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x8 @ root crown, vertical cracks @ 2' up to 4' towards south, poor pruning with decay 1 16 16 16 16 11 1822 Dogwood 5, 5, 5, 4 9.5 16 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x4@ 2', moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay, anthracnose 1 16 16 16 16 12 1824 Apple 8 8 15 Fair Poor pruning with decay, moss and lichen, lean towards east 1 15 15 15 15 13 1825 Apple 4, 8, 7, 8, 10 17 14 Poor Large cavity @ root crown up to 3' towards east, moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay, co-dominant leaders with included bark x5 @ 4' 1 14 14 14 14 Page 8 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 14 1826 Apple 7, 10 12 16 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', dead scaffolds, dead wood, moss and lichen, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity 1 16 16 16 16 15 1827 Douglas fir 40 40 20 OK Free flowing sap, epicormic branch formation, asymmetric canopy towards southwest, hanger, dead wood, dominant canopy, typical of species 1 20 20 20 20 16 1828 Cottonwood 30 30 24 Fair Low live crown ratio < 30%, sway towards west, co-dominant canopy, typical of species 1 24 24 24 24 17 1829 Cottonwood 40 40 18 Fair Moss and lichen, dominant canopy, dead wood, broken branches, typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 18 1832 Douglas fir 36 36 16 Fair Free flowing sap, hanger, co-dominant canopy, previous top loss, elongated branches 1 16 16 16 16 Page 9 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 19 1833 Douglas fir 14 14 14 Poor Previous top loss, dead top @ 60', suppressed canopy, free flowing sap, calloused wound @ root crown up to 3' towards north, dead wood, broken branches, dead twigs 1 14 14 14 14 20 1834 Douglas fir 36 36 16 OK Sway towards west, co- dominant canopy, low live crown ratio < 30%, hanger, dead wood, broken branches, typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 21 1835 Douglas fir 18 18 14 OK Lean towards south, asymmetric canopy towards south, suppressed canopy, typical of species, broken branches, dead wood 1 14 14 14 14 Page 10 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 22 1836 Bigleaf maple 60 60 30 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 6', large cavity @ root crown up to 3' towards south, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, calloused wound @ 3' towards south, dead wood, typical of species, hypoxylon canker, vertical crack @ 6' up to 12' towards west, cavity @ root crown up to 3' towards west 1 30 30 30 30 23 1837 Cottonwood 38 38 26 Fair Co-dominant canopy, ivy @ root crown up to 70', low live crown ratio < 10%, lean towards west 1 26 26 26 26 24 1838 Cottonwood 44 44 22 Fair Exposed roots, column of decay @ root crown up to 2' towards west, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, typical of species 1 22 22 22 22 25 1864 Hemlock 8 8 10 Y Fair Nurse tree, tag on branch, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 8', typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 Page 11 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 26 1866 Douglas fir 37 37 16 over fence OK Typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 4 17 5 Offsite potentially impacted trees: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 1 1801 Ornamental pear 15, 7, 6 17.5 12 Poor Conk, co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown, decay @ root crown, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, poor pruning with decay, dead scaffolds 1 12 12 12 12 2 1803 Austrian pine 11, 6 12.5 10 Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', poor pruning with decay, fused trunk, free flowing sap, decay @ root crown 1 10 10 10 10 Page 12 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 3 1804 Douglas fir 26 26 18 Y Fair Exposed roots, poor pruning with decay, broken branches, dead wood, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 20', twisted trunks 1 18 18 18 18 4 1809 Red alder 7, 7, 9 13.5 12 OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown, nurse tree, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 5 1817 Apple 8, 4 7 10 Fair Carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, broken branches, dead wood, poor pruning with decay, cavity @ root crown up to 1' towards south, co- dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 4' 1 10 10 10 10 6 1823 Cherry 6 6 16 Fair Serpentine trunk, moss and lichen, poor pruning with decay 1 16 16 16 16 7 1830 Douglas fir 28 28 18 OK Free flowing sap from small crack @ 3' towards south, co- dominant canopy, dead wood, broken branches, typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 Page 13 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 8 1831 Douglas fir 36 36 18 Fair Nailed on post, hanger, carpenter ants, free flowing sap, abnormal bark, shedding bark, popping bark, coning, dead twigs 1 18 18 18 18 9 1839 Red alder 14 14 17 Poor Lean towards west, decay @ 8' up to 12 towards west 1 17 17 17 17 10 1840 Douglas fir 44 44 18 OK Typical of species, thin canopy 1 18 18 18 18 11 1841 Red alder 17 17 18 Poor Sway towards east, moss and lichen, previous top loss 1 18 18 18 18 12 1842 Red alder 16 16 12 Poor Previous top loss @ 20', weak laterals, moss and lichen, decay @ root crown up to 4' 1 12 12 12 12 13 1843 Scouler willow 16 16 16 Poor Mostly dead, decay @ root crown up to 6' towards south, co- dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 6', dead trunks, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity 1 16 16 16 16 14 1844 Cottonwood 38 38 18 OK Moss and lichen, co- dominant canopy, asymmetric canopy towards east, typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 Page 14 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 15 1845 Cottonwood 41 41 18 Fair Exposed roots, co- dominant canopy, vertical crack @ root crown up to 3' towards south, moss and lichen, typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 16 1846 Cottonwood 14 14 17 Fair Previous top loss, dead wood, lean towards east, typical of species 1 17 17 17 17 17 1847 Cottonwood 42 42 17 OK Co-dominant canopy, asymmetric canopy towards west, moss and lichen, typical of species 1 17 17 17 17 18 1848 Cottonwood 12 12 14 Fair Moss and lichen lean towards east, exposed roots, no taper 1 14 14 14 14 19 1849 Cottonwood 36 36 18 Fair Moss and lichen, decay @ root crown, lean towards north 1 18 18 18 18 20 1850 Scouler willow 8 8 12 Poor Failing to north, mostly dead, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity 1 12 12 12 12 21 1851 Scouler willow 10 10 9 Poor Low live crown ratio < 15%, mostly dead 1 9 9 9 9 22 1852 Red alder 12, 4 12.5 10 Poor Previous top loss, co- dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, co-dominant leaders with included bark x4 @ 20', twisted trunk 1 10 10 10 10 Page 15 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 23 1853 Red alder 8, 10 13 10 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, dead top, previous top loss @ 30' 1 10 10 10 10 24 1854 Red alder 18, 16, 6 25 16 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ root crown, co- dominant leaders with included bark x6 @ 8', moss and lichen, dead wood, mostly dead, dead scaffolds 1 16 16 16 16 25 1855 Red alder 8 8 14 Fair Moss and lichen, asymmetric canopy towards east, lean towards east, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 26 1856 Red alder 16 16 16 Fair Moss and lichen, dominant canopy, twisted trunks, dead top 1 16 16 16 16 27 1857 Scouler willow 14, 22 26 19 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, moss and lichen, dead wood, broken branches, mostly dead 1 19 19 19 19 28 1858 Red alder 14 14 12 Poor Vertical crack @ 3' up to 16', mostly dead 1 12 12 12 12 Page 16 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH (in) Adj. DBH (in) Drip- line radius (ft) Wind- firm OK in grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Radius in feet Ret Remove N W E S Viable Non-viable Remove 29 1859 Red alder 6, 8 10 14 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', previous top loss, suppressed canopy, dead wood, dead top, decay throughout 1 14 14 14 14 30 1860 Red alder 12 12 20 Poor Failing towards north 1 20 20 20 20 31 1861 Scouler willow 36, 12 38 24 Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, large cavity of decay throughout tree, dead wood, moss and lichen 1 24 24 24 24 32 1862 Poplar 18, 13 22 10 Fair Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 33 1863 Douglas fir 16 16 17 OK Dead wood, broken branches, typical of species 1 17 17 17 17 34 1865 Douglas fir 36 36 10 over fence OK Typical of species 1 10 10 10 10 35 1867 Douglas fir 28 28 12 over fence OK Typical of species, dead wood, broken branches, asymmetric canopy towards west, typical of species 1 12 12 12 12 36 1868 Red alder 10 8 8 Y Fair Typical of species 1 8 8 8 8 4 28 4 Page 17 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Site: Proposed site improvements: Page 18 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #481 Discussion and Conclusion: Tree Density Calculations Total number of onsite trees 26 Total number of exempt trees 17 Total number of viable trees 9 Required number of retained trees (.3 X9) 3 Number of required replacement trees (3 X 12") 36" Number of 2" caliper replacement trees (36"/2") 18 Minimum Tree density 2/5000 sq. ft. - existing trees 51 Lot Area Table Lot Lot area (sq. ft) # of Trees of trees required/ 5,000 sq. ft Minus the # of existing trees Total # of replace- ment trees 1 12,425 5 5 2 10,510 4 4 3 10,208 4 4 4 9,906 4 1 3 5 9,604 4 4 6 9,302 4 4 7 9,000 4 4 8 9,868 4 4 9 10,035 4 4 10 9,742 4 4 11 9,449 4 4 12 9,122 4 4 13 15,198 6 6 Tract A 6,149 3 Tract B Total 55 4 51 The site is currently referred to as “Maple Highlands”. There is a total of 26 trees onsite; nine (9) are viable; five (5) are proposed to be removed and four (4) are proposed to be retained. The City of Renton requires a 30% tree retention for zoning R-4, or 9 *.3 = 3 trees. The proposed improvements meet the city standards. Mitigation: The required mitigation for the removal of viable onsite trees is 36”. The minimum caliper tree acceptable per the RMC is a 2” caliper, eight (8) 2” caliper trees meets the requirement, or 18 trees. In addition, the City requires a minimum tree density of 2 trees/ 5000 sq. ft. The table above shows the lot requirements to meet this density. The mitigation is 51 trees. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 | www.rentonwa.gov 1.Total number of trees over 6” diameter 1, or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8” in diameter on project site trees 2.Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dangerous 2 trees Trees in proposed public streets trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: trees 3.Subtract line 2 from line 1:trees 4.Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones trees 5.List the number of 6” in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8” in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain4:trees 6.Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) trees 7.Multiply line 6 by 12” for number of required replacement inches:inches 8.Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2” caliper trees required for replacement, otherwise enter 0)inches per tree 9.Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6: (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) trees 1 Measured at 4.5’ above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. 1 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Tree Retention Worksheet.docx 08/2015 30 21 21 9 3 6 (3) (40) Print Form Reset Form Save Form Page 20 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #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 authorit y 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 21 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #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 22 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #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 23 of 23 Maple Highlands Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions 425.890.3808 ISA Certified Arborist #PNW 1481 – A sprince202@aol.com TRAQ/TRACE Certified #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.