HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Arborist_Report_210420_v1
2200 Sixth Avenue | Suite 1100 | Seattle, Washington | 98121 | p 206 441 9080 | f 206 441 9108
SEATTLE, WA | PORTLAND, OR | MISSOULA, MT | OLYMPIA, WA | BELLINGHAM, WA pjj apxe_18-06779-001_madsencreektreesurvey_20200504_rev1.docx May 4, 2020
Amanda Pierce
City of Renton Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way, Fifth Floor Renton, Washington 98057
Subject: Madsen Creek Flooding Improvement Project Arborist Survey of Trees Potentially Impacted Along Madsen Creek High Flow Bypass
Dear Amanda Pierce:
On April 23, 2020, I visited the project site to perform an assessment of trees that may be impacted by project construction at what is being called flood containment berm “Site 2” in the
project design plans along the east side of the Madsen Creek high flow bypass channel. Trees
species were identified, and each tree was measured for caliper (diameter at a height of 4.5 feet
above ground) and dripline radius. Trees were also visually assessed for health, vigor, and
significant signs of structural defects, disease or decline. Risk assessments are outside of the
scope of this investigation. Trees were not tagged in the field. The summarized findings of this
assessment are included in the table below and in the body of this letter report.
● Seven (7) trees were identified within or adjacent to the project limits at Site 2
● Six (6) trees have greater than 8-inch caliper for alder and cottonwood species and
greater than 6-inch caliper for other species. One tree (Tree 5) has a 5.8-inch caliper.
● Six (6) of the 7 trees are between the high flow bypass channel and a fence that borders the adjacent field.
● Tree 2 is on the east side of the fence. Tree 2 is in decline and is likely not structurally
sound.
● Trees numbered 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 will need to be removed for project construction. Tree 1 is close to the southern end of proposed excavation within the excess flow channel and
should have tree protection measures installed prior to construction. Tree 6 is close to
the proposed berm construction work but may be preserved dependent on final design,
if mechanical injury and compaction to the inner critical root zone can be avoided.
Amanda Pierce
May 4, 2020
Page 1
Table 1. Tree Observations.
Tree ID Species DBH (inches)
Adjusted DBH (inches)
Dripline Radius feet) Health Comments Proposed Action
1 Bigleaf maple
(Acer
macrophyllum)
10.5,
16.3,
14.8
24.4 25 Excellent Multi-stem tree with all three stems originating within the
first 2.5 feet of the trunk (typical of species). Tree has
excellent vigor with a high live crown ratio of 80 to
90 percent. Crown is symmetrical, dense, and has few dead
branches or defects.
Retain
2 Red alder (Alnus Rubra) 11.5, 16.2, 12.4
23.4 18 Poor Multi-stem tree with all three leaders originating at about 18 inches from base. Tree is in a moderate state of decline including die back of large limbs and epicormic spouting. The central leader has a cavity with column of decay and evidence of carpenter ants (insect frass). Mechanical injury (6 inches plus) to leaders, large un-callused flush cut (12 inches plus) near base.
Remove due to development and viability
3 Norway maple (Acer platanoides)
12.3, 13.8, 13.7, 11.11, 8.0
26.8 19 Good Multi-stem tree with high angle attachments and included bark; all five leaders originating within 1 to 2 feet of the base. Tree has good vigor with high live-crown ratio (80 to 90 percent). One of the five leaders is partially girdled by sapsucker injury and is less vigorous than the rest of the tree. One leader has an 8-inch cavity that is now mostly callused over. Has exposed roots in adjacent channel.
Remove due to development
4 Common hawthorn (Crataegus
monogyna)
4.7, 3.8, 6.6, 3.7, 9.9, 4.6,
6.3
15.9 10 Excellent Multi-stem tree (typical of species) with high angle attachments and included bark; all seven leaders originating with 3 feet of the base. Tree is growing
vigorously with a dense crown and very high live crown
ratio (95 percent). One leader has an approximately 2-foot
longitudinal wound due to limb tear out. Has exposed
roots in adjacent channel.
Remove due to development
5 Norway maple (Acer platanoides)
8.1, 7.8, 7.2, 4.2. 14 15 Fair Multi-stem tree with high angle attachments and included bark; all four leaders originating within 1 foot of the base. Tree is in a delayed state of leafing out compared to Tree 2. Mechanical injury to leaders, root flare, and roots.
Remove due to development
Amanda Pierce
May 4, 2020
Page 2
Table 1 (continued). Tree Observations.
Tree ID Species DBH (inches)
Adjusted DBH (inches)
Dripline Radius feet) Health Comments Proposed Action
6 Oregon ash
(Fraxinus
latifolia)
5.8 5.8 8 Good Tree is in early stages of leafing out at the time of
inspection but appears healthy. Trunk has two, 15 to
20-degree bends in it within the first 6 feet from base, but
no signs of decay or damage are evident.
Retain (dependent
on final design if
impact to inner
critical root zone can
be avoided)
7 Cherry sp. (Prunus sp.) 8.0, 7.3 10.8 10.5 Poor-Fair Co-dominant stemmed tree with swelling at union, high angle attachment, and included bark. Bark is also sluffing near co-dominant union and is expressing gummosis.
Remove due to development and viability
Amanda Pierce
May 4, 2020
Page 1
Definitions
1. Tree ID: Trees are identified by number in this report and their locations are shown on the attached site plan.
2. Species: Common name (Genus species).
3. Caliper (equivalent to diameter at breast height, or DBH): individual measurements of stem diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level.
4. Adjusted DBH: Calculated for multi-stem trees, where Adjusted DBH equals the square
root of the sum of each individual stem DBH squared, i.e.,
Adjusted DBH = √(DBH1² + DBH2² + DBH3²).
5. Dripline Radius: The horizontal distance from the trunk to the furthest edge of the
canopy, averaged across two axes.
6. Health: An assessment of overall vigor and vitality of the tree. Rated as Poor, Fair, Good,
or Excellent based on assessment of crown density, leaf color and size, active callusing
(wound wood), shoot growth rate, extent of crown dieback, cambium layer health, and
tree age.
o Poor: Tree has significant structural or health issues, is unable to close wounds, and is
in rapid decline.
o Fair: Tree has below average vitality and ability to respond to pests or injury for an
individual of its species and age.
o Good: Tree has minimal defects and is growing vigorously for its species and age. If wounds are present, they are being effectively closed and compartmentalized.
o Excellent: Tree is an ideal specimen with no obvious flaws.
7. Proposed Action:
o Retain: Tree can be retained. A tree protection plan is appropriate to ensure health of the tree during construction.
o Remove due to viability: Tree is in decline or may be expected to fail in part or in whole.
o Remove due to development: Tree will need to be removed to complete construction
or will be unavoidably severely and adversely affected by construction activities.
Amanda Pierce
May 4, 2020
Page 2
Certification
I, Ian David Crickmore, Certify to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1. That the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2. That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and that they are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions.
3. That I have no present or perspective interest in the property or plants that is the subject
of this report, and that I had no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties
involved.
4. That my compensation is not contingent upon a predetermined value or direction and
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a
stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent event.
5. That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, and conforms to current ANSI A300 Best Management Practices and Industry
Standards.
6. The report is based on the information known to me at the time of my assessment. If
more information is disclosed, I may have further opinions.
7. The report is based on my analysis time of the assessment, and covers that time frame
only, any additional limitations are addressed in the body of the report and/or in the attachments.
8. That all the statements of fact in the report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith.
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1. A field examination of the site was made for this report (date referenced in report.) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources in a timely fashion. Therefore, all data has been verified to the best of my knowledge, the certified/consulting arborist can neither guarantee or be held responsible for the
accuracy of information provided by any outside sources.
2. Any and all information provided in this report covers only the trees that were examined
and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection. This inspection was
limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing,
dissection, or excavation. There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that
Amanda Pierce
May 4, 2020
Page 3
any deficiencies or problems of the mentioned trees may not arise in the future or that failure of a tree may not occur at any time for unforeseen reasons.
3. The drawing submitted with this report is intended as a visual aid only; it is not exactly to scale.
4. The certified arborist/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend court for any reason considering this report unless subsequent contractual agreements are made.
5. Any alterations made to this report automatically invalidates this report.
6. Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy of this report does
not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by anyone other than the person
for whom it was created, without prior express written permission and oral consent of
the certified/consulting arborist.
7. The report and values/opinions expressed represent the opinion of the
certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist fees are in no way contingent upon
reporting any specified values, stipulated results, the occurrence of a subsequent event,
nor upon finding to be reported.
Sincerely,
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Ian David Crickmore Certified Arborist #WE 8333A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Enclosure: Figure 1 Tree Survey Map
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
Tree 2
Tree 3
Tree 4
Tree 5
Tree 6
Tree 7
Tree 1
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 100 20050
Feet
K:\Projects\Y2018\18-06779-001\Project\GISWorking\TreeSurveyReportFigure_20200501.mxd
Figure 1.
Tree Survey Map.
E
Citation
Legend
nm Trees
Cut Grade
Fill Grade