18416 High St.pdfMachuga, Jen
From: Machuga, Jen
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Thies, Mike
Subject: 18416 High St. - Partial Tree Cutting (COD20170001)
Attachments: 18416 High St - Tree Condition Assessment.pdf
Hi Mike,
I wanted to confirm with you that I reviewed the attached tree condition assessment and tree hazard evaluation form
prepared by Tony Shoffner (see attached) for the fir tree at 18416 High St. that was recently subject to Code
Enforcement. Based on Mr. Shoffner's assessment, this tree was hazardous. ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b allows for the
removal of hazardous trees from critical areas and buffers provided that all requirements of this code section are
met. Since the property owner retained one of the two leaders and did not remove the tree in its entirety, no
replacement or further mitigation is required at this time. Mr. Shoffner stated in his report: "The remaining leader at
this time appears healthy and was not affected by the removal of its codominant." Thus, no further action is required by
the Planning Division.
Thanks,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 1224
Jen. Mach uga @ed mondswa.gov
Development Services Hours:
Monday & Tuesday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
Wednesday 8:30 AM - Noon
Thursday & Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM
1
SHOFFNER CONSULTING
21529 4" AVE. W. #C31 BOTHELL, WA98021 MOBILE: (206)755-2871
January 17, 2017
Deborah Vanderhei
18416 High St.
Edmonds, WA
98020
Re: Tree Condition Assessment and Removal
Deborah:
This report is provided to address the recent removal of a leader of large Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) from your property and to address the City of Edmonds'
requirements for an assessment provided by an ISA Certified Arborist as to the
nature of the removal. We met on your site recently to discuss the situation and for
me to gather information on the tree that was removed. I also spoke with Mark
Griffiths of NWArborcare who saw the tree prior to removal and recommended it be
taken down due to its health and condition. I've worked with Mark on common
projects for several years. He has a thorough understanding of trees, conditions of
concern and symptoms of poor health, and he doesn't recommend removal of trees if
the situation doesn't warrant such action. Please see the accompanying Basic Tree
Risk Assessment Form for reference to this report. The condition of the tree as
described in this report and the Form is second hand information provided by Mark
Griffiths.
1.0 Tree Information
The tree of concern is a large Douglas fir that developed co -dominant leaders at the
base. Judging by the size of the remaining leader (44" dbh) and the stump of the
removed leader, it was considerably large. The removed leader was on the east side
of the tree, leaning in the direction of your house.
The connection between the two leaders was at the base of the tree, at a point that
would experience considerable stress during windstorms given the load placed upon
it by the heavy trunk. This condition —with dual leaders —is not recommended to be
kept in situations where there are targets within range as the included bark between
the co -dominant leaders puts pressure on the connection and will eventually cause
failure of one of the leaders.
The tree was exhibiting symptoms of very elevated stress levels and the onset or
progression of declining health. These symptoms included a very sparse crown with
small and reduced numbers of needles that were pale green in color. Other
symptoms were a significant number of large, dead limbs throughout the crown.
Clearly this tree was suffering from elevated stress levels, and there was no way it
would have recovered.
The choice to remove this tree was what I would have recommended had I
conducted an evaluation of it prior to its removal.
2.0 Tree Risk Assessment
The accompanying Basic Tree Risk Assessment form provides an evaluation of this
tree's level of risk. This risk is related to both the health/condition of the tree, the prior
co -dominant trunk situation, the size of the tree and the presence of high value
targets within range of it, all of which contribute to the tree's level of risk.
As the form shows, the level of risk associated with this tree was high. This level
requires mitigation of the risk, which in this situation was to remove the entire leader.
The remaining leader at this time appears healthy and was not affected by the
removal of its codominant.
3.0 Use of This Report
This report is provided to you as a means of addressing the recent removal of a co -
dominant trunk of a tree on your property, its condition prior to removal and to provide
justification for its removal.
Cordially,
Tony Shoffner
ISA Certified Arborist #PN-0909A
CTRA #1759
Client Deborah Vanderhei Date January 17, 2017 Time
Address/Tree location 18416 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Tree no. 1 Sheet 1
Tree species Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) — dbh44" Height 100+ Crown spread dia. N/A
Assessor(s) Tony Shoffner, ISA #PN-0909A, CTRA #1759 Time framel year Tools used
Target Assessment
of 2
Target zone
Occupancy
E
X
rate
1-rare
C
o L-
'r,
a
Target description
EL
14
E
3:
t X
L!
2 - occasional
M M
-
I= Q)
M
V U
12
1Z
3 -frequent
V >
M 0
!a
4-con stant
6� E
EL
Houses and landscape
X
4
No
No
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures None Topography Flat[] Slope[Zl % Aspect N.
Site changes None 0 Grade change 11 Site clearing[] Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts[] Describe_
Soil conditions Limited volume 0 Saturated 0 Shallow 0 Compacted 11 Pavement over roots El % Describe
Prevailing wind direction S-SW Common weather StrongwindsO IceD SnowO Heavyraino Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low 0 Normal[] High[] Foliage None (seasonal)[] None (dead) 0 Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic 75 %
Pests Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches 0 TrunkO Roots 0 Describe Stressed declining tree
Load Factors
Winclexposure Protected[] Partial[3 Full[] WindfunnelingO
Crownclensity SparseO NormalO DenseD Interior branches Fewo NormalD DenseD
Recent or planned change in load factors
Relative crown size Small[] Medium[] LargeM
Vines/Mistletoe/Moss 0
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown 0 LCR aL5%
Dead twigs/branches 1:1 65 %overall Max. dia. 4"
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. —
Over -extended branches 0
Pruning history
Cracks 0
Codominant 0
Weak attachments 11
Previous branch failures 0
Lightning damage 0
Included bark 0
Cavity/Nest hole % circ.
Similar branches present 0
Crown cleaned 0 Thinned 11 Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 0 Sapwood damage/decay 0
Reduced 0 Topped 0 Lion -tailed 11 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0
Flush cuts 0 Other Response growth
Main concern(s) This tree was clearly experiencing high stress and in decline.
Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 11 Moderate 11 Significant 0
Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible[] Probable 0 imminent 0
—Trunk —
Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0
Codominant stems IZI Included bark 0 Cracks 0
Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 0 Sap ooze 11
Lightning damage 0 Heartwood decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 0
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth_ Poor taper 0
Lean ' Corrected?
Response growth
Main concern(s) .
— Roots and Root Collar —
Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling 11
Dead 0 Decay 11 Conks/Mushrooms 0
Ooze 0 Cavity 0 _% circ.
Cracks 11 Cut/Damaged roots 11 Distance from trunk
Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness 11
Response growth
Main concern(s) -
Load on defect N/A 11 Minor El Moderate 0 Significant 10
Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate 0 Significant 0
KISK Laiegurizauon
Likelihood
Q)
-0
E
a)
M
Consequences
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
E
(from Matrix 1)
Risk
0
M
rating
Conditions
41
aj
Target
.2
E
a)
of part
0
U
Tree part
1
of concern
0.
U-
1
protection
E
E
3:
0
.2p
'E
n
E
VO)
z
z
r-
Ln
Ln
(from
Matrix 2)
Trunk/
Tree was in decline
44"
100
4
None
High
whole
and leaning toward
—
your house with a
tree
co-dom.
2
3
4
Matrix/. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
Very lo-T
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
Unlikely
Matrix2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
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
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
Overall tree risk rating
Overall residual risk
Low 1:1 Moderate El High 21 Extreme El
Low 0 Moderate 11 High El Extreme El
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Work priority 10 2 0 3 0
Recommended inspection interva
Data 21 Final 0 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo E]Yes-Type/Reason
InsDection limitations [Z]None E]Visibilitv DAccess ElVines DRoot collar buried Describe
40