Loading...
Hazard tree exemption STF20180030.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 111 c. 189v August 13, 2018 Greg Hinkel 7517 172" d St. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180030) Dear Mr. Hinkel, The City of Edmonds was contacted on your behalf by Washington Tree Experts regarding the removal of a red alder tree on the parcel to your north at 17110 74th Ave. W. The identified tree was located on a small steep slope, which is a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.80. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an allowed activity in critical areas. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" is defined as "removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the past five years." In this case, the subject alder tree was larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is required. The alder established itself on top of a rockery which impacted root growth and caused significant lean. That, along with other structural defects that were present, indicate the alder was a candidate for removal. An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following condition: Two replacement trees of a species native to the area must be installed within one year of the tree cutting activity. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height while deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches diameter at breast height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. A vine maple and a serviceberry are proposed as replacements. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, P�/ r�— Mike Clugston, AICP Senior Planner Encl: Arborist report and supporting documentation prepared by Eugene Wells (#PN6834A) of Washington Tree Experts Cc: Washington Tree Experts Stephen Lee Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 1 of 7 Washington Tree Experts 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 wtetree@yahoo.com August 6, 2018 To: Mike Clugston, AICP Senior Planner City of Edmonds Client name: Greg Hinkel Street: 7517 172nd St SW City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Red Alder (Alnus rubra) Location: 17110 741" Ave W Assignment: Provide documentation and apply post mortem for hazard tree removal approval in an environmentally critical area. Discussion (please reference attached photos and site maps): The volunteer Red Alder tree was on the southwest corner of the property located adjacent to the neighbor's shared driveway. We were hired to remove the tree at the request of Mr. Hinkel. The tree location and condition did not raise concern as it was on a terraced rockery, on flat ground, and next to a driveway. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the company representative the tree is considered by the City of Edmonds to be in an environmentally critical area with a slope of greater than 25%. The Alder tree had several structural defects and conditions of concern. It had 3 main stems from ground level creating a large spreading crown. Two of the stems were growing together and had included bark at the ground level up to more than two thirds the height of the tree. Vigorous trees with notoriously weak wood such as this are more subject to failure when having this type of defect. The spreading crown created a significant load on the defect. The Alder was growing at the edge and out of a rockery creating an unstable rooting situation with a limited root zone. There is an inadequate root space to support a tree of approximately 40' in height. Absence of anchoring roots are equal to higher windthrow situations. The tree Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 2 of 7 was also damaging the rockery by pushing it out. One of the rocks has already failed. The main stems were growing at varying degrees of lean (see assessment form) toward the respective targets. The leans present made the trunks less stable than their vertical counter parts due to uneven weight distribution. Procedure: To evaluate and to prepare the report we drew upon our 20 plus years of experience in the field and our formal education in Forestry and Arboriculture. We also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tree risk assessment while looking at the overall health of the trees and site conditions. In examining each tree, we look at such factors as: -size -vigor -root health -crown health -deadwood and hanging branches -pest and disease While no one can predict with absolute certainty if a tree will or will not fail, we can, by using scientific process assess which of the trees is most likely to fail and take appropriate action. Crown reduction was not a long term or economically wise option as Alder trees have short life spans and they are an unwise investment for long term tree care. There were no alternate arboriculture practices to apply that would have mitigated risk. The tree was removed to ground level. All debris removed from site because the limited space and urban environment. The tree removal will not adversely affect the remaining trees and landscape. The client will replace the tree with 2 native trees as per city regulation. Installation of one Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) and one Serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.) at the minimum size of one -inch caliper or greater to be placed in the back yard (see attached map). Prepared by l__ — , lw Eugene Wells ISA Certified Arborist Consulting Arborist #PN6834A Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 3 of 7 Attachments -site maps -tree hazard evaluation form -illustration of tree location and degree of lean Glossary ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care codominant stems: stems or branches of nearly equal diameter, often weakly attached (Matheny et al. 1998) Crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001) DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade (Matheny et al. 1998) ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Mitigation: process of reducing damages or risk (Lilly 2001) Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree. Decay: process of degradation of woody tissues by fungi and bacteria through the decomposition of cellulose and lignin (Matheny and Clark,1994) Decline: Progressive decrease in health of organs or the entire plant, usually caused by a series of interacting factors Texts M. Dirr-Manual of Woody Landscapes R. Harris, J. Clark, N. Matheny-Arboriculture Third Edition 199 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Handbook Site Map Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 4 of 7 Legend = Tree removed = Approximate location of replacement trees Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist. Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist. Hinkel (Edmonds) August 3, 2018 Page 7 of 7 Alder tree growing out of rockery Second view Line of included bark running down the center of the stump Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist r2pc-k-C fL `r a, g P. b,, Ac,-ry A,-1 IZDaT qpN, e )k kD-6--k 6D4E TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM All sections of this form must be fully completed dv a certified arborist (A hazard tree must have a target within 1.5x the height of the tree.) Site/Address:_ /1— - Map/L ocation: Owner: public private unknown other Date: Arbori ISA# Arborist's Signature: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: + —L—+�_ Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree #: r/ Species: AOC-si All c, ' DBH: 2 y # of trunks Height: y� ' Spread: Form: ❑generally symmetric +(minor asymmetry ❑stump sprout ❑stag -headed Crown Class: ❑ dominant it co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed �/ Live crown ratio. L! % Age class: N young ❑ semi -mature ❑ mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning History: ❑crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑crown reduced ❑flush cuts ❑cabled/braced ❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx0ates: special Value: ❑specimen Meritage/historic ❑wildlife ❑unusual ❑street tree ❑screen ❑shade ❑indigenous ❑protected bygov. agency 9 Y TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover. 10normal ❑ chronic ❑necrotic Epieormies? Y Growth obstructions: Folage Density. &formal ❑sparse Leaf size: #normal❑small ❑ stakes ❑ wireftfes ❑si ns Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent averse ❑cables !% g Cl❑poor Twig Diebaek7 Y ❑ curb/pavement ❑guards Woundwood development: ❑excellent (average ❑poor ❑none lk ther lZCl.�CiQ� Vigor class: ❑excellent III average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. loresidence ❑commercial ❑industrial ❑park ❑open space ❑natural ❑woodland/forest Landscape type: El parkway 11raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑lawn ❑shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: lonone ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wattled Recent site disturbance? Y N ❑ construction ❑soil disturbance ❑grade change ❑ line clearing ❑site clearing % dripliine paved: 0% 10-25 % 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N % dripline w/fil soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-750A 75-100% % dripfine grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Sol problems: ❑drainage ❑shallow ❑compacted ❑o��droughty ❑saline ❑alkaline El acidic ❑small volume ❑ disease center ❑history of fail ❑clay El expansive C9 slope Z /r ? ❑ aspect: Obstructions: ❑lights ❑signage ❑line -of -site ❑view ❑overheadhnes it underground utilities ❑traffic ❑adjacentveg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ®Dingle tree ❑below canopy ❑above canopy ❑recently exposed ❑windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: k I Occurrence of snow/ice, storms ❑never It seldom ❑regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: 16 building W parking ❑ traffic Wpedestrian ❑ recreation Alandsc a all Q hardsc ape ❑small features ❑utility lines Can target be moved? Y A Can use be restricted? Y Occupancy: Cl occasional use ❑intemdttent use 111111frequent use X-onstant use TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y 0 Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y �( ID Exposed roots: ❑ severe moderate ❑ low Undermined: ❑ severe Rmoderate Glow Root pruned: Root area affected: 70 % Buttress wounded: Y N When: _ Restricted root area: lesevere ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: 1Isevere ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN: deg. from vertical ❑natural tunnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y W Decay in plane of lean: Y Roots broken: Y Soil cracking: Y ap Compounding factors: /Zb( /Q QA F— T Lean severity: ❑ severe X moderate CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s=severe. m=morlP.ratP.._ Idnw) ❑ low DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow,sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive and weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hold/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/buds Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: W h /2-(J� Failure potential: 1-low; 2-medium: 3-high; 4-severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1- <6" 2 - 6-18" If 5-45 cm); Failure Potential+ Size of Part+ Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 ->30" (75 cm) 3 3 Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 - intermittent use,- 3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑reduce end weight ❑crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Remove tree? 61 N Replace? l ' N Move target? Y Effect on adjacent trees: .±'none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑manager governing agency Date: COMMENTS Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Other: