Loading...
Hazard tree removal STF20180028.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION "Ic. I S9V August 15, 2018 Chris Heide 834 Cary Rd. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180028) Dear Mr. Heide, The City of Edmonds was contacted by you regarding a request for hazard tree removal, and has been provided with a recommendation by a certified arborist Zsofia Pasztor regarding the removal of four (4) Deodar Cedar trees located at 834 Cary Road. The subject property contains Shell Creek, a wetland and a frequently flooded area. Three of the trees proposed for removal are located along the southern property boundary just to the rear of the existing home. Another tree proposed for removal is located off of the rear side of the home approximately 25 feet from the northern property boundary. The creek, wetland and frequently flooded area are considered critical areas pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40, 23.50, 23.70, and 23.90. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or a 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 trees are larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is required. ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms, prepared by Zsofia Pasztor (PN-5795A) were submitted with the request to remove four trees with an overall risk rating of "high." According to the report and photos provided the subject trees have been previously topped and are showing signs of decay in the upper crown as well as weakly attached trunks and limbs. Due to the high risk for failure, the trees are a candidate for removal. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed must be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. The applicant has proposed to replace the existing trees with eight (8) Alaska type Cedar trees. An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the identified Deodar Cedar trees may be cut. 2. Eight (8) replacement trees (Alaska Cedar) must be installed within one year of the tree cutting activity. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. 3. If the identified replacement trees cannot be found in the required size, substitute replacement trees that are native and indigenous to the area may be approved by the Planning Division. Please contact the City before substituting replacement tree species. 4. The downed wood may be left onsite or removed. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michele.szafran@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, Michele Q. Szafran Michele Q. Szafran Planner Encl: Cover Letter Tree Risk Assessment Forms Photos Site Plan DECEIVED JUL 31 2018 DEVELO ME SEWOES TREE EVALUATION 2018 Tree Evaluation 2018 Zsofia Pasztor Certified Horticulturist CPH 2459 Arborist PN-5795A, and Tree Risk Assessor 480 Landscape Designer; Certified LID Consultant 10 —108th St. SE Everett, Washington 98208 425-210-5541 zs.aasztor2011nsmail.com Dear Mr. Heide, On July 61h 2018, at your request, I performed a tree evaluation for the address of 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA 98020. This report is a summary of my observations and conclusions. Definition of the assignment You contacted me because you are concerned about the trees growing by your fence line on the property and wanted an evaluation of the trees and a report completed by a Tree Risk Assessor Arborist. As you and I discussed, my assignment was to: • evaluate the health and condition of the trees at this time • determine any necessary steps if needed • write and submit to you a report Summary of findings I found that four Deodar Cedars are growing on the property lines and they are in very poor, declining conditions. It is largely due to the high water table in the area. Deodar Cedar trees prefer well -draining soils, somewhat on the drier side rather than wet conditions. The tree roots are likely compromised by fungal disease. Old mushrooms, not possible to ID, are growing along the root lines of the trees. The trees have been topped in the past and as a result all of them have weakly attached, large multiple trunks, codominant branches and some epicormics growth. The trees are declining. I recommend removing them. Methodology To evaluate the trees and to prepare the report, I drew upon my 30 years of experience in the field of horticulture, site management, and arboriculture and my formal education in natural resources management, natural habitat ecology, plant identification, and plant physiology. I also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Assessment (VA) that includes looking at the overall health of the tree as well as the site conditions. This is a scientifically based process to look at the entire site, surrounding landscape and soil, as well as a complete look at the trees themselves with Level 2 tools. In examining the trees, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage condition, density of leaves, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease -causing bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 2 Tree Evaluation 2018 15,A Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client_ VIM 11I Y ` 1�—Time V Address/Tree location — Tree no: Sheet _ of _ Tree species U I A d N Height 6.i, Crown spread dia. Assessor(s) Time frame Tools used LO Ft� a'Z Target Assessment Target description Target mne Occupancy 1-ran 1-oraslonal. 4-mnsblit Y '� J M L 2 3 4 Slh FaCtOR History of failures it&'OI15 UMUS Topography FlatO SlopeBf %Aspect Site changes NoneQMradechangeOSite dearingO Changed soilhydrology0 Root cutsO Describe Soil conditions Limited e 0 SaturatedWShallow 0 Compacted Pavement over roots % Describe VJGAJ tl4 St'QfaT7iraf Prevailing winddirectio mmonweather Strong wlndtW'1'ce0 SnowOHeavy ralr)!�Describe _ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor LowjX Normal High Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal-14—,% Chlaroticjj—% Necrotic_% Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branchespgrunk❑ RootW Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ Partial[] Fullp'Wlndfunneling 0 Relative crown size Small❑ MedlumolrLargeE3 Crowndensky SparseJ?KNormal❑ Densern Interiorbranches Few'P:'Normal❑ Dense❑ Vlnes/Mlstletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change In load factors N t A _ Thee Defects and Condltions Affeeting-the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced uovm ❑ LCRA&% Cracks ❑ Ughtningdamage ❑ Dead rw•gz/tx.nshes�r M%overall Maxdla. Codominant$ Included bark❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max.dia. Weak atta6ments Z Cavity/Nest hole _%dre. overextended branches ❑ Previous branch failures Jai Similar branches preserrt>i!I Phistory Pruning hhbod Dead/MissNBbark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ roven ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped JK Lion-talled ❑ Conks ❑ iieartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Maln concern(s)`411P%LEI R 'W'*01 VM .kt',C I rN Er PAWPV :l°l3" Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant {a Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probablejelmminent ❑ —Trunk — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color.K Codominant stemsx Included barb Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole_%dn. Depth Poor taper Lean _' Connected? Response growth Mainconcern(s) Loadondefect N/A❑ Minor❑ ModerateO Slgnificarnw Likelihood of fagure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable W Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem glydling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms)sr' ooze ❑ Cavity ❑... %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response growth in concern(s) 6 1 Ji WL99190% h LO Li Loadondefact N/A❑ Minor[] Moderate❑ SignificantSW Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible 0 ProbableK Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 3 Tree Evaluation 2018 Risk Categorization . . . . . . . "HOOD MMN�NNONNENOEENEENEE= Matrix 1. UlWlhocd matrix Likelihood likelihood of Impacting Target ofFaflure Veryow law Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unllkeiv Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrbr2 Risk rArinr matmc Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant` Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Ukely Low Moderate t11eh High Nord, Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate +--�- Unlikely Low Low -Law Law Notes, explanations, descriptions aam LS Mitigation options 7kW&AUF Residual risk Wu Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HlghV Extreme ❑ Work priority 10 2 ❑ 3J9 a. ❑ overall residual risk LoWV Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme LI Recommended inspecdorr interval DatrRFlnal O Preliminary Advanced assessment needed J6o ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection Iimltationsjj�Flone []Visibility ❑Access [Wines ORoot collar buried Describe This datuheet was produced by the Interna0onal Society of Arborlculture (ISA) and Is intended for use by Tree Risk Assesynem QmMed (TRAQ) arburhu - 2013 Page 2 of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 4 Tree Evaluation 2018 ISAL Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client -UM 4FIN Date IVY z t if Time T M Address/Tree location Tree no.Sheet I of Tree spe dbh-' A e Height Gf f Crown spread dia. Assessor(s) f—Timeframe&Y(jTools used I.E .. 0 Tantet Assessment r Target description Target zone Occupancy t- g z-aarbn.r <-mnrant a 1 0 W 1 2 h 3 4 Site Factors — History of failures 'Q %l ("UIL _ Topography Flat❑ Slopa % Aspect Fa-- Site changes NonelIKGrdde change❑ Site clearing-0—changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soilconditiorts Umitedvco� me❑SaturateW Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots % DescribeafEW. Prevailing wind dlrectlolD Common weather Strong windalgIce ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy ra%Voescribe Tree Health and Species ProfNe Vigor LowX Normal High Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal% ChloroticJjLl % Necrotic_% Pests Ablotic Species failure profile BrancheseTrunk❑ Roots Describe C Q �� �. IL.L Load Factors Wlndexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Fum:Windfunneling ❑ Relative crown size SmallO Medium❑ Large[] Crowndenslty Sparse CKNonnal❑ Dense❑1 Interior branches Few@WOrmal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mlstletoe/Mora❑ Recent or planned change in load factors UI. I.A Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the likelihood of Faflure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced Lrow yik LCRAr% Cracks ❑ _ Lightning damage ❑ Dead tw;psFurmchesK -%overall Max. dia. Q-�- Codominano included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. `NPakJlia(hinrnts}K' _____ Cavity/Nest hole _%dre. Over -extended branches ❑ i� Previous branch failures f� Similar branches present.!? Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Oead/Mlssingbark ❑ Cankers/GaILs/Burls ❑ Sapwood damagehfecay❑ Reduced ❑ Topped Ak Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main conceals) �ID kAl,ttf 'i"1 Kj�&LQk(,�klGL4 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Slgnlficart Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Wrmminent ❑ —Trunk — �/ Dead/Missing bark O Abnormal bark texture/coloryTL Codominantstems P-- Included bark&, Cracks❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Buris❑ Sap ooze❑ Lightning damage Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole_%sirs. Depth Poor taper Lean_' Corrected? Response growth A Main concern(s) MotEZ -'M IfMIT Ate_ Jti Loadondefect N/A❑ Mlnor❑ Moderate[] Signlficantw Likelihood of failure ��/ Improbable❑ Possible ❑ ProbableXa Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem glydling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/MushmomsK Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ _% sirs. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response Load on defect N/A❑ Mirror❑ Moderate❑ Significant$'9 Llkellhood of fallure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ ProbablWK Imminent ❑3 Page I of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 5 Tree Evaluation 2018 Risk Categorization rMUNNINNOMMONN mono= Matrix 1. Uk ellhood maubc Likelihood likelihood of Impacting target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Ukely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely somewhat likely Ukely possible Unlikely Unlikelv Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2 Risk nuag marroc Ukellhood of Fallu►e & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme U" Low Moderate Hiah High Somewhat likely Law Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions 'f`Rcl�a 16 It" 3L ug u Mitigation options ► F14A ug Jan Residual rlsSj+ Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ MOW Extreme ❑ Work prlority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3.b 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Lower' Moderate Li High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended Ynspection'Ynterval _ �r1vlJ 4 _ Data Final" ❑ Prelirrilnary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations Wone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This dalasheet wss produced by the Inte,mLiend Societyof Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended fw use byT ree Rlsk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arbwists - 2013 Naga 2 of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 6 Tree Evaluation 2018 5A Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client _s_ Date-� I Time Address/Tree locationT Tree no. Sheet of Tree species dbh Height ICE I ,C�row'n spread dia. Assessor(s)�[A Time frame Tools used ` 1 ,? 0 Target Assessment T)rrgetdsu'Iptlon Target zone Oocupancy rate 1-hra 2-oca�wml 4-moron[ fff � FF w '� 1 2 3 AL yb f 4 ,A S" Factors _ History of failures ZA R fiFl 1 _ 1 tt&s Topography FlatO Sloped % Aspect Site changes NoneIR Grade change❑Site clearing[] Changed soil hydrology RootcutsO Describe Soilconditions Limited vol m-eO,SaturatedPLShallowO CompactedO Pavement over roots % Describe_����(� Prevailing wind dlrccNo� f common weather Strong windyg Ice❑ Snow O Heavy rain Ck Describe ` Thee Health and Spedes Profile Vigor Low CIs Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead)❑ Normal ,2,r% Chlorotic_La% Necrotic% Pests Ablotic Speciesfailureprofile Branches`RTrunk❑ RootS� Describe Load Factors Windexposurc Protected❑ Partial❑ Ful Wlndfunneling0 Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large❑ Crowndenslty Spars�fY),'Normal❑ Dense❑ interior branches FewWNormalO Dense❑ Vlnes/Mlstletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change In load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — Unbalancedcmwwrnfi' LCRy % Cracks0_ Lightning damage Dead twigs/branches ❑ _%overall Max dia. Codominan6 _ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max dia. Weak attachmem� s'Cavity/Nest hole _%clrc. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures 9� Similar branches present ck Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped �r Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts O Other Response growth - — M in cone n Load an defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Signlf cant rDea.dr/Miss1r,egbark ihood failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar -- ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem glydling ❑ nant stems Included barker Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushroomsjood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ �% clrc. Ughtning damage Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole_% circ. Depth Poor taper Root plate lifting Soil weakness Lean _` Corrects[ Response growth Respon g h Main concerns) �LA t-A 5&jU 44 Main concerns) fl ��a�i1aA � Z'�`99Lgi>, :1iDCDC��- a t's� Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate 0 Significanth Load ondefect N/A ❑ Minor 0 Moderate ❑ Significant ft Likelihood of failure likelihood olfallure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable �1 Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 7 Tree Evaluation 2018 Risk Caterer riratlon V Tree part Conditions Of COncem I'MONSIONE logo I grog =i R Matrix!. Likellhood manioc. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Pmsibla Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Motrix2 Risk racing matrbc Likelihood of Fallure i Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhetllkely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Law Low Low LOW Notes, explanations, descriptions 33 i Ft Mf 1 Mitigation options v_exot i ----Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ Hfg'h DF Extreme ❑ Work prlority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ Z' 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low'a' Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data final ❑ Preliminary/Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations$1 oa ne ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar burled Describe This datasheet was produced by the Im—tianal Society of Arboricultum (ISA) and Win tended for use by Tree Risk Aa—ment Qualified (TAAQ) arborins-2013 page 2 of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 8 Tree Evaluation 2018 ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client LA _ ---Date Time Address/Tree location IQ !kQA it jigAA -hTree no. Sheet i_ of Tree specles C�En —t&MA A dbh C K Height AQC7 Crown spread dla. %T40 f Assessor(s)ZMA ` A932M 14144SE- A Time frame_ Tools used Target Assessment TargetdewriWon Target zone Occu ancy rate 1 x,-oor�or�ai s-mnmun X S � K 2 tj 3 —IE- 4 Ste factors History of failures Topography Flat❑ SlopeQirW_% Aspect SRechangesNonetXtradechange ❑Slteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Umitedvo�l eOSaturatedQCShallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots % Describe Prevallinswind directlodRI&I lCommon weather Strong windsOWce❑ Snow❑ Heavyrain;k Describe I Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor LovoNormal ❑ High Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal_% Chlorotic_% Necrotic-12r96 pests AblotCic Species failure profile Branchej-Trunk❑ Roots larDescribe Load'Factors Wlndexposure Protected[] Partial❑ FullYWindfunneling ❑ Relative crown size Small❑ MediumB-Large❑ Crowndenslty SparseVNormalO Dense❑ Interior branches FeWEVNormal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mlstletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors JUI A Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of -Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCRAQ% K Cracks ❑ Dead twlgs/branches Or WL overall Max. dla. �,l Codominant Broken/Hangers Number Max. dla. Weak attachments f [T` over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch fallures Pruning history � Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Ralsed ❑ Dead/Missingbark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Buds ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ;' Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ decay (Heartwood ❑ _ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth JA Lightning damage ❑ Included bark ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _% circ Similar branches presenCO Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant CW— Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 19 Imminent ❑ — - — -- _ —Trunk — Dead/Mlssing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/colorOIC, Codominant stems N' Included bark 112 Cracks ❑ sapwooddamage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Buris❑ SapoozeO Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole_%circ. Depth Poor taper Lean Corrected? _ Response growth Main concemis) . Loadondefect N/A❑ Minor❑ Moderate❑ SigniffcantQC Likelihood of fallure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — \ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms CK Craze ❑ Cavity ❑_%circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Sall weakness ❑ Response growth (7Y) IA► Marconccr ) Rliir i�.m Au11J� Load on defect N/A❑ Minor❑ Moderate❑ Significarit& Ukeilhood of faiure ,/ Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable l7: Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 9 Tree Evaluation 2018 Risk Categorization NOMMONEMM ��i■�iiiiiiiuiiNiM Matrbt 1. Likelihood matrix. Ukelihood Ukelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low law Medium H(ah 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 radnz matrix. .r Ukelihood of Consequences of Failure ++1— Fallure & hnpad Negligible Minor Significant Severe VeryIkely Low Moderate HIRh Extreme — —�-- Ukelv Low Moderate High Hleh North Somewhatllkely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Noles, ex lanations, descr bons ' T'g iS I frK�LS/[ Mitigation options �? F.Hn rr, Residual risk A Residual risk _ Residual risk _ Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HigtExtreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ JW 4 ❑ Overall residual risk LdtyV� Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended Inspection;lnterval Data Qfpal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑yes-Type/Reason e Inspection limitations [)96ne ❑Vlsibllity OAccess []Vines Moot collar buried Describe This dalasheet was produced by the Int—Ronal Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and Is Intended for use by Tree RIA Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arboriets - 2017 Page 2 of 2 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 10 Tree Evaluation 2018 Mushrooms are growing long the roots around the trees 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 13 , W 4D. -Pot Mt Tree Evaluation 2018 Waiver of Liability There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability, which may be present and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. 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 these trees, 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 necessary professionals to ensure that the long-term success of the project is ensured. 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 homeowners 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 insure that the tree will not fail. A second maybe sought if client feels it's necessary. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the tree examined fails for any reason or 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. Should you have any questions or concerns, or if I may be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, Zsofia Pasztor; Certified Horticulturist Cert. # 2459 Certified Arborist Cert. # PN5795A; Certified Tree Risk Assessor Cert. # 480 Certified LID Consultant and Designer Landscape Designer and Construction Consultant 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 15 Tree Evaluation 2018 ATTACHMENT 1 — GLOSSARY Terms Used in This Report, on the Tree Condition and Their Significance In an effort to clearly present the information for each tree in a manner that facilitates the reader's ability to understand the conclusions I have drawn for each tree, I have collected the information in a report format. This report was developed by Zsofia Pasztor and it is based upon the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface course manual and the Tree Risk Assessment Form, both sponsored by the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Hazard Tree Evaluation Form from the book, The Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, by Matheny and Clarke. The descriptions were left brief in the report in an effort to include as much pertinent information as possible, to make the report manageable, and to avoid boring the reader with infinite levels of detail. However, a review of these terms and descriptions will allow the reader to rapidly move through the report and understand the information. 1) TREE LOCATION --indicates what general area of the site the tree is on, or whether the tree is Off the Project property. 2) TREE #—the individual number of each tree. 3) SPECIES this describes the species of each tree with both most readily accepted common name and the officially accepted scientific name. 4) DBH—Diameter-at-Breast-Height. This is the standard measurement of trees taken at 4.5 feet above the average ground level of the tree base. i) Occasionally it is not practical to measure a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground. The most representative area of the trunk near 4.5 feet is then measured and noted on the spreadsheet. For instance, a tree that forks at 4.5 feet can have an unusually large swelling at that point. The measurement is taken below the swelling and noted as, `28.4" at 36'1 . ii) Trees with multiple stems are listed as a "clump of x," with x being the number of trunks in the clump. Measurements may be given as an average of all the trunks, or individual measurements for each trunk may be listed. (iii) Every effort is made to distinguish between a single tree with multiple stems and several trees growing close together at the bases. 5) DRIP LINE —the radius, the distance from the trunk to the furthest branch tips (sometimes the average of these measurements around the tree). 6) % LCR—Percentage of Live Crown Ratio: the relative proportion of green crown to overall tree height. This is an important indication of a tree's health. If a tree has a high percentage of Live Crown Ratio, it is likely producing enough photosynthetic activity to support the tree. If a tree has less than 30 to 40% LCR it can create a shortage of needed energy and can indicate poor health and vigor. 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 16 Tree Evaluation 2018 7) SYMMETRY —is the description of the form of the canopy. That is, the balance. or overall shape of the canopy and crown. This is the place I list any major defects in the tree shape —does the tree have all its foliage on one side or in one unusual area. Symmetry can be important if there are additional defects in the tree such as rot pockets, cracks, loose roots, weak crown etc. Symmetry is generally categorized as Generally Symmetrical, Minor Asymmetry or Major Asymmetry: i) Gen. Sym.—Generally Symmetrical. The canopy/foliage is generally even on all sides with spacing of scaffold branches typical for the species, both vertically and radially. ii) Min. Asym.—Minor Asymmetry. The canopy/foliage has a slightly irregular shape with more weight on one side but appears to be no problem for the tree. iii) Maj. Asym.—Major Asymmetry. The canopy/foliage has a highly irregular shape for the species with the majority of the weight on one side of the tree. This can have a significant impact on the tree's stability, health and hazard potential —especially if other defects are noted such as cracks, rot, root defects. 8) FOLIAGE/BRANCH—describes the foliage of the tree in relation to a perfect specimen of that particular species. First the branch growth and foliage density is described, and then any signs or symptoms of stress and/or disease are noted. The condition of the foliage, or the branches and buds for deciduous trees in the dormant season, are important indications of a tree's health and vigor. i) For Deciduous trees in the dormant season: • The structure of the tree is visible, • The quantity and quality of buds indicates health, and is described as • good bud set, average bud set, or poor bud set. These are abbreviated • in the spreadsheet as: gbs, abs, or pbs. • The amount of annual shoot elongation is visible and is another major • indication of tree health and vigor. This is described as: a) Excellent, Good, Average, or Short Shoot Elongation. These are abbreviated in the spreadsheet as ESE, GSE, ASE, OR SSE. ii) For evergreen trees year round and deciduous trees in leaf, the color and density of the foliage indicates if the tree is healthy or stressed, or if an insect infestation, a bacterial, fungal, or viral infection is present. Foliage is categorized on a scale from: • Dense —extremely thick foliage, an indication of healthy vigorous • growth, • Good thick foliage, thicker than average for the species, • Normal/Average—thick foliage, average for the species, an indication • of healthy growth, • Thin or Thinning —needles and leaves becoming less dense so that • sunlight readily passes through; an indication that the tree is under • serious stress that could impact the long-term survivability and safety • of the tree, Sparse —few leaves or needles on the twigs, an indication that the tree is under extreme stress and could indicate the future death of the tree Necrosis —the presence of dead twigs and branchlets. This is another • significant indication of tree health. A few dead twigs and branches • are reasonably typical in most trees of size. However, if there are dead 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 17 Tree Evaluation 2018 • twigs and branchlets all over a certain portion of the tree, or all over • the tree, these are indications of stress or attack that can have an • impact on the tree's long-term health. • Hangers —a term to describe a large branch or limb that has broken off • but is still hanging up in the tree. These can be particularly dangerous • in adverse weather conditions. 9) CROWN CONDITION —the crown is uppermost portion of the tree, generally considered the top 10 to 20% of the canopy or that part of the canopy above the main trunk in deciduous trees and above the secondary bark in evergreen trees. i) The condition of the tree's crown is a reflection of the overall health and vigor of the entire tree. The crown is one of the first places a tree will demonstrate stress and pathogenic attack such as root rot. ii) If the Crown Condition is healthy and strong, this is a good sign. If the crown condition is weak, broken out, or shows other signs of decline, it is an indication that the tree is under stress. It is such an important indication of health and vigor that this is the first place a trained forester or arborist looks to begin the evaluation of a tree. Current research reveals that, by the time trees with root rot show significant signs of decline in the crown, fully 50% or more of the roots have already rotted away. Crown Condition can be described as: • Healthy Crown —exceptional growth for the species. • Average Crown —typical for the species. • Weak Crown —thin spindly growth with thin or sparse needles. • Flagging Crown —describes a tree crown that is weak and unable to • grow straight up. • Dying Crown --describes obvious decline that is nearing death. • Dead Crown —the crown has died due to pathological or physical • injury. The tree is considered to have significant stress and/or • weakness if the crown is dead. • Broken out —a formerly weak crown condition that has been broken • off by adverse weather conditions or other mechanical means. • Regenerated or Regenerating —formerly broken out crowns that are • now growing back, Regenerating crowns may appear healthy, average, • or weak and indicate current health of the tree. • Suppressed —a term used to describe poor condition of an entire tree • or just the crown. Suppressed crowns are those that are entirely below • the general level of the canopy of surrounding trees which receive no • direct sunlight. They are generally in poor health and vigor. • Suppressed trees are generally trees that are smaller and growing in the • shade of larger trees around them. They generally have thin or sparse • needles, weak or missing crowns, and are prone to insect attack as well • as bacterial and fungal infections. 10) TRUNK —this is the area to note any defects that can have an impact on the tree's stability or hazard potential. Typical things noted are: 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 18 Tree Evaluation 2018 i) FORKED —bifurcation of branches or trunks that often occur at a narrow angle. ii) INCLUDED BARK —a pattern of development at branch or trunk junctions where bark is turned inward rather than pushed out. This can be a serious structural defect in a tree that can and often does lead to failure of one or more of the branches or trunks especially during severe adverse weather conditions. iii) EPICORMIC GROWTH —this is generally seen as dense thick growth near the trunk of a tree. Although this looks like a healthy condition, it is in fact the opposite. Trees with Epicormic Growth have used their reserve stores of energy in a last ditch effort to produce enough additional photosynthetic surface area to produce more sugars, starches and carbohydrates to support the continued growth of the tree. Generally speaking, when conifers in the Pacific Northwest exhibit heavy amounts of Epicormic Growth, they are not producing enough food to support their current mass and are already in serious decline. iv) INTERNAL STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS —a physical characteristic of the tree trunk, such as a kink, crack, rot pocket, or rot column that predisposes the tree trunk to failure at the point of greatest weakness. v) BOWED —a gradual curve of the trunk. This can indicate an Internal Structural Weakness or an overall weak tree. It can also indicate slow movement of soils or historic damage of the tree that has been corrected by the curved growth. vi) KINKED —a sharp angle in the tree trunk that indicates that the normal growth pattern is disrupted. Generally this means that the internal fibers and annual rings are weaker than straight trunks and prone to failure, especially in adverse weather conditions. vii)GROUND FLOWER —an area of deformed bark near the base of a tree trunk that indicates long-term root rot. 11) ROOT COLLAR —this is the area where the trunk enters the soil and the buttress roots flare out away from the trunk into the soil. It is here that signs of rot, decay, insect infestation, or fungal or bacterial infection are noted. NAD stands for No Apparent Defects. 12) ROOTS —any abnormalities such as girdling roots, roots that wrap around the tree itself that strangle the cambium layer and kill the tree, are noted here. 13) COMMENTS —this is the area to note any additional information that would not fit in the previous boxes or attributes about the tree that have bearing on the health and structure of the tree. 14) CURRENT HEALTH RATING —A description of the tree's general health ranging from dead, dying, poor, senescent, suppressed, fair, good, very good, to excellent. 15) PNW-ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT RATINGS FOR HAZARD POTENTIAL-- The Pacific Northwest Chapter of the international Society of Arboriculture now certifies arborists as Certified Tree Risk Assessors using an adjusted scale Low to Extreme. They are: i) TARGET RATING --A scale of zero to three points depending upon the amount of use within the range of the tree and the amount of injury or damage that might occur if the tree or component part does fail. Target is both the level of use and the quality/value of the target combined with the foreseeable amount of injury or damage that will likely occur should the tree or component part fail. 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 19 Tree Evaluation 2018 • 0 Points, no target. No Hazard. • 1 Point, Low human use is rare and random for short periods of time and/or low target value. (country roads, long-term or overflow parking, remote parks, wilderness trails) • 2 Points, Moderate human use less than 50% time, occasional (any given time) and/or moderate target value. (picnic areas, camping areas, minor rural roads, moderate use trails) • 3 Points, Moderately high human use more than 50% of the time, frequent or high value target and/or moderate target value. (bus stops, roads, parking areas, most rarely used vacation homes, playgrounds, etc.) • 4 Points, High or constant human use and/or high target value. (Schools, hospitals, residential and family homes, utilities, visitor centers, emergency access roads and stations) ii) SIZE OF PART-- The larger the tree or component part that fails, the greater the potential for injury or damage. iii) PROBABILITY OF FAILURE --This component ranks the likelihood that the observed defect(s) will fail in a reasonable amount of time in the foreseeable future. The probability of failure automatically has associated with it threshold of action recommended to reduce or minimize the potential failure and associated injuries or damages that might occur. iiii) CONSEQUENCES 16) ISA HAZARD or RISK RATING --The combined component ratings used within a specific Matrix. Basic Tree Risk Assossment Form o --rrrrr O --r�rr u --rr-rr 17) RECOMMENDATION— this is an estimate of whether or not the tree is of sufficient health, vigor, and structure that it is worth retaining. Specific recommendations for each tree are included in this column. They may include anything from pruning dead wood, mulching, aerating, injecting 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 20 Tree Evaluation 2018 tree -based fertilizer into the root system, shortening into a habitat tree or wildlife snag, or to completely removing the tree. i) Monitor: "Monitor" is a specific recommendation that the tree be reevaluated on a routine basis to determine if there are any significant changes in health or structural stability. "Monitor annually" (or bi-annually, triannually, etc.)" means the tree should be looked at once every year (or every 2 or 3 years, etc.) This yearly monitoring can be a quick look at the trees to see if there are any significant changes. Significant changes such as storm damage, loss of crown, partial failure of one or more roots, etc. require that a full evaluation be done of the tree at that time. NOTE: TREES WITH THE SAME DESCRIPTION AND DIFFERENT RATINGS: Two trees may have the same descriptions in the matrix boxes, one may be marked "Hazard," while another may be marked "Non -Hazard." The difference is in the degree of the description -- early "necrosis" versus advanced "necrosis" for instance. Another example is center rot or base rot. In a Western Red Cedar or Oak tree the presence of low or even moderate rot is not significant and does not diminish the strength of the tree. However, low levels of rot in the base of a Douglas Fir or Big Leaf Maple tree in an area known to have virulent pathogens present is highly significant and predisposes that tree to windthrow. Again, these descriptions were left brief in an effort to include as much pertinent information as possible, to make the report manageable, and, not to bore the reader with infinite levels of detail. 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 21 Tree Evaluation 2018 ATTACHMENT 2— REFERENCES 1. Dunster, Dr. Julian A., R.P.F., M.C.LP. Interpreting Resistograph Readings, A Manual for Users of the Resistograph Decay Detection Instrument. Bowen Island, Canada: Dunster & Associates, 2000. 2. Eric Allen, et al. Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia. Victoria: Canadian Forest Service, 1996. 3. Harris, Richard W. et al. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. 4. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2na ed. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994 5. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees, A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. 6. Pacific Northwest Chapter-ISA. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface, Course Manual. Release 1.5. PNW-ISA: Silverton, Oregon, 2012. 7. Robert Van Pelt Champion Trees of Washington State University of Washington 1996 8. City of Seattle Director's Rule 16-2008 9. Arthur Lee Jacobson Trees of Seattle Second Edition Seattle, Washington 2006 10. Edward F. Gilman An Illustrated Guide to Pruning Third Edition Delmar 2012 11. May Teilgaard Watts; Tom Watts Winter Tree Finder Nature Study Guild Publ. NY 1970 12. Bob Doppelt, Mary Scurlock, Chris Frissell, James Karr Entering The Watershed Pacific River Council Washington DC, 1993 13. Rodney W. Tyler Winning The Organics Game ASHS Press VA 1996 14. US Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants 2007 15. Matheny and Clark in Trees and Development.- A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land Development (Harris 1992, Helliwell 1985) 16, Guide to Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, written by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. 834 Cary Road Edmonds WA Page 22 City of Edmonds Map Title W GS_1984_Web_Mercator_AuxiIiary_S phere © City of Edmonds This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLINE: <all other values> 1 2 514 9;71,7;8 R:! Notes