The URL can be used to link to this page

HazardTreeRemoval_20151014.pdf./)C. 18wt October 14, 2015 CI"T"Y OF E:ON:TS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www ci,edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Laura Wagner and Brian Flaherty 304-8 1h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal Dear Ms. Wagner and Mr. Flaherty, The City of Edmonds was contacted by Justina Kraus of Champion Tree Care on your behalf regarding the removal of a hazard tree and pruning of another tree located on the property adjacent to yours at 306 — 8th Avenue South. The identified trees are located near Shell Creek. Shell Creek is considered a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40 and 23.90. Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees. Hazard evaluation forms were submitted documenting one of the trees as a high risk and the other as a moderate risk. The proposal call from pruning of the tree rated as a moderate risk (Tree # 1) and the removal of the tree rated has a high risk (Tree #2) ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv requires that hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. The arborist recommended replacing the tree with two cedar trees. Given the trees are located on an adjacent property, the adjacent property owner must also grant you permission to enter the site to prune and remove the identified trees. An email from the adjacent property owner was provided to the City granting the authority to conduct the identified activities. This approval is also being sent to the property owner. An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the Tree #2 identified in the tree hazard evaluation form as a high risk may be removed. 2. The two cedar replacement trees must be a minimum of 6 -feet in height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv and must be planted within one year of tree the tree cutting activity. Replacement trees should be planted in the generally vicinity of the tree being removed. 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. Stump of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion. 5. Tree #1 identified as a moderate risk may be pruned consistent with the arborist report prepared by Justina Kraus dated October 7, 2015. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions,rii n.!iLgjt ,)ed.mt iidsw. , Qy, 425-771-0220. M e Surely, `ernen Lien" ` Senior Planner Encl: October 7, 2015 Arborist Report prepared by Justina Kraus of Champion Tree Care Forwarded September 8, 2015 email from Brian Leonard (owner of 306 — 8`h Avenue N) Cc: Brian Leonard Justina Kraus, Champion Tree Care Page 1 of 6 �tampion ,Free Care Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. 425-353-5434 October 7, 2015 For: Laura Wagner and Brian Flaherty 3048 th Ave N Edmonds 98020 Parcel#00434208000100 Regarding Trees on Parcel #00434208000300; Property Owner Brian Leonard; takligwl�m n cq. To: City of Edmonds Development Services Department Contact: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner 425-771-0220 x1223 Kernen.Lien ;dmon sw�, Re: Two Western Hemlocks in a Critical Area; 1 removal, 1 pruning Dear Mr. Lien, Thank you for your time. This report is to satisfy the requirements for tree work in a Critical Area within the City of Edmonds limits. I, Justina Kraus, am an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (PN -1583A) and Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ). I am a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (RSCA) and I hold Bachelor and Master Degrees from the University of Washington in traditional and urban forest ecology. Champion Tree Care is a licensed, bonded, insured Contractor with the State of Washington #CHAMPTC870CN. We perform all tree care to meet, or exceed, the American National Institute Standards ANSI -A300 standards for tree work. Husband and wife, Brian and Laura at 304 8th Ave N [Parcel#00434208000100] are relatively new homeowners. They first had me out, May 9 2015, to look at the trees in, on, and surrounding, their property to learn of potential hazards and recommended routine maintenance. I conducted a verbal assessment with them advising them they would need to get appropriate permissions from adjacent property owners and that a City approved permit would be required because there is a stream. We communicated over the summer by phone and email, and they had me out again on August 25, 2015 after uncovering a number of cut roots on a tree while clearing out English Ivy. Brian and Laura have been given written permission by the property owner Brian Leonard to do the following tree work (his emailed, written permission statement is being forwarded to your email). Brian Leonard owns parcel#00434208000300, which is an undeveloped completely forested patch dominated by mature Western Hemlocks (Tsuga heterophylla) and Western Red Cedars (Thuja plicata). The property slopes at greater than 15 percent down to a stream. Two Western Hemlocks that sit adjacent to the shared property line are the subject of this document. Hemlock #1 is located right behind the house, while Hemlock #2 sits above the house above a not -new rock retaining wall covered in English Ivy. The house is well within striking distance of both trees. Page 2 of 6 Tree#1. Western Hemlock. Retain but prune out dead and broken branches, dead English Ivy, and perform a canopy inspection. I recommend that this tree be retained at this time, but pruned and the canopy inspected for hazards. This tree is not at present an imminent threat because the entire root flare is buttressed and well rooted into the ground, it is without any visual evidence of physical wounding or advanced -decay fungal -fruiting -bodies. The hazards associated with this tree are located in the canopy and can be mitigated through proper pruning. There are a considerable number of dead branches in the canopy (greater than 15) and a dead framework of mature English Ivy. Picture 1. This is Hemlock #1. It sits on the property line adjacent and overhanging the house at 304. This tree should be retained but pruned and the canopy inspected for hazards. Page 3 of 6 Picture 2. The mid trunk area on Hemlock #1 contains many dead branches and a framework of dead English Ivy. An inspection during pruning will ensure there are no hidden canopy hazards. The house sits within the strike range of this tree if the canopy were to fail. Page 4 of 6 Picture 3. Hemlock #1 has healthy, well -rooted, large -buttress -roots to support its canopy above. This is an example, not all of the large root crown could be photographed. Tree#2. Western Hemlock. Remove. Only leave large wood. Replant with 2 Western Red Cedars. Hemlock #2 sits above the house above a rock retaining wall. The house is just within the dripline of the 100 -ft+ tall tree; sitting about 20 -ft from the tree. It appears that during construction of the wall about 25% of the holding roots for the mature hemlock were cut within 10 -ft of the trunk. The roots have died as a result. The roots are well -buttressed on the upper, or holding, side of the tree. I'm concerned about the amount of decay likely to have entered the tree years ago and having time to spread into the trunk. Western hemlocks can fail at the trunk if they are diseased with weakened wood, when they experience extreme torsion, or twisting, in the canopy during extreme windstorms. There is hemlock Ganoderma, present in the forest patch on old hemlock snags; evidenced by large persistent conks. Ganoderma weakens wood by reducing the lignin, or strong fibers, leaving the white cellulose which allows the wood to be crumbled easily in the hand. The decayed, cut roots crumbled easily in my hand. Because this tree has the damage to the roots and the potential for failure to the lower trunk it has an increased potential for failure as a large unit. This tree is more than 100 -ft tall, it sits above the house, and the house is only 25 -ft away. Pruning cannot mitigate the hazards that exist in the root zone and lower trunk so that is why I recommend removal for this tree. Some of the large wood could be left to become coarse woody debris, but I believe that most of the tree should be hauled off the site. Otherwise it will be too large an input of material and smother interior plants. Plus there is already a mixture of dead wood, both standing and on the ground, in various sizes for wildlife to use. Page 5 of 6 Picture 4. The homeowners uncovered the cut roots of Hemlock #2 while clearing out the invasive groundcover, English Ivy. Cut roots in area indicated by yellow line. Picture 5. These roots are an example, not all cut roots of Hemlock #2 shown here. They were cut sometime in the past and are now easily broken off in your hand. These roots are structural and located within 10 -ft of the trunk. Blue arrow shows root decayed by white -rot fungi. Page 6 of 6 Picture 6. Example of a Hemlock Ganoderma conk on a snag located within the forested lot. Hemlock Ganoderma is a white -rot decay leaving the wood delignified and structurally weak. This indicates the presence of the disease in the stand. Thank you very much, Please let me know if you have any questions or comments„ I look forward to hearing from you. Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. Justina,.champtreecare@_gmail.com 425-353-5434 www.champtreec!are.com End of Report. ISABasic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client ➢,�. �u -k.� Date_ Time Address/Tree ➢dation Tree no _Sheet of Tree species „ 'r xf (��'°' �_ " �.r.,°` db'h ``� Height ! ��, „ �� Crown spread dia. Assessor(s). mV T,i -1 ' _ __._......�_._..... Time frame,.. .I e �. Tools used Target Assessment g nt M Target zone occupancy N m= r rate $ "' c EP �c C O/ '� = 1 rare R R - u N C Target description .a c 0C r�icrrr�vi " d ~fit {a ri � Pra*raw�w»our � c t,`, � r a 3 IT a on,44M a` E a 2 3 4 Site Factors Histo �.....^^.e� mm ...... Topography History of failures. ....� p graphy Flat❑ Slope • Aspect Soil conditions United volurnc ❑ Sawr°ated ❑ 5haIIaw Ld Com pa ❑ Pave, over rootsi s�rtlhe IT� �.�� Sate chap es Nonr,,J' Gr ade chap e❑ Sitc. clear'in ❑ Changed ➢pan ed soiC➢a drolo ❑Root cuts❑ i;�e. l '" ..._m% Describe _�.` i "r, ;�'r�0.. Prevailing wind direction,.,Common weather Stront winds ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Dc. scribe Tree Health and ,Species Profile g High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal � ° or Low ❑ Normal g� Chlorotic % Vi Necrotit.' Pests Abiotic Species failurerofile Branches. Trunk] Roots❑ Describe r _.._ ............_�.�._.._.�.Load Factors Wind x osure Prot e.c.ied❑rtFull ❑Wnd _.�.... �.�_ funneling 0 Relative crown size Small Medium[] Largel ' Crown density Sparseal Nrarmal'❑ Dense Interior branches Few[] Normal,b Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss Recent or planned change in load factors�� Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branch%overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number F .Z Max. dia. --- Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Over-extended branches Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned 11 Thinned ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls 11Sapwood damage/decay 13 Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other r• Response growth Main concerns) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑iProbable 0 Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — ("��'Deacl/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor -taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean " Corrected? Response growth/ i r�' a� Response growth Main concern(s) M.aln concern(s) 4 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor oderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ of failure Likelihood of failure �Likelllhood able❑ Possible' Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possilble Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Risk Categorization .............. ... . . --- — --- Likelihood Failure &Impact Consequences E Failure Impact 3 C Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High 0) U E Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Ifrorn Matrix 11) Somewhat likely Likely Possible Risk 0 Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable M Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Low Low Low Low rating Conditions W Target et 0 — E M LE of part US 0 Tree part of concern M 0. M LL. protection E E 0 W E 0 AA in to lu Z E 17 I (from Matrix 2) X X it" 11 . ...... . .. 2 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix, 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 Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact Negligible Minor Significant I 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 t ......... . V, Residual risk Mitigation options . . ..... ,A Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low 13 Moderate k/ High 11 Extreme 0 Work priority 10 2 0 311 40 Overall residual risk Low D Moderate 0 High 0 Extreme 0 Recommended inspection interval . . . ... . . Z ............. Data 0 Final Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo OYes-Type/Reason zi Inspection limitations ONone OVisibility DAccess Mines 0Root collar buried Describe ... ....... Kis datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (T Q) arbonsts - 20 13 Page 2 of 2 T,�A Basic Tree is Assessment dorm Client Date Time Address Tree locatbn Tree nou Sheet of, 14L Height Tree species dbh.... Crown spread d iia Assessor(s) A), Time frame r > fools used Target Assessment site Factors . .. . . . . . ............. . .. ...... ..... . ..... t6i History of failures Topography flat Slop"eO Aspect Site changes: None"'O Grade chingeO", Site clearing 0 Changed soil hydrology 0 Root cut Desaibe-�1-1/11- Soil conditions Umited volurne 0 Saturated 0 Shallow 0 Compacted 0: Pavement over routs 0 Describe P Prevailing wind direction LI ---L Common weather Strong wind. icell snow Heavy lainO Describe Tree Health and Soecies Profile Vigor LowO Normal" ' High[] Foliage None (seasonal) El None (dead)O Normal T�% Chlorotic % Necrotic 7 n % Pests Abiotic .. .. ..... . .. ..... Species failure profile Branches,U Trunk Root5p' Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected 0 Partial `0, FulIO Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size SmallO Medium[] Lar��91 Crowndensity SparseO Normal,6 DenseO Interior branches FewO NormallADensell Vines/Mistietoe/Mossg,',",""',i,°,,,�,, Recent or planned change in load factors _ L -L,,, 7 ' &-21, —1 1 Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches Unbalanced crown 0 LCR WWW% Cracks 0 . . . . . .Lightning damage 0 Dead twigs/branchesoverall Max.dia. Codominant 1:1 Included bark 11 . .. ....... . ......... Broken/Hangers Number I Max. dia, ZL Weak attachments 0 .. . ................ . . .. ....... ......... Cavity/Nest hole % circ. over-extended branches Previous branch failures 11 Similar branches present 0 Pruning history Crown cleaned 0 Thinned 0 Raised Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 13 Sapwood damage/decay 0 Reduced 0 Topped 11 Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 11 Flush cuts 0 Other Response growth Main roncern(s) , Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate 0 Significan(O' Likelihood of failure improbable 0 Possible 0 Probable imminent 0 Likelihood —Trunk — Roots and Root Collar — D e /M ead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling El Dead/Missing [3 Co om Codominant stems 11 Included bark 11 Cracks 0 Dead 0 Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms El 's , [3 Sapwood damage/decay [I Cankers/Galls/Burls(3 Sap oozeTUrooze 11 Cavity 0 % circ. Lightning damage 0 Heartwood decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 5'','Distance from trunk, l": -L" Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth_ Poor taper l] Root plate lifting El Soil weakness 0 Lean—' Corrected? Mainry Respoconcense growth . . ....... . . Response growth (" 7 ,,,I, j, P- 4 "1", Y Main concern(s) rns) h Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate El SignificanPEC i Load on defect N/A 0 Minor[] Moderate 11 Siifficant Likelihood of failure �,L�ikellhood of failure 1, 1 !)41 ImprobableO imminent 11 (_,Q mpr, Imminent fi n e n� P" JO failure �101 �Probabte, Imminent 0 bbIeOO Possible [0�3 Probable Target zone I occupancy J2 E X rate 1 -rare 0 L- *,a M Target description EL X occ�,Itmml L en 6 a. E WE 2 3 site Factors . .. . . . . . ............. . .. ...... ..... . ..... t6i History of failures Topography flat Slop"eO Aspect Site changes: None"'O Grade chingeO", Site clearing 0 Changed soil hydrology 0 Root cut Desaibe-�1-1/11- Soil conditions Umited volurne 0 Saturated 0 Shallow 0 Compacted 0: Pavement over routs 0 Describe P Prevailing wind direction LI ---L Common weather Strong wind. icell snow Heavy lainO Describe Tree Health and Soecies Profile Vigor LowO Normal" ' High[] Foliage None (seasonal) El None (dead)O Normal T�% Chlorotic % Necrotic 7 n % Pests Abiotic .. .. ..... . .. ..... Species failure profile Branches,U Trunk Root5p' Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected 0 Partial `0, FulIO Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size SmallO Medium[] Lar��91 Crowndensity SparseO Normal,6 DenseO Interior branches FewO NormallADensell Vines/Mistietoe/Mossg,',",""',i,°,,,�,, Recent or planned change in load factors _ L -L,,, 7 ' &-21, —1 1 Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches Unbalanced crown 0 LCR WWW% Cracks 0 . . . . . .Lightning damage 0 Dead twigs/branchesoverall Max.dia. Codominant 1:1 Included bark 11 . .. ....... . ......... Broken/Hangers Number I Max. dia, ZL Weak attachments 0 .. . ................ . . .. ....... ......... Cavity/Nest hole % circ. over-extended branches Previous branch failures 11 Similar branches present 0 Pruning history Crown cleaned 0 Thinned 0 Raised Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 13 Sapwood damage/decay 0 Reduced 0 Topped 11 Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 11 Flush cuts 0 Other Response growth Main roncern(s) , Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate 0 Significan(O' Likelihood of failure improbable 0 Possible 0 Probable imminent 0 Likelihood —Trunk — Roots and Root Collar — D e /M ead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling El Dead/Missing [3 Co om Codominant stems 11 Included bark 11 Cracks 0 Dead 0 Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms El 's , [3 Sapwood damage/decay [I Cankers/Galls/Burls(3 Sap oozeTUrooze 11 Cavity 0 % circ. Lightning damage 0 Heartwood decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 0 Cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 5'','Distance from trunk, l": -L" Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth_ Poor taper l] Root plate lifting El Soil weakness 0 Lean—' Corrected? Mainry Respoconcense growth . . ....... . . Response growth (" 7 ,,,I, j, P- 4 "1", Y Main concern(s) rns) h Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate El SignificanPEC i Load on defect N/A 0 Minor[] Moderate 11 Siifficant Likelihood of failure �,L�ikellhood of failure 1, 1 !)41 ImprobableO imminent 11 (_,Q mpr, Imminent fi n e n� P" JO failure �101 �Probabte, Imminent 0 bbIeOO Possible [0�3 Probable Risk Categorization Likelihood v E Failure Impact Failure & Impact Consequences 0 UE (from Matrix 1) Risk _ o NZ m r v W c rating Conditions '� a C t: _ V „ °' Target o m —3° ? M a v , '—` ,i' a of part, Y ®tw t U Tree part of concern a Li H a o E Z 3 v protection E a a > - i E v Z e (from j 0 Z in n Matrix 2) or` r� � i X" rry a, 2 „' o yr 4 El Hj Matrix 1, Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likelv Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact 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 rd i Mitigation optionsm :..�. `_ Residual risk Residual risk .............. Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ Hig, Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final []Preliminary Advanced assessment needed []No ❑Yes-Type/Reason ......... w„ Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access []Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe ..... This datasbeet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by'free Risk Assessment Qualified (IRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2 J. Kraus, Arborist for 304 8th Ave N 98020 Laura Wagner and Brian Flaherty Oct 12, 2015 Lien, Kernen From: Justina Kraus <justina.champtreecare@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:12 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Fwd: tree removal Here is the forwarded permission for Laura Wagner and Brian Flaherty to work on the adjacent property owned by Brian Leonard. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian K. Leonard<a+w+ll ina�> Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:05 AM Subject: tree removal To: jgstinaxhain pta•cec °c gmaiI coir Justina: Please remove the tree with the compromised roots at the SW corner of my property at 8th and Sprague in Edmonds, WA., and trim the branches in the crown of the adjacent tree. You are authorized to proceed with the necessary steps we discussed. Very Truly Yours, Brian Leonard Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor 425-353-5434 Office 425-238-3946 Cell www.clia.nip!K(-,.,ecare.com