RevisedArboristReport.pdfApril 8, 2015
Kernen Lien
Senior Planner
City of Edmonds,
121 5th Avenue North,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Kent Halverson
6615 214th Ave NE
Redmond, WA 98053
Re: Meadowview Estates Tree cutting @ 15610 & 15620 72nd Ave West
Dear Mr. Lien:
I was contacted by Mr. Halverson on March 30th and asked to review a letter dated March
26th, 2015 from the City of Edmonds regarding several violations of the City's tree cutting
regulations.* He retained me to perform a site visit and a response to the letter.
On April 3rd, 2015, I visited the site and spent several hours tagging all the trees impacted
by the pruning and assessing whether damage had occurred to the native vegetation.
In summary I found the following:
• Nineteen (19) trees of varying sizes were pruned or topped
• One (1) tree has been made non-viable as a result of topping
• Eighteen (18) trees are viable and will recover
• Ground cover was not significantly damaged
On October 19th, 2015, I revisited the site and found it much improved. New photos and
table are highlighted in yellow. I have amended my original assessment to the following:
• Nineteen (19) trees of varying sizes were pruned or topped
• All are expected to survive
• Ground cover was not significantly damaged
I have included a detailed report of my findings. If you have any questions please contact
me; I can be reached at 425.890.3808 or by email: sprjnce2fJ _ aol.corn.
Warm regards,
Susan Prince
Creative Landscape Solutions
ISA Certified Arborist: PNW: 1481-A
TRAQ/TRACE Certified: #418
17518 NE 119th Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Assignment:
I was contacted by Mr. Halverson who requested I visit the site of a proposed short plat at
15610 & 15620 72nd Ave West, in Edmonds to assess whether trees pruned in the previous
few weeks on the west side of the slope would recover of if they had been irreparably
damaged. At that time, I examined and documented the slope vegetation to assess the
health of the plants and to make recommendations for ensuring that viability of the tree and
plant material.
Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology:
To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on my formal college education in
botany, preparation and training used to obtain my ISA certification in addition to my
certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have been an ISA Certified Arborist for over fifteen
years and have been TRACE/TRAQ certified for four years.
I followed protocol delineated by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual
Risk Assessment (VRA). By doing so, I am examining each tree independently as well as
collectively as groups or stands of trees provide stability and can lower risk of independent
tree failure. This scientific process examines tree health (e.g. size, vigor, and insect and
disease process) as well as site conditions (soil moisture and composition, amount of
impervious surfaces surrounding the tree etc.)
Introduction:
Identifying and managing the risks associated with trees is still largely a subjective process.
Since the exact nature of tree failures remains largely unknown, our ability as scientists and
arborists to predict which trees will fail and in what fashion remains limited. As currently
practiced, the science of hazard tree evaluation involves examining a tree for structural
defects, including genetic problems, those caused by the local environmental that the tree
grows in and those attributed to man (pruning etc.).
The assessment process involves evaluating three components: 1) a tree with the potential
to fail, 2) an environment that may contribute to that failure, and 3) a person or object that
would be injured or damaged (the target). By definition a defective tree cannot be
considered hazardous without the presence of a target.
All trees have a finite life -span though it is not pre-programmed internally in the same
manner as annual plantings. As trees age they are less able to compartmentalize structural
damage following injury from insects, disease or pruning. Trees in urban settings have a
shorter life span than trees grown in an undisturbed habitat.
Different species of trees grow differently. Evergreen trees have a "reputation" of growing
slowly and defensively. These trees allocate a high proportion of their resources to
defending themselves from pathogens, parasites and wounds. As a rule, trees with this
type of growth tend to be long lived. Though like all other living things, they have a fairly
predictable life span. Examples of this type of tree include the northwest Pseudotsuga
menziesii - Douglas fir, and Thuja plicata - Western red cedar.
Deciduous trees are trees that annually shed leaves or needles. These trees have a
tendency to grow quickly and try to "outgrow" problems associated with insects, disease
and wounds. They allocate a relatively small portion of their internal resources to defense
and rely instead upon an ability to grow more quickly than the pathogens which infect them.
However, as these trees age, their growth rate declines and the normal problems associated
with decay begins to catch up and compromise the tree's structural integrity. Examples of
this type of tree include Salix, Populus and Alnus.
Knowledge of the growth and failure patterns of individual tree species is critical to effective
hazard analysis. Species vary widely in their rates of failure. The hazard tree evaluation
rating system used by most arborists was developed by the Colorado Urban Forest Council
and recognizes this variation in species failure and includes a species component as part of
the overall hazard evaluation.
Site Observations:
The site is a 2.2 acre site that "faces" to the west. There is a steep slope on the western
portion of the property.
Al
Photo looking west at the slope drop off
Offsite trees Potentially Impacted by Development:
None
Method's used to determine tree location and tree health:
Trees were identified previously by numbered aluminum tags attached to the western side
of the tree. All of the trees on site were examined using the Matheny and Clark' criteria for
determining the potential hazard of trees in an urban environment as well as the Tree Risk
Assessment in Urban Areas and The Urban/Rural Interface by Julian Dunster2.
The tree diameter was measured using an aluminum "diameter tape measure." Tree canopy
was measured from longest branch to longest branch with a cloth tape measure secured by
a stake.
Spreadsheet Legend:
Tree tag #:........ Numbered aluminum tags attached to the trees in the field
DBH:........ Diameter of the tree measured at 42" above grade
Dripline Radius: ........ Measurement in feet of the tree canopy from tree trunk to outermost
branch tip
Health: ........ A measurement of overall tree vigor and vitality rated as excellent, good, and
fair or poor based on an assessment of crown density, leaf color and size, active
callusing, shoot growth rate, extent of crown dieback, cambium layer health, and
tree age
• Excellent: Tree is an ideal specimen for the species with no obvious flaws
• Good: Tree has minimal structural or situational defects
• OK: Minimal structural issues with poor
• Fair: Tree has structural or health issues that predispose it to failure if further
stressed
• Poor: Tree has significant structural and/or health issues. It is exempt from total tree
count.
Defects/Concerns: ........a measure of the tree's structural stability and failure potential
based on assessment of specific structural features, e.g., decay, conks, co -dominant
trunks, included bark, abnormal lean, one-sided canopy, history of failure, prior
construction impact, pruning history, etc.
Proposed action:
• Reta i n
• Remove due to viability
Species ID: ........ Spreadsheet contains common names of trees which correspond to scientific
names as follows:
• Apple: Malus sp.
• American sycamore: Plantanus
occidentalis
• Austrian pine: Pinus nigra
• Bigleaf maple: Acer macrophyllum
• Birch: Betula nigra
• Bitter Cherry: Prunus emarginata
• Blue atlas cedar: Cedrus atlantica
'Glauca'
• Cedar: Thuja plicata
• Cherry: Prunus sp.
• Dawn redwood: Chamaecyparis
nootkatensis
• Deodora cedar: Cedrus deodara
• Colorado blue spruce: Picea
pungens
• Cottonwood: Populus trichocarpa
• Dogwood: Cornus nuttaNii
• Douglas fir: Pseudotsuga menziesii
• English laurel: Prunus laurocerasus
• Filbert: Corylus avellana var.
• Grand fir: Abies grandis
• Hemlock: Tsuga hetrophylla
• Holly: Ilex aquifolium
• Japanese maple: Acer palmatum
• Leylandii cypress: Cupressocyparis
leylandii
• Lodgepole pine: Pinus contorta
• Mountain ash: Sorbus americana
• Pear: Pyrus sp.
• Plum: Prunus
• Red Alder: Alnus rubra
• Red maple: Acer rubrum
• Walnut: Juglans sp.
• Western red cedar: Thuja plicata
• Weeping Alaska cedar:
Metasequoia glyptostrobides
• White pine: Pinus strobus
m
°
,E
v°
v
�o
E U
-o m E
m
fo o-o�
Ln ..
;.
3 (o
fo
�
=
a)
a)- n- �.D�
C U C M N
fv v
N �-0
fCo fJ fo
r-1
Ln
N
C 4-
fo V
V)
fo a) +�
�_
V n
t
4
U
U
a)
a
D
E)
-V
u r�LO
O
N
u EO .0 C
CL
a
s
(L�o
Qo
��
a oiaa))
�� a)
o
En
aj >4J
o E
mew
-0o
E �'E
o
o° 3 u
ro
fo L
C
v
a) L
fa V) L a-' L d VI
a)
E
U
a
U
s
v cn
o o
E o,E
o-
•�
V
E = oio'ac
u Y a) O En -0 �
0� °o
E
>
>
L L a)
QmE
v 2
L °
in
O !Z a) O>
V) '0 L-
r�o
L E L
@�-3+I
:. U w.•,...•
...W...w
.....m_,.
V)
ofuE
L
a)
V) 41 C (_n
a) OL
Y
U O p
-0
L
O-0 fo
N :
0
C -
o Q)
0)4--
(�
C
E
0)70
m
a) -0 w O a)
Co 41
Ln
VI
V)
= aj n �
y E L C
V
fo fE0 a) 3
O
N C 7 ,--i - L
'.., U
U
fo
U
o.
a)
Q
cu U V
>�
u co C
L a)
°�a)
°
L
UM
fs U
VI�O�
4-'
aoc�CL
3 'f0
Q
M
V)
V)
o �
O- �
fo c
0.-0 O
�o'�/�E
a)
3 E
O
O
1 > o4�
61��
,
E
°
L
fo
fB
U Ln L ++ L
.0 (� L
C
— > C n lJ
fo VI L e' d fn
•a
•Q
L . L L U �.
E- OL (o
E pl E-
L L
r�-i
L
E L E C M a)
O }' (o
•Q C-0 OL L O C
>, 7 fo E O 7
>,
>,
_� L
lu
iL.
-°
4�
u
O
algelA
x
xx
x
x
x
x
—
fo
..
......................................
ko
_ Ln algein 4ON
L......
Q
.m......
.........
na, alge1A
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ln
OL p1 w C N
Ln
CO
0- o � U
Q L
41
° E a
a 0 o a)
ih
F,
Q� u�
0C
M
m
xLO
5 -
SCO
,�
_ =
��
,�
a'
,� %D 't
N
�0Lnn
LA
N
L
a)
D
w
fo
L
w
w
fo
w
fo N
L
a)
"O
w
fo
M
' V 0
CU . r
a)
fo
"6
a) a
p� (o
a) d
p� fo
(o
a) f1
a (o
CL
0))'mE
`L°
mE
mE
ate)
mE
N
H
N
l0
l0
t0
0
t0
01
+1
r-f
N
M
qT
Ln
%D
n
c w
4 �
° m
4 }4 m
��
o o
Ln
:L- Ln
�
N
3 0 O fU ,�
��
3 0 CU
0
a)
3 U
C
:
L41
0 -O }' �C O
E a)
i L
aa,, rn
E O O
O
L O p
L 0 0
L
L-
L O �+
O O
°
r-1
-0 O m M 7
Ln
"O V
�1
V
a) 0
- L ul
a) 0
'O i
a) O
-° L-0
O�
a) @J a fu V + >
_7
O V X
a) X O
°U V >
r6
a) @J p
—
a) @J O
—
a) @J a)
— 'D
0 0
C
0
ra
41 C a r` a)
CIe
U i 3
,,, C L�
.E
3 a)
C L U
C L U
C i —i C
C' N
fu faU —0
0
O E
— 3 L.
row vUi
C: -0
°+'�
3-'
ra-0
°�,�
row n�
C� o
�� O
c�M+'
U
ro co
U)
+'
0� rOo oZ$
E a)X L�
° rn+, a,
E a)
o
� �M
E 0
E a) 3
E 0X °'
cl
' C
0-0 C-0 >. C
O C
O-0 C'
C
0-0 C
O-0 C
0-0 C
CY
°� c
E
°_° 3- ro
cn-0 O•
L
° ° 3
vim 3
0 ° 37
° 3��
0 3,ro
`1
070 O r? C p 0
V V
N 4
v @J O
p U 0
C U
ro O
°) V
0 U O
V
0 U O�
V
0 U O>
V
C)
U N 3
U
�- X
U .E
U .c O
U .E N
(n
UW
W W ..._---
C4-C
4
cfo
�
ice.+ a-.�
� (n
ate-' UI
N
3 O° o
o
3 0 af0i
°
��
4-1
3 U
3 U
3
L-
L O } 1 O
a)
E
L`
a)@�.'_^
3� C
L O O
a) O
L O O
v 0 a
L O
a) o70
0-0 > O
L f0 Co @J
0-0
7 L11
3
L O
�,
L ,�
L w
L ra
00
`
i
a)@� 3 t; >
O CX
r0 N
a)X O
0
U�x V
c0
a)@l O
f6
a)Ua O
ro
a)@J O rn
a)
ra E
°...
Q
�
a-.� Y — a) ri U
C L d
U
•- C
i 3
E
a..,
C i N
ra 4 �
3 U L p
C i U
C L U
C i ,1 C
a)
.0
ro 0 -
CMS
3 +�
0.3 O_
ro ra U
C-0 U)=4.
O — co p
-0 L
ro '—cl
C�
ro •—
C�
ro r6 L
C�fl �
c 0
O C
p X co @j C6
Ea, i
O U
N+Ja)
'�
Ea)
p C O
�0°
Ea,
>,O
a p
Ea) 3
Ea) X a)
a) vi
O-0 C-0 >.� C
O C
0-0 C
C-O
O-0 C
O-0 C
0-0 C�
QC
0 7 3- ro 0 3Ln
° O•,�
° 3 3
7 co
o O 3�
O 3��
7 3: fu
0
uoM"pOaco
O L. i a) L
U.� uN� 3 U�
+�
ro O
�Ud
v0°EU°
O C L
U._ U��._-oU.—
ra O C a)
u0'
O C L
UU._
uOm
O C- a)
U'oU._
uo>
O C L
VN
00
3
Ln alge�A ION
O1 algelA
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a�
_Ln a�gem ION
x
CL
Q
agerx
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ln
X+�' V1
O C N
Ln
N
Ln
00
co
Ln
° L w
N
N
N
CL L
Q
°Ea)
a ro 0 a)
Q U
Ln
m�
1p �
00
a%Cl)
O
r,
\
l0
O�
C
O \
\
01
\
l0
l0
Ln
co
m
v
r6 O
co
ra O
O
@
L>
M
�p
0a
a)n
a)n
_�
ro
U
U
a)
CU o--
01 ro
ooE
0) ra
mE
ro
'mE
!
N
v
4-+
`0U
a)
Wu
N
CU
F-
m
Cl1
01
a1
l0
l0
ko
00
0)
D1
in
u
O
N
a)
E
a)
V
C
4-
O
U.
--°23r�ou
3 '� �
�L-
0 41
M O 0
@ a]
�� V a
coLn m CL_0 >-
•C� _ 00 a)
C .
O-0 C 3 C
o u 0 m
6
Eo
o CU
L fp
0 a
Q L
O) -0
C
m=
E�
.>
a)
a)
0.
O
u
a
c-
a)
u
a
O
u
a
a
�
u.= u-o.E
v-
�
F
u
_.
rn
_ V)
+' a, m
IV
0
L.
0 n
C
N 4j
m 0-0
m a)3
co
aNi
co
c
o
CL
aui
+,
L °
0�
aaii
a)
rn
Q
C L•
m
a
a
M
0
C
~ 0 L
'n
O-0
0
0
C
C
3°'
C
cE
f0
U
O'o C
=
U
=
E
U_
'a
_U
41
f1
0 f0
Ou
Q
u=
'C
H
u C C
u '�
�'
F-
f0
Q
rl
algein 4ON
.2
U
0
r
+,
c
°�' al4e!A
x
x
x
x
x
�
u
t
4
f0
aJ
-
O
o
_ Ln algein SON
N
3
aj
@�
)
aL.
a1
41
CL
C
aj
M (� pp /�
N`ic!/\
X
X
X
X
X
w
-0
L
a)
a
u
X + fA
u
a
V)
OL
Ln
OL � v
o
L
a
CL � w
Q
4,
_0°
L
o
f0
i
O
E
C
Q
O O 4-1
+1
O
a)
O
a rV a°1i
M
a)
n
41
u
u
Q
O
CL
m
L
4J
a)
�C
au
m
E
—
_
ca
+J o
lfl
O
01
} M
�
-0
L
OL
0 C
N
d\O
O
N,
N
3:
a)
�... ......
U
U)
V)
L
a)
w
CU-0
L
a)
L
a)
L
W
u
_
C
-0
4
f6
Q)
_�
fu
�_
_�
v
bio
CL
o
E
fa)
(b
aj
OC
a
OO
E
C
a)
a
N
a) O)
O
00
i
00
M
r*4
l0
rl
00
V)
f6
cn
N
a)
H
01
01
l0
l0
l0
C
L
C
7
a)
0
N
to
N
00
m
o
a
a
N
.ti
ry
m
Photo documentation April 3, 2015:
(700 Alder) 699 Bigleaf (698 Grand fir) 694 Bigleaf clump (693 Bigleaf) 623 Red alder
693 Bigleaf maple, limbs
left intact
700: red alder clump
694: Bigleaf maple multi -trunks, some
with advanced decay, normal
and wound
974 topped at 25', decay at root crown. Close up of decay
cavity and previous failures
973 Co -dominant leaders, one
decayed
676 Red alder, torn leader
from topping
681: Red alder, decay at root
crown
Photo documentation October 19, 2015
Ground cover regrowth
New growth on Cherry
Grand fir: approx. 14" new
growth
Observed vegetation species:
Common name
Botanical name
Viable?
Native?
wwww....
Doualas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
_ WW...
Yes
Yes ....._
WWW
Bigleaf maple
Acer macrophvllum
Yes
Yes
Red alder
Alnus rubra
Yes
Yes
Western Red Cedar
Thuia nlicata
Yes
Yes
Bitter cherry
Prunus emarginata
No
Yes
Cascara
Rhamnus purshiana
Yes
Yes
English holly
Ilex aquifolium
Yes
No
Himalavan blackberry
Rubus discolor
Yes
No
Salah
Gaultheria shalon
Yes
Yes
Sword fern
Polvstichum munitum
_
Yes
Yes
........
_.
Native blackberry
Rubus ursinus
Yes
Yes
Hazelnut
Corvlus cornuta
Yes
Yes
Lady's mantle
Alchemilla vulgarisYes
Yes
Bleeding heart
Dicentra spectabilis
Yes
Yes
Salmon berry
Rubus spectabilis
Yes
Yes
Horsetail
Eauisetum
Yes
Yes
Discussion and Conclusion:
On April 3rd, 2015 I examined the two sites noted above to determine the extent to which
tree cutting had taken place, whether the trees growth remaining below the cuts were
viable, and whether or not the vegetation growing on the slope had suffered any permanent
damage.
The view corridor is framed by native trees and vegetation. Above the slope and on the site
to the west the site had a number of climax species trees growing on it (Douglas fir,
Western red cedar) while the view corridor had only pioneer species growing on it. This
indicates that the ecosystem of the slope is has been more recently or more consistently
disturbed (there was a slide in 1997), followed by site improvements to control drainage.
I found that small diameter clumps of trees (bigleaf maples and red alders) were located
primarily at the top of the slope. These were cut cleanly at approximately 3-4' from the
surface. As I travelled downhill to the west, the trees that had been topped, were larger in
diameter (even in clumps) and were climbed and topped at higher heights.
It is fortunate that this was the case, the small diameter clumps will continue to sprout
more buds from the base of the tree, as well as from the area under the cuts where
dormant lateral buds lie. The pruning of the three small diameter clumps will stimulate
growth through the spring and early summer, no permanent damage was done. However,
the trees should be thinned in the future of competing trunks to ensure healthy
attachments.
Likewise the larger trunk diameter clumps of Red alder and Bigleaf maples located mid -
slope were cut at approximately 18'; most contained branches that will continue to sprout -
these trees are moderately impacted. As pioneer species trees, they are almost always in
the process of regenerating new trunk and limbs as their wood decays readily. As can be
seen in the photographs, many of these trees contain significant amounts of decay already -
this is typical of the species and new trunks are already growing from the base.
Overall, the least impacted of the trees by the cutting, are the trees located near the base
of the slope (the furthest west of the bluff) which have been cut to heights of about 25-30'.
These trees retain many of their branches which will continue to grow and remain viable.
There is one (1) tree that was negatively impacted by the pruning. Tree #624 is a Bitter
cherry with a DBH of 10" and although it easily produces waterspouts in response to broken
limbs, this is an older tree with no branches to support photosynthesis. It may recover, but
more likely it will not.
On the southwest site collectively, the trees were noted to have been limbed in the past and
most of the trees are climax species trees that do not replace limbs. These trees do not
appear to have been recently pruned; they are growing in well protected groves, do not
appear to have any unusual structural flaws nor are they pruned to a point that they have a
new "low live crown ratio".
There does not appear to have been any attempt made to grub out vegetation, much of
what I identified was perennial and is growing quickly.
Ground cover is returning with Himalayan blackberries recovering most rapidly, when some
of the leaves drop during winter months, remaining ground cover starts will likely be more
visible. Strong new growth is visible on all the trees.
Recommendation:
Monitor the site at 6 months and 1 year to replace any material that the pruning killed,
some of the trees were in fair condition to begin with and should they die, should remain on
site as an animal habitat. The decrease in the song bird population over recent years is a
result of the removing of dead wood. Continue to monitor the new growth every six months
for a year to determine whether it is prudent to reshape any tree crowns.
I am reluctant to recommend replanting of any kind at this time in order to see how the site
responds. My experience on the slope has lead me to believe that the process of replanting
(gaining access on the steep slope) may damage more native growth than any replanting
will improve the site unless it is done in fall.