Loading...
STF20150012 haz tree decision w attachments.pdf4"Ic. 1 gy., April 6, 2015 CITY OF EDMONDS 1215 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Glenn Simpson Evergreen Tree Care glenns@evergreentic.com Subject: Redrup Hazard Tree Removal (STF20150012) Dear Glenn, On April 3, 2015, the City of Edmonds received a request from you regarding a dying fir tree at the Redrup parcel at 16510 72nd Avenue West. This letter is in response to that request. The slope south and west of the Redrup's house is considered to be a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 where slopes from 15% to 40% are considered potential erosion hazards and slopes in excess of 40% are potential landslide hazards. 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.7. You submitted a cover letter, aerial photo, and a tree risk assessment form. Based on this information, it is clear that the tree is hazard and thus a candidate for removal. As a result, its removal is considered to be an allowed activity relative to the critical areas code referenced above and no further critical area reports are required. You have indicated that the tree will be cut to a wildlife snag 7 feet tall and all downed material will be left on site. According to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b(iv), hazard trees that are removed from critical areas as an allowed activity must be replaced at a ratio of two -to -one. Replacement trees must be native and indigenous and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen species, one inch in diameter at breast height for deciduous species, and eight feet minimum height for vine maples and other multi -stemmed trees. You have indicated that two (2) 6 -foot Western red cedars will be installed in the same area as the snagged fir, which meets the replacement requirement. If you have any questions, please contact meat michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, t Mike Clugston, AIC Associate Planner /Y1 4-1,, o-, V -x A -k> V U/I 0 L k, 6, C e V L R E C E 0 V F APR o U N , Woodway This (10CLU-nent is for f.m neral inforniation purposes only and is provided on an 'as is' and 'as available' basis. The The data used comes from a Vat jety of PLIIAC sources and warranty of any kind is given as to its accuracy. Osers of this document agree to inclerninfv and save harm[ess the Citv of Ednionds, its officials, officers, Address/Tree location l(,o5 kO "`l '� ° t .... � � Tree no. Sheet of Tree Assessor (s)s C..ii�� �� a'°�°� °�~°- `� dTbme frame t Height Tools used � Crown spread dial l �i. _ Target Assessment Site Factors History of failuresTopography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None b Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallowly ,Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction 50 Common weather Strong winds � Ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain [D Describe Tree Health and Species Profile' Vigor Low~' Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic °t'.,+ % Pests Abiotic ,,o Species failure profile Branches Trunkp-Root" D Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ FUIIN Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium18 Large❑ Crowndensity Sparsep'Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches Few Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ tr-•i', Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure ® Crown and Branches �r Target zone Dead twigs/branches -H) %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. o Weak attachments � Cavity/Nest hole /n circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Occupancy Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned < Thinned t❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark] Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ �e �� l Conks ❑ Heartwood decay" .. Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth rate $ 'uu u e1—rare u u r Target description Q Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable x 2—occasional ® Roots and soot Collar Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ a Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks P 3—frequent 4 -constant u > a 8 u ` Cavity ❑ %circ. , i t l,o Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean Corrected? 1 ' i >/ Response growth Main concern(s) ALO WD 2 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificanW Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent/0 Improbable El Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent] Site Factors History of failuresTopography Flat❑ Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None b Grade change ❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallowly ,Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction 50 Common weather Strong winds � Ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain [D Describe Tree Health and Species Profile' Vigor Low~' Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic °t'.,+ % Pests Abiotic ,,o Species failure profile Branches Trunkp-Root" D Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ FUIIN Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium18 Large❑ Crowndensity Sparsep'Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches Few Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ tr-•i', Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure ® Crown and Branches Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks'p Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches -H) %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. o Weak attachments � Cavity/Nest hole /n circ. Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned < Thinned t❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark] Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay" .. Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) � �v\2 {{ �� .t Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate � Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ,U Trunlc ® Roots and soot Collar Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks P Dead ❑ Decay p 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 Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significantp Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificanW Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent/0 Improbable El Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent] Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Negligible i Likelihood of Impacting Target Severe Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely l Unlikely Unlikely Risk Improbable ''Unlikely Conditions Unlikely Unlikely rating I Target of part 11111111 Rill W0111 of concern Matrix 2) ����■■11111■1■■■■■■■� Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Negligible i Likelihood of Impacting Target Severe Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely l Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable ''Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Motrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Negligible i Consequences of Failure Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High '- Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options North Residual risk q Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High q Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4,8 Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme'El Recommended inspection interval _ Data El Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed PNo []Yes-Type/Reason �`� ' - Inspection limitations 1XINcine ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe �G'u This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists — 2013 Page 2 of 2