Tree inventory.pdfForest Management, Appraisal and Appraisal Review Services
Forest Practices Consulting, Timber Cruising and
Marketing, Arboricultural Services Established 1946
S. A. NEW AN FIRM
(incorporated as S.A. Newman, Forest Engineers, Inc.)
ices: 3216 WetI *C.0 ?5 more Avenue, Suite 205, Everett, WA 98201-4368
Mail: P. O. Box 156, Everett WA 98206-0156
Phone 425-259-4411; Facsimile 425-258-4435
1 Web: www.sanforest.com
i10�� SVlO September 13, 2011
OOT
Stonebridge Court Project in
Portion of the NE'/ of Section 30, Township 27 North,
Range 4 East, W.M., City of Edmonds,
Snohomish County, Washington
Overview: To provide tree inventory, summary site evaluation, and analysis of
selected potential retention trees for the Stonebridge Court project. The undersigned
inspected the subject property and trees on September 12, 2011. Twenty-one trees
were inventoried as potential candidates for retention on-site. The undersigned was
provided a copy of an undated site plan showing ten proposed residences, cul-de-
sac road, driveways, certain existing trees and other plat features planned for the
site. Mostly trees occurring greater than ten feet from the nearest building foundation
or hardscape features were included in the inspection, although a few lower elevated
trees closer than ten feet were included in the inspection. All other on-site trees not
included in the inventory occur in locations in direct. conflict with -proposed develop-
ment or were otherwise not considered candidates for long-term retention. The most
prominent trees on site are 50+ year old Douglas firs.
Findings: Of the twenty-one trees examined - sixteen are recommended for
conditional retention as follows:
Tree
No.
Species
Recommendation
1
Douglas fir
Retain*
2
Douglas fir
Retain*
3
European ash
Remove — crowns read too wide
4
Fruit apple
Retain**
5
Bi leaf maple
Remove — heavy lean/crown imbalance
6
Bi leaf maple
Retain*
7
Bi leaf maple
Retain*
8
Douglas fir
Retain*
9
Douglas fir
Retain*
10
Douglas fir
Retain*
Sundquist\11.doc S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.
September 13, 2011 2
Stonebridge Court
Tree
No.
Species
Recommendation
11
Douglas fir
Retain*
12
Douglas fir
Retain*
13
Douglas fir
Retain*
14
Douglas fir
Retain*
15
Douglas fir
Retain*
16
Douglas fir
Retain*
17
Douglas fir
Retain*
18
Douglas fir
Retain*
19
Douglas fir
Retain*
20
Red cedar
Remove — crown imbalance
21
Fruit apple
Retain**
* Conditional retention as explained herein.
** Retention subject to structural and aesthetic pruning,
The tree number shown above correspond to the detailed tree measurements
itemized in exhibit A attached, and correspond to the mapped locations shown on
exhibit B also attached.
As shown above, all inventoried Douglas fir are conditionally proposed for
retention on-site. The undersigned has not been provided any grading details for the
site, and it is presumed herein that all on-site trees will not be subjected to any cuts
or fills impacting more than 20% of the critical root zone of the individual tree. The
undersigned reserves the right to revise the recommendations contained herein upon
receipt of specific fill & grade data. Most on-site Douglas fir are rated with a low to
moderately low live crown ratios ["LCR"]. Forest grown trees with low LCR typically
also have gradual stem taper, with a small crown limited to the extreme upper stem
only: such trees generally are significantly less windfirm than trees with fuller crowns
and rapid stem taper. This condition exists because any wind stresses are borne
almost entirely in a crown area limited to the upper one-third or less of tree height.
The result is that wind bearing down on the crown will act as an effective lever.
Douglas fir wood has good longitudinal structural integrity, and unless there is a
column defect present, the bole stem will typically stay intact when wind forces exert
pressure. Large branches often tear off of Douglas fir in moderate to gale-forceb
winds. Whole tree failure sometimes occurs in gale -force or stronger winds with
trees becoming entirely uprooted.
a Live crown ratio means the percentage of tree bole stem supporting live green foliage
relative to total tree height.
b Under Beaufort's Scale: moderate to strong winds range from 13 to 38 MPH; gale -force
winds from 39 to 54 MPH; and whole gale to hurricane winds range from 55 to 75+ MPH.
sundquist\11.doc S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.
September 13, 2011 3
Stonebridge Court
Some of the inventoried Douglas firs growing on-site near the north property
line likely have been subjected to off-site impacts within the critical root zone area of
the trees. Based on records of the Snohomish County Assessor's office, the
residence constructed nearest the north border was built in 1976. Construction
impacts are cumulative and impacts may not be obvious or manifest until years after
site work is completed. Despite the prior potential impacts, no signs of distress or
decay are apparent in the trees as a result of the activity on the other ownership
bordering to the north 35 years ago.
Despite the generally healthy appearance of on-site Douglas fir, in the
aggregate the trees collectively have a hazard rating of 9 out of 12, based on a
standardized system adopted by the International Society of Arboriculture ["ISA"]. A
copy of the collective group rating for all inventoried Douglas fir on-site is attached as
exhibit C hereto. This rating is largely attributable to the large tree size and proximity
to existing and proposed targets. The trees have grown up in partial crown closure
conditions only, i.e. lightly forested conditions, and area thus somewhat adapted to
the existing level of wind exposure. Based on the foregoing, retention is conditionally
appropriate for the Douglas firs. In addition to the fill & grade issue which could
result in a revised recommendation, any additional blowdown or stand fragmentation
could result in recommendation to remove nearly all on-site trees. Further, the
undersigned reserves the right to review the protection plans for on-site construction.
Any failure to follow the conditions of approval for site activities by the City of
Edmonds and ISA standards for the preservation of trees during construction could
result in a revised recommendation for retention or removal.
The two lower elevated trees recommended for retention — both fruit apples,
lack the stature and ecological contribution of the on-site mature native coniferous
and deciduous species. Further, the two apples might not be significant trees under
city code, and might require aesthetic and structural pruning to be an asset to the
finished project. Optional retention only is therefore recommended.
The risk of tree failure is relative, and such a risk therefore exists even for
the least hazardous trees recommended to be retained and/or monitored. Changes
in circumstances, condition and size can also lead to a tree's deterioration and
resulting instability. In the opinion of the undersigned, low to moderate risk of failure
exists for the large on-site Douglas fir recommended for conditional retention and
careful monitoring is therefore warranted during and after construction.
sundquist\11.doc S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.
September 13, 2011 4
Stonebridge Court
Certification. I certify that: I field inspected the trees herein evaluated in
September 2011; the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief; I have no present or prospective interest in
the trees or property that is the subject of this report; my services are not contingent
on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the
use of, this report; and that the conclusions set forth in this report are my indepen-
dent conclusions, and that such conclusions were reached without collaboration of
others except for the professional assistance as detailed herein. All conclusions
were reached without direction as to recommended action. I have not revealed the
findings and results of this report to anyone other than the addressee named herein,
and our firm will not do so until authorized in writing by said party or until required to
do so by due process of law.
The undersigned arborist remains available for additional site review and to
prepare pre -work plans for tree protection during construction, for consultation during
construction, and for follow-up steps for monitoring in years following construction if
requested or otherwise engaged. Please feel free to phone me at 425-259-4411 (fax
425-258-4435) if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
S. A. NEWMAN FIRM
IqW
Peter C. Blansett
Certified Arborist No.
PN -0659A
pblansettCb,sanforest.com
PCB/bs
Sundquist\11.doC S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.
9
4- ExFt,6i4 AM
O
r -I
r..i
Q
N
a)
ri
L
hA
mn
01
O
00
0)
m
01m
(6
m
m
O
w
It
m
N
m
r -i
m
d
a
w
Q
®
C
N
N
N
Ln
r-1
r -I
LO
r-1
M
m
N
r-1
a.
a
a.
a.
N
N
r -i
r -i
r -i
Z
.c
c
.c
c
O
L
L
L
L
vc
s
a)
a)
a)
v
c
c
0
c
.1
+A
3
3
3
3
cu
O
CL
CL
O
0
O
O
h0
bD
W
Lw
L
L
a)
M
cu
L
c
r-
c
c
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
.E
.E
�
X
41
c
Q
E
E
C
0
0
'0
'0
.0
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-.4-
4-
4-
0
Q
a)
O
O
0
Ln
Ln
m
Q
fD
ca
ca
Lo .
Ln
Ln
Ln
N
vL
Ln
N
w
c
c
c
c
Q.
i.i
M
M
a1
@
4-
O
O
O
O
M
M
M
M
M
LO
N
(6
f0
N
a)
(6
O
Ln
7
+
U
U U
a)
U
ba
tin
tW
ca
W
W
h0
.W
c
c
C
C
+,
=
4�-
N
lU
ti7
f�
OO
L
L
L
L
E
O
..1_
�
L
N
N
O
O
O
O
E
L
taA
>3
'a
O
O
O
{,
O
OaJ
c
c
c
c
lYl
O
®
Q
(J
C.J
0tn
O
O
O
O
®
®
LY
LL
0
"O
O
O
O
O
7
O
O
O
c
a
41
L
L
L
L
41
O
i
O
O
O
O
C
EL
cv
%
Z
-0ca
v
CL
Q.
n_
m
ct
ai
LO
LU
00
Ol
O
-a
Ln
HN
M
+-
O
LPL
LO
-a
'�
0)
ri
r -i
H
ri
ri
Hri
Hri
N
N
co
to
ca
cv
3
LU
u
U u
u
aJ
0
U
V
�
c
C
C
C
u
=m
40-
4O-
4T
`+O-
coo
ccl4-
O
4-
O
4-
O
4-
O
�
Z
ti,
-0
w
N
N
ate) 4-1
E
0
N
c
4-
C
Ln
rH
41
@10
O
O
O
O
L-
O
0
Z'
�O
Q
v
r-
>
c
c
c
C
0
>
N
Y
>
m
ai
O
LL
T
O
Z
m
c
3
Ln
0
'O
u
v o Ln o
N Ln o 0
o Ln O o
o
Ln
Ln o Ln
o o o
0 Ln
LIZ
ti N N N
r -i N N N
N N M N
N
ri
N N ri
N N N
N N
Ln
c p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
J� w m m w m Zt Zt It d" m m ct Irr m Ct an d d' r- d Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 m O
N N m N O 00 (.0 N M M N r -i0 0 0 0) 0 r -I S O N
ri rir-i r-1 ri r -i Hr -I r -i r -i r -i r -I
a)
41
O
z
U
c
N
L
a)
a)
C
tio
c
U -1
a)
L
O
LL
c
co
E
3
a)
z
A
ri
r..i
Q
N
N
ri
L
..Q
mn
01
O
00
0)
m
01m
CL
m
m
O
w
It
m
N
m
r -i
m
d
w
w
Q
®
C
N
N
N
Ln
r-1
r -I
LO
r-1
M
m
N
r-1
r-1
N
N
r -I
N
N
r -i
r -i
r -i
Z
4 -
Ln
O
Q
vc
s
a)
a)
a)
v
.1
+A
a
Ln
L
cu
O
CL
CL
f3.
tl
L
L
a)
M
cu
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
a)
N
�
X
41
c
Q
E
E
C
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
4-.4-
4-
4-
0
Q
a)
O
O
0
Ln
Ln
m
Q
Gru
rn
to
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
N
vL
Ln
N
w
vL
-0
Q
E
Q.
i.i
M
M
a1
@
4-
4-
4-
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
LO
N
(6
f0
N
a)
(6
O
Ln
°
+
v
v
a)
bD
ba
tin
tW
ca
W
W
h0
.W
W
W
W
u
+,
=
bD
tO
bD
O
O
O
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w0W
LL
m
lYl
m
®
D
C.J
D
D
D
®
®
®
LY
LL
a
a)
O
0
O
%
Z
O
r -I
N
m
ct
In
LO
I�
00
Ol
O
c i
Ln
HN
M
d'
LPL
LO
I-
00
0)
ri
r -i
H
ri
ri
Hri
Hri
H
N
N
a)
41
O
z
U
c
N
L
a)
a)
C
tio
c
U -1
a)
L
O
LL
c
co
E
3
a)
z
A
ri
r..i
Q
N
N
ri
L
..Q
a)
CL
a)
Ln
r-
0 O
Q
m
Ln
LO
O
z
CL
O
Z
4 -
Ln
O
Q
vc
L
v
.1
+A
a
L
O
LL
f3.
tl
a)
N
r
m
tY1
U
L
�
X
41
d
�
Q)
0
0
O
0
M
y
41
O
-0
`�
O
W
i.i
O
�
MM
6
Air `/y Sem 3-o- T 2 �4 P.41E ii -P4, JE�wlarl�s
r
c
th STREET S.W.
INV=385.1
I EAST UN
FT OF LC
f3
I�r:
u
INV=381.
unun
-free r? -inn /ic1icla,�eS /7)ia Pr�d 6V RSlaos�, 7�- o 9/12/11,
S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.
Cn
rig. tt HA ZA 1 I
Site/Address: -f d f —t G�
HAZARD.RATING:
Growth obstructinns:
11 J
Map/Location: �� 3 0 - T Z�^+ i2 R o Cdr S
❑ stakes ❑ wirefties C signs ❑ cables
Z,
+ .3 + q
= ___2__
I
Vigor class: ❑ excellent [►,average ❑ fair ❑ poor
Failure
+ Size ' + Target
= Hazard
Owner public private ✓ unknown other
SITE CONDITIONS
Potential
of part Rating
Rating
Date- 12 11 inspector. �- �� ham`
Landscape type: C parkway 7 raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound C�wn ❑
shrub border ❑ wind break
Immediate action needed
Date of last inspection: _TI2 1_
O line clearing ❑ site clead ig
% dripline paved: 0%�0-25° 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Needs further inspection
%dripline w/ fill soil: 0°r 10-25% 25-50% 5075% 75100%
% dripline grade lowered: CO.° 10-25% 25-50% .50-75% 75100%
Dead tree
❑ clay ❑ expansive @scope o ° aspect _4A�__ •
TREE CHARACTERISTICS Vq,
Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight C view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ trafiffc ❑ adjacent veg. 0 --AIA—._
Expasure to wind: G single tree rF below canopy ❑ above canopy Pererently exposed
❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthro v
I,t .
seldom . L regularly
Tree* t •M&sSpecies: VI'
DBH: Z3 # of trunks: j Height:_ Spread: 2 V -4k v5
Farm: ❑ aenerally symmetric Vminor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed
Crown class: ❑ dominant (TI/co-dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed
Live crown ratio: ` 9 % Age class: ❑ young f J semi -mature mature ❑ over-mature/senescent
Pruning history: C crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised C pollarded r crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced
one ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates:
Special Value: ❑ specimen 0-heritage/historic ,=wildlife G unusual ❑0 streettree 0 -screen ❑ shade 96digenous ❑ protected by gov. agancy
TREE -HEALTH
Foliage color. Vnormal ❑ chlorotic n necrotic Ep[carmics? Y N
Growth obstructinns:
Foliage density: enormal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small
❑ stakes ❑ wirefties C signs ❑ cables
Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ITIveraaggee ❑ poor 7tvig Dieback? Y N
❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards I
ondwgod development: ❑ excellent . [!(average G poor CInone
other �aI"
Vigor class: ❑ excellent [►,average ❑ fair ❑ poor
Major pests/diseases:
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character, residence C commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park C open space
❑ natural 03 wood[andtiforest
Landscape type: C parkway 7 raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound C�wn ❑
shrub border ❑ wind break
Irrigation: none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate : excessive 17 trunk wetdad
'Recent site disturbance? ( N Ec' onstruction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change
O line clearing ❑ site clead ig
% dripline paved: 0%�0-25° 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Pavement lifted? Y Q .
%dripline w/ fill soil: 0°r 10-25% 25-50% 5075% 75100%
% dripline grade lowered: CO.° 10-25% 25-50% .50-75% 75100%
Sof[ problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline G alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail
❑ clay ❑ expansive @scope o ° aspect _4A�__ •
Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight C view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ trafiffc ❑ adjacent veg. 0 --AIA—._
Expasure to wind: G single tree rF below canopy ❑ above canopy Pererently exposed
❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthro v
Prevailing wind direction: W1 , EIJ Occurrence of snowiice storms ❑ never
seldom . L regularly
MUM
Use Under Tree: ebuilding ❑ parking E traffic - •r pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape 0 small features ] utility lines
Can target be moved? Y (Q Can use be restricted? Y
Occupancy: - occasional use E intermittent use 2 frequent use constant use
The international Society of Arboncuiture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form.
S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.
I
TREE DEFECTS
ROOT DEFECTS:
Suspect root rot: Y N M1' iushroom/cank/hracket present Y 6) 10:
Exposed roots: O severe O moderate Clow Undermined: O severe O moderate 2.(0w
Root pruned: 0 distance from trunk Root area affected: d % Buttress wounded: Y
Restricted root area: O severe &'moderate Cl low Potential for root failure: O severe O moderate
LEAN: deg. from vertical Mural O unnatural 2self-corrected SoU heaving: Yl�
When:
(Blow
Decay in plane. of lean: Y CN, ---'Roots broken Y011b Soil cracking: Y
Compounding factors Lean severity: O severe O moderate O low
CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s.= severe, m = moderate, I = low)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES
Poortaoer
Bow, sweeo
Codominants7forks . s>r'L
Multiple attachments
Included bark Z
Excessive end weight
Cracks/solits
Hangers
Girdling
Wounds/seam
Deca '
Cavity
Conks/mushrooms/bracket
Bleedina/sao Flow
Loose/cracked bark
Nesting hole/bee hive
Deadwood/stubs
Borersitermites/ants
Cankers/ allsPouds
Previous failure
HAZARD RATING
Tree part most likely -to fail: W 4. Failure potential: 1 - low; 2- medium; 3 - high" '4 - severe
Inspection period: annual°Y �bianual o e CAn 5 �� chi Size of part 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 618" (15-45 cm);
Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm)
Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use;.
'L + 3+ '� _ �� 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune: O remove defective part O reduce end weight O crown clean O thin O raise canopy O crown reduce 0 restructure .O shape
Cable/Brace: N O Inspect further. O roat crown O decay O aerial O monito:
Remove tree'- Y 9 Replace? Y N Move target Y N Other.
Effect on adjacenttlmes: t c3 none [Yevaluate
Notification: p 'Wa W manager O gweming agency Date:
COMMENTS
S. A. NEWMAN, FOREST ENGINEERS, INC.