Loading...
HTE 2020.08.31 9229 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds Hamish AndersonPage 1 of 12 August 31, 2020 Colin Anderson Hamish Anderson Custom Homes, Inc. Site: Driessen Residence 9229 Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020-2396 TPN: 27031300101500 Dear Colin: Thank you for requesting my services. On August 27, 2020, I performed a Level 2 Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) for eleven (11) trees located in the ROW on the east side of 9229 Olympic View Dr. in Edmonds, WA. The purpose of my assessment was to assess the trees in the ROW and to determine whether they could be removed pursuant to ECDC 18.85. In summary: • There are thirteen (13) ROW trees • Six (6) are non -viable and should be removed • Five (5) are in average condition but have been grown as suppressed canopy trees, and I recommend they be removed • Two (2) trees, vine maple on the northeast side, and a Magnolia on the southeast side are in good condition and can be retained. I have provided a more in-depth assessment in the report, if you have any questions, please contact me. I can be reached on my cell phone: 425.890.3808 or by email: ssprince2020d)aol.com. Warm regards, Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions ISA Certified Arborist #1481 TRAQ Certified Arborist #481 Landscape Designer 425.890.3808 Page 2 of 12 Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology: To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on my formal college education in botany and the preparation and training used to obtain my ISA certification. In addition to my education and certification, I relied heavily on my training to obtain my certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have worked in the field of arboriculture since 1995, have been ISA Certified since 1999, and have been TRACE/TRAQ certified since 2009. 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, quantity of impervious surfaces surrounding the tree etc.) Site Observations: The parcel is located west of Olympic View Dr. The property is relatively flat except for a portion on the east side that drops from the Olympic View Dr. with a westerly aspect. 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 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. Tree diameters were measured using a logger's tape, and tree driplines were measured by a Nikon Forestry PRO Laser RangefinderT"' ABBREVIATED LEGEND- SEE REPORT FOR GREATER DETAIL 1. Numerical ordering 2. Tree tag #: numbered aluminum tags attached to the trees in the field 3. Tree species ID: common and botanical names • 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 Page 3 of 12 • Cottonwood: Populus deltoides • Dogwood: Corpus nuttallii • 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 • Mountain hemlock: Tsuga mertensiana • 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 4. DBH: diameter of the tree measured in inches at 4' above grade 5. Adj. DBH: multiple trunk tree DBH in inches calculated per municipality directives 6. Dripline Radius: measurement in feet of the tree canopy from tree trunk to outermost branch tip via laser rangefinder 7. Windfirm/OK in grove: if a viable tree is determined to be in unstable or wet soil, it is presumed to be susceptible to windthrow. If there is no comment in the column the tree is presumed to be windfirm. If a standalone tree is structurally too weak to be retained, it can sometimes be retained, if its location is within a grove 8. Health: a measurement of overall tree vigor and vitality rated as excellent, good, OK, 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 0 Good: Tree may have some minimal structural or situational defects Page 4 of 12 • OK: The tree is viable and may have an average amount of structural issues, and/or some insect or disease issues, and/or some environmental issues, however, considering the species, the trees will withstand the stress of construction and/or the change in environmental conditions without an increased risk of failure • Fair: Tree has structural or health issues that predispose it to failure if further stressed, this tree may be unsuitable for retention as a single tree, however depending on the species, it may be suitable for retention if it is retained within a grove • Poor: Tree has significant structural and/or health issues. It is dead or dying and is generally exempt from total tree count 9. 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. 10. Proposed action: • Retain • Impacted • Remove due to viability • Remove due to planned development (tree is otherwise healthy) 11. Limits of disturbance/Tree protection zone: the area surrounding the tree that defines the area that surrounds the trunk that cannot be encroached upon during construction. This may be a multiple of the trunk diameter (1 -1.5 times the trunk diameter converted to feet) or it may be related to the width of the canopy. It is always determined by tree species and environment and is up to the discretion of the ISA Certified Arborist to determine 12. A tree <6" <30" is considered to be 'Significant"; a tree < 30" is considered to be a "Landmark" tree 13. Measure of tree "value" may be determined by municipality formula or a direct measure of the trunk diameter to determine significance, or count 1 Matheny, N., and Clark, J. 1994. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. 2nd Edition. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture. Z Dunster, J.A. 2009. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface: Course Manual. Silverton, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture. 3 Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. Page 5of12 ROW Tree Observations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Species ID CRZ/TPZ/LOD Proposed Action Radius in feet Tree DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in Ret Remove # Tag Common Botanical (in) DBH radius firm grove Health Defects/Comments # name name (�n) (ft) N W E S E o � z Co -dominant leaders Ponderosa us with included bark X 2 1 1 pine ponder ponderosa 18 18 10 Poor @ rc, ivy to 10', topped 1 10 10 10 10 at 20', low live crown ratio <5% Ponderosa Pinus Topped @ 20', weak 2 2 pine ponderosa 10 10 10 Poor laterals, low live crown 1 10 10 10 10 ratio <5 /o Ponderosa Pinus Topped @ 20', weak 3 3 pine ponderosa 15 15 10 Poor laterals, low live crown 1 10 10 10 10 ratio <5 /o Ponderosa Pinus Topped @ 20', weak 4 4 pine ponderosa 10 10 10 Poor laterals, low live crown 1 10 10 10 10 ratio <5 /o Ponderosa Pinus Abnormal bark, 5 5 pine ponderosa 10 10 10 Fair shedding bark, topped 1 10 10 10 10 at 20 Low live crown ratio 6 6 Vine Acer 4 4 4 7 8 OK <5%, ivy - root crown 1 8 8 8 8 maple circinatum to T, dead wood, broken branch's Incense Calocedrus 14, Co -dominant leaders 7 7 cedar decurrens 16, 24 15 OK with included bark X3 @ 1 15 15 15 15 12 root crown, tow, 8 8 Yew Taxu 4,6 7 6 OK at $pressed tree, pruned 1 6 6 6 6 a Corylus Suppressed tree, pruned 9 9 Hazelnut avelllana 7,6 9 6 Fair at 8', low live crown 1 6 6 6 6 ratio ,10% Page 6of12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Species ID Proposed CRZ/TPZ/LOD Action Radius in feet Tree DBH Adj. Drip- line Wind- OK in Ret Remove v # Tag Common Botanical (in) DBH radius firm grove Health Defects/Comments # name name (in) (ft) v > INW E S o E o � z 10 10 Yew Taxus 6 6 6 OK Suppressed tree, pruned 1 6 6 6 6 baccata at 8' 11 11 Yew Taxus 6 6 6 OK Suppressed tree, pruned 1 6 6 6 6 baccata at 8' Taxus Suppressed tree, pruned 12 12 Yew baccata 6 6 6 Fair at 8' 1 6 6 6 6 Magnolia 13 13 Magnolia gradiflora 8 8 10 OK Tos 1 10 10 10 10 Site GIS: .p . u inn n dmo-.. LW P--arr ;nnn.ti 2.fig I YGMMkk yd.uau� Ian 4v a. kT W •IMI.•Fr rawq . e1 YY� yRl� qp Pb IIrdk k m 4.0 P- Wrp.wl LEGEND r SA. Sam n.V-- O."M Pe..r 11r �E. a.n HQA'o wne`r 0-- B- -I&.IW LWV✓ M *—.d e.—merA.9— Page 7of12 Page 8 of 12 Conclusion: There are thirteen significant trees in the ROW, on the east of the site. Several trees were misidentified previously as Douglas fir trees; however, they are English Yew. The Ponderosa pines have been topped many times and are in overall poor health, they should be removed. On the mid to south east side of the site in the ROW is an overgrown hedge of English laurel, a shrub identified on the King County (and other county) Invasive species list. The shrubs should be removed due to their ability to out -complete native species. The yew trees are in OK health, they have been sandwiched between and among the laurels, I recommend their removal as their appearance isn't likely to improve. The Incense cedar is rapidly outgrowing its space and permission is requested to remove it. The vine maple on the NE corner and the Magnolia on the SE corner are species that are appropriate to the site conditions and their size will not overpower the growing space. Edmonds code requires that you replant 10 trees. I recommend that you chose trees on the Seattle recommended street tree list that do not get larger in height that the power lines. http://www.seattle.gov/trees/planting-and-care/street-trees Page 9 of 12 Glossary: ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for treecare Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage Conifer: A tree that bears cones and has evergreen needles orscales Crown: the above ground portion of the tree comprised of branches and their foliage Crown raise pruning: a pruning technique where the lower branches are removed,thus raising the overall height of the crown from the ground DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade Deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves annually and remains leafless generally during the cold season Epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds Evergreen: tree or plant that keeps its needles or leaves year-round; this means for more than one growing season Increment: the amount of new wood fiber added to a tree in each period, normally one year. ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plantcan have Lateral: secondary or subordinate branch Limits of disturbance: The boundary of minimum protection around a tree, the area that cannot be encroached upon without possible permanent damage to the tree. It is a distance determined by a qualified professional and is based on the age of the tree, its health, the tree species tolerance to disruption and the type of disturbance. It also considers soil and environmental condition and previous impacts. It is uniqueto each tree in its location. Limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA2013) Live crown ratio: the percentage of living tissue in the canopy versus the tree's height. It is a good indicator of overall tree health and the trees growing conditions. Trees with less than a 30% Crown ratio often lack the necessary quantity of photosynthetic material necessary to sustain the roots; consequently, the tree may exhibit low vigor and poor health. Monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or thecontrolling authority that regulates tree management Pathogen: causal agent of disease Phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant ROW: Right-of-way; generally referring to a tree that is located offsite on a city easement Reaction wood: Specialized secondary xylem which develops in response to a lean or similar mechanical stress, it serves to help restore the stem to a vertical position Self -corrected lean: a tree whose trunk is at an angle to the grade but whose trunk and canopy changes to become upright/vertical Senescence: The condition or process of deterioration with age; loss of a cell's power of division and g rowth Significant tree: a tree measuring a specific diameter determined by the municipality the tree grows in. Some municipalities deem that only healthy trees can be significant, other municipalities consider both healthy and unhealthy trees of a determined diameter to be significant Snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife Soil structure: the size of particles and their arrangement; considers the soil, water, and air space Sounding: process of striking a tree with a mallet or other appropriate tool and listening for tones that indicate dead bark, a thin layer of wood outside a cavity, or cracks in wood Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure; may be genetic, or environmental Tree credit: A number assigned to a tree by a municipality that may be equal to the diameter of the tree or a numerical count of the tree, or related to diameter by a factor conveyed in a table of the municipal code Trunk area: the cross -sectional area of the trunk based upon measurement at 54inches (4.5 ft.) above grade Page 10 of 12 Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999) detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site that may include the use of simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree trunk looking at the site, aboveground roots, trunk, and branches (ISA2013) Page 46 of 12 Rosewood References ANSI A300 (Pat 1) - 2008 American National Standards Institute. American National standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance: Standard Practices (Pruning). New yok: Tree Care Industry Association, 2008. Coder, Dr. Kim D. Construction Damage Assessments: Tree and Sites. University of Georgia. October 1996. Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban- Rural Interface. US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006. Dunster, J. A. 2003. Preliminary Species Profiles for Tree Failure Assessment. Bowen Island: Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. Lilly, Sharon. Arborists' Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2001. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Second Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land Development. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994 Schwarze, Francis W.M.R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Australia: ENSPEC Pty Ltd. 2008 Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment: Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. Thies, Walter G. and Sturrock, Rona N. Laminated root rot in Western North American. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest. Resource Bulletin PNW-GTR-349. April 1995. Page 46 of 12 Rosewood Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as thou free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of the report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser - particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or instate or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in her qualification. 8. The report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aid, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or survey. 10. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2: the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is not warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.