Loading...
APPROVED TREETree Inventory ReportLonnson Arbor Care 2616 169th Street SE Bothell, WA 98012 425-891-1741 lonnson@juno.com March 16, 2022 Kevin Keck & Heather Hathaway 15722 72nd Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Tree Inventory Report for the address above (Parcel 00513100002501). To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this report is to identify and locate significant trees and associated risks for the development of the property mentioned above. The enclosed survey table documents the identification, measurements, and condition of each significant tree. A site map of the tagged trees is included at the end of this report. On June 15, 2021, I provided a basic inspection of 29 significant trees within and adjacent to the parcel mentioned above. The trees were measured (with diameter tape) and tagged with a number engraved metal strip. The tag numbers correspond with the data in the following tree inventory table. Tree trunks are measured 4 % feet from the ground which is known as the Diameter at Standard Height (DSH). The number within the brackets is the total diameters for multiple trunks. The total trunk diameters within the buildable area will be used to determine the tree retention plan. Trees that are considered significant under Edmonds Code 23.10.020 are those 6 inches in diameter or greater. The Limit of Disturbance (LOD) is the radius around the trunk that should not be disturbed during grading and construction to preserve the root zone. City of Edmond's definition of the LOD is the radial distance around the tree that is 1 time in feet for every 1 inch in trunk diameter (1.0' : 1.0"). The LODs in this report are also determined by species, age, branch length from trunk (dripline), DSH, surrounding conditions (i.e., structures and surfaces), and slope. All trees have some level of risk associated with tree defects, or hazards. Hazards are categorized into four types of risk assessed for a five-year period: Improbable, possible, probable, and imminent. Improbable risk means the tree is stable, void of defects, and unlikely to fail under normal, and may not in extreme, weather conditions. Possible risk means that failure is unlikely to occur in normal weather conditions but may be expected in extreme weather conditions. Probable risk means failure may be expected under normal weather conditions. Trees with imminent risk are in the act of failing and should be worked on as soon as possible. Tree health is determined as good, fair, or poor. Poor means the tree is hazardous, diseased, dead, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor for the reasons not attributed to the development. Fair health describes the tree as having vigor but is not viable for preservation because of defects such as wood decay, included bark, cankers, or abiotic issues like girdling or impervious surfaces that cannot be feasibly mitigated (i.e., pruning, cabling, aerating, etc.) to improve the longevity of the tree. Poor and fair health describe a difference in vigor but both conditions are not viable for preservation because of increasing risks for failure. RESUB Mar 22 2022 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tree Inventory Table: Tag # Species 6001 Douglas fir Psuedotsuga menziesii DSH LOD Height/ Health Condition Spread (dia.) 47.3" 35.0' 200'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 40' decay, disease, or structural defects. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 6002 Red cedar 19.0" 18.0' 70'/ Good Sturdy tree growing from nurse Thuja plicata 20' stump. No signs of decay or disease. Small area of exposed sapwood with good reaction wood. Improbable risk of whole or large part failure. 6003 Douglas fir 18.9" 16.0' 80'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 30' decay, disease, or structural defects. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 6004 Douglas fir 38.0" 30.0' 200'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 40' decay, disease, or structural defects. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 6005 Douglas fir 21.8" 18.0' 150'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 40' decay, disease, or structural defects. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 6006 Douglas fir 38.5" 32.0' 160'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of decay 40' or disease. Very top of stem broke with new sprout growth. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. Douglas fir 33.8" 28.0' 180'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 30' decay, disease, or structural defects. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 0 Douglas fir l7Y,—T 15.0' 1001/ Good Asymmetric canopy to the NW. 20' Curved trunk. No signs of decay or disease. Possible risk of whole tree or large part failure. 6009 Red cedar 21.9" 18.0' 1001/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of decay 30' or disease. Co -dominant top stem. Included bark between stems undetermined. Possible risk of stem break. Improbable risk of whole tree failure. 6010 Red cedar 18.5" 16.0' 100'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 30' decay, disease, or structural defects. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 2 Tag # Species DSH LOD Height/ Health Condition Spread (dia.) 6011 Red alder 23.4" 20.0' 80'/ Poor Top half of the canopy is dead. Alnus rubra 40' Large V-shaped crotch with included bark. Phytophthora cankers along trunk. Wood decay pocket near the base. Probable whole tree and large part failure. 6012 Big -leaf maple 31.0" 25.0' 150'/ Fair V-shaped main crotch with Acer macrophyllum 50' included bark. Bulging along the crotch sides. Broken 3" diameter hanger. Probable risk of breaking at the main crotch. Not viable because of poor structure and requires extensive cabling and pruning for mitigation. 6013 Big -leaf maple 15.2" 24.0' 150'/ Good Sturdy tree with no signs of 18.8" 50' decay, disease, or structural [34.0"] defects. A couple dead 4" dia. branches probable to break. Improbable risk of whole tree failure. 6014 Red alder 17.6" 16.0' 80'/ Poor Top half of the canopy is dead. 40' 1 Imminent risk of failure. No decay along the lower trunk. Possible risk of whole tree failure. 6015 Red alder 18.6" 18.0' 80'/ Good Tree has a curved lower trunk and 40' stem. No signs of decay or disease. Possible risk of whole tree failure. 6016 Red alder 18.0" 16.0' 50'/ Poor Top canopy is dead. Phytophthora 20' cankers along the lower trunk. Possible risk of whole tree failure. 6017 Big -leaf maple 8.8" 8.0' 50'/ Good Tree has an Asymmetric canopy 20' to the west. No signs of decay or disease. Improbable risk of whole tree or large part failure. 6018 Big -leaf maple 8.8" 8.0' C0'/ Fair Decay pocket (3"x6") near base of 20' tree. Wood bulging on the lower trunk. Possible risk of whole tree failure. Not viable because of abnormal wood development and decay. 6019 Big -leaf maple 10.3" 10.0' 50'/ Fair The base of the trunk is gnarled 20' and curved. Wood decay 8' up the trunk. North stem failure results in decayed crotch. Probable risk of large part failure. Possible risk of whole tree failure. Not viable because tree cannot recover from decay and past failure. Tag # Species DSH LOD Height/ Health Condition Spread (dia.) 6020 Big -leaf maple 14.7" 12.0' 60'/ Fair Decay pocket near the curved 20' trunk base. Peeling bark all the way up the trunk. Probable risk of large part failure. Not viable because tree cannot recover from decay and bark defect. 6021 Big -leaf maple 10.7" 16.0' 60'/ Fair Wood decay between trunks. 14.0" 20' Foliage and branching structure [24 7„] are good. Possible risk of whole tree failure. Not viable because tree cannot strengthen and compartmentalize decay within the crotch. 6022 Big -leaf maple 13.0" 10.0' 60'/ Poor Tree has sparse foliage with less 20' than 25% live crown ratio. Root collar decay and exposed sapwood along the trunk. Possible risk of whole tree failure. Big -leaf maple 17.5" 20.0' 80'/ Poor Tree has sparse foliage with dead 15.9" 30' branches. Wood decay between [33.4"] the trunks. Possible risk of whole tree or large part failure. Big -leaf maple 11.5" 10.0' 60'/ Fair Small decay pocket near the trunk 20' base. Epicormic sprouting along the trunk. Possible risk of whole tree failure. 6025 Big -leaf maple 19.4" 16.0' 801/ Fair Tree has asymmetric canopy to 15' the NW with sparse foliage. Included bark between stems. Dead branching. Probable risk of large part failure. Not viable because of poor structure and low vigor. 6026 Big -leaf maple 11.0" 0.0' 40' Poor Dead. 6027 Big -leaf maple 12.6" 18.0' 801/ Poor Wood decay at the trunk base 14.4" 40' with Armillaria root rot [27 0"] mycelium. A seam up the trunk with a stem mostly dead. Probable risk of whole tree or large part failure. Not viable because tree cannot recover from poor health and disease. Big -leaf maple 11.1" 10.0' 50'/ Fair Asymmetric canopy to the NW. 20' Epicormic sprouting along the trunk. Wood decay near the trunk base. Possible risk of whole tree failure. Big -leaf maple 16.5" 15.0' 801/ Fair Some dead wood and decay at the 30' root collar. Possible risk of whole tree failure. Trees off site. Retention/Removal Table: Tag # DSH Retain Remove Health Replace 6001 47.3" 0 Good 6002 19.0" 0 Good 6003 18.9" 0 Good 6004 38.0" 0 Good 6005 6006 6009 6010 6011 6012 6013 6014 6015 6016 6017 6018 21.8" 38.5" 21.9" 18.5" 23.4" 31.0" 34.0" 17.6" 18.6" 18.0" 8.8" 8.8" 0 0 0 0 Good Good Good Good Poor Fair Good Poor Good Poor Good Fair 0 Appraisal Appraisal 0 3 0 1 1 6019 10.3" Fair 2 6020 14.7" Fair 3 6021 E 6022 24.7" 13.0" 1 I Fair Poor--F Appraisal 0 6025 19.4" Fair 3 6026 11.0" Dead 0 6027 27.0" Poor 0 8 15 13 The existing trees within the buildable area are mostly not viable or have poor location and not suitable for development purposes. Retaining 8 of the 22 living trees, including the trees within the Native Growth Protection Easement, provide a 36.4% tree retention plan [(8 / 22) x 100%]. New trees are to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 as shown in the table above. Trees with fair or better health over 24 inches diameter are to be appraised rather than requiring new plantings. Trees that are hazardous, diseased, dead, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor for reasons not attributed to the development do not require replacing with new trees under Edmonds Code 23.10.080.B.1. The tree removals in the list above require the planting of thirteen (13) new trees. The minimum size requirement for new tree planting is six feet tall for Evergreen (conifer) trees. Deciduous trees need to be 1 % inches in trunk caliper. Tree Protection: Protective fencing is required around the perimeters of the LOD for each retained tree during grading and construction. Fencing should be at least 3 feet tall around the LOD and of durable construction to preserve the trees from soil disturbance due to machines, foot traffic, and materials (Code 23.10.070.C.1). Grading and construction should not be allowed within the LOD of retained trees, unless described in this report. Signs will need to be placed on the fencing at least every 15 feet which reads "tree and soil protection area — do not enter". The included site map shows the placement of the tree protection fencing. The protection fencing may cut across part of the LOD of Maple 6023 to allow foundation work. Arborist shall be on -site during the soil excavation between the foundation footing and 10' LOD. Soil excavation within this area shall be done with an air spade tool which removes soil without severing roots. Exposed roots in the way of the foundation footing are to be cut clean by the Arborist with a hand tool. Half -inch plywood shall be placed over soil areas of the critical root zone that are not to be disturbed to protect soil from foot traffic during excavation work. Any machinery work shall be staged on the north side of the planned foundation footing. Position the protection fencing at the 10-feet root zone after backfilling, plywood is removed, and disturbed area is covered with 2-3 inches of mulch or wood chips. Arborist will provide documentation of the excavation, root mitigation, and other finds such as root disease. This fencing plan results in less than 30% disturbance of the outer root zone area and protects the inner (critical) root zone area. The radius of the inner root zone is half the LOD. The threshold for outer root zone disturbance is no more than 30% of the area, not including the inner root zone area. The area of allowable disturbance for Maple 6023 is calculated below. Maple 6023: Inner root zone area = nr2 = 7E (LOD / 2)2 = 7E (10.0,)2 = 314.0 ft2. Outer root zone area = 1Ir2 = 7E (LOD)2 = 7E (20.0')2 = 1,256.0 ft2. 1,256.0 ft2 — 314.0 ft2 = 942.0 ft2. 942.0 ft2 x 30% = 282.6 ft2. Protective fencing for tree 6023 may expose no more than 283 ft2 of the outer root zone and not intersect the inner root zone. New Tree Recommendations: Native trees are preferred for the new tree plantings. Some of the larger native (conifer) trees include Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), Red cedar (Thuja plicata), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterphylla), Grand fir (Abies grandis), and Engelmann spruce (Picea Engelman). Ornamental native trees and near native trees more suited for landscape design may include Excelsior cedar (Thuja plicata `Excelsior'), Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Shore pine (Pinus contorta), Alaskan weeping cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), and Pacific yew (TaxuS brevifolia) for evergreen conifers. Deciduous trees include Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Dogwood (Corpus nutellii or Cornus `Eddie's White Wonder'), White oak (Quercus garryana), and Vine maple (Acer circinatum). Please reply if you have questions. Thank you, �tYU� CA7 , rn Lonnie Olson, Owner ISA Certified Arborist (PN-5427A) exp. 12/31/2021 Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (#697) exp. 7/23/2024 7 The picture above was taken at time of inspection. The arrows point at Maple 6012's bulging wood along the sides of the deep crotch. The tree is trying to build wood to sustain tension stress in this part of the trunk. There is no fused heartwood within this deep crotch because of the included bark. Maple 6012 cannot build enough reaction wood at the crotch to sustain canopy loads and is likely to break. The Maple cannot recover from this defect. The tree requires extensive pruning and cabling to mitigate risk and is not feasible for preservation. 7 ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Kevin Keck Date dune 15, 2021 Time 9:30 am Address/Tree location 15722 72nd Ave. W. Edmonds Sit Tree no. 6012 sheet I of I Tree species AcermacraphPlfum di 31.0e Height 15V Crownspreaddla. 50' Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Time frame 4 rears Target Assessment mrseizn 'a ta.sex ecsMPnon Ta+retProacnon �3' ao�n: a� R. 4°� of u$ Building Area None X 2 no no 2 ndL Site Factors History offailures None Topography flat❑Slops 10 %Aspect W Site changes None❑ Gradechange❑Site cleadng® Changed soil hydmlogy❑ Root cuts Describe Neighboring ro erties Soil conditions Limited volume❑ Saturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ m Paveentoverrootsd_% Describe Good Prevalling wind direction NE Common weather Strong winds ❑Ice❑Snow❑Heavy rain® Describe Tree Health and 5pecles Profile Vlgar Low❑ NormalW High Foliage Npne(seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal Chlorotic_% Necrotic % Peslseaiotir None Ablodc Structural defect Species failurepr ile Branches❑ TrunkiN Roe[sD Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected[] ParHaIM Full❑ Wind funneling❑ fielatiarecrownsize Small❑ Medium[-] Large® Crown density Sparse❑ Ni Dense[] iMeriorbranches Few❑ Normala Oense❑ ones/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Seasonal winds Tree Defects and Conditions affecting the Uketlhood of Failure — Crown and Branche5— Unbalanced-13 LCR fi0 % Cracks Ughtningdarrage❑ Dead twigsfiranches❑ _%overall Max, dla- Codenlnanto Included bark0 Bmken/Hangers Number 1 Max dia. 3" Weak attachments ❑ Csi k/Nesthole%dre. Oscv-extended branches❑ previous branch hii 13 Similar bfanchesprssem❑ Prunlrrg history Dese/Missing4ark❑ Cankers/Galls/El Sapwoodri—ge/detwO Crewn cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Hon -Tailed ❑ Flush cuts ❑ ,her Respur¢e growth No canopy concerns condition (s) of concern Included bark between sakifvld branches Part size Fall Distance Part size 10"dia- pall Distance_,100' Loadm defect NIAO Minor ❑ Nlnderare0 s;gnlrFarit❑ Loadendefect N/A❑ Minor IH Moder�R❑ Signifint❑ likelihood Mfailure Improbabl.IX Possidte❑ prodable❑ Imminent❑ iikelihoadoffallum improbabler3 PosmbleW Probable❑ Imminent❑ —Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar Dead/MisSing bark❑ Abnormal barktextore/color❑ Collar buried/Nat visible❑ Disi Stem girding Codominant stems col Included bark® cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Di ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ _%circ, Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushraoms❑ cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance Iran tmnk� Csvity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth Poor taper❑ Root plate lifting Soll weakness❑ Lean Corrected? Response growth Response growth Pvor Condition(s) of concern No root zone concerns eondar—(sl ofm cem Included bark and side bulging Part Size 31" di Fall Distance 100, Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Signit Mlg Lead an detect NIA 11 Minor ❑ MoaeratsO Swirant❑ uNelihood Mfailura Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable PI Imminent❑ likelihoatl offaflure Improbable Possible❑ probable ❑ Imminem❑ Risk Categprizadcn mom Co -dominant trunk Trunk failure/break --_ii,....... ■.ii1ii1 ii1ii1ii1. .. ii1ii1ii1ii1 ■..i,...ii1 iiiiiiiiii, MaLHx i. Likelihood matrix. Dkeiihaod Hkelihand of Impact M Failure VerytowE Medium;Linjukely Imminem unlikely ly Likely Probable Unlikely Somewhat likely Possible Unlikely unlikely impos ie Unikely unlikely Mozrix2 Risk r,eng mavix Likelihood of Failure &Impart Consequences 11 Failure Negligible Minor Significsitt I Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Nord, UniiNelY Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Tree has co -dominant canopy with included bark between the 0 trunks. Sides of the trunk bulge at the crotch with included bark. Needs extensive pruning and cabling not fear le for preservation. - Mitigationoptions t. Canopy pruning and cabling Residual risk Mod 2. Remove Residual risk Norte 3. Residual risk 4. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High W Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Law ❑ Moderate W High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval 2 years Data WFinal ❑Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspectors limitations WNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ORcot collar buried Describe Thismaeb""i.e.n," —Itl,he Ines®e®a[5"carydA.yo,ioAmm pxnl—emt Png¢ 2 of 2 O N O /00 v , SCALE: T..lI 20' 0 20' C' Oa51h'�fn.WN ir�'II rvr (,v,L199ceA»9eJJ _— ' li4'ili'inuul�flllll°iillllllli —� � I Ilnlf,,lililiilllilllllllll�ltilnn I iilllfl;: � ���111111::is a. .��rll'�II III ��flllll;;� Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant 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. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, I can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3. I shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee. 4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 5. 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. 6. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this 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 particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant as stated in my qualification. 7. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, diagrams, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 9. 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 no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 12 Certification of Performance & Appraisal I, Lonnie Olson, certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith. ❑ I have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation or appraisal is stated in the attached report and the terms of assignment. ❑ The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. ❑ No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. ❑ My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of arboriculture in a full-time capacity for more than 24 years. Signed: 13