REVIEWED RESUB 1-BLD2023-1530+Arborist Report+3.28.2024_3.32.22_PM+4163983BLD2023-1530 RESUB
Mar29 2024
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
206.351.1375
arboristkaty@gmail.com
www.katybigelow.com
October 27, 2023
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Joseph Rowett
24113 561h Ave W
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Dear Mr. Rowett and Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide consulting arborist services for your developing site in
Edmonds, Washington at Parcel 27041800313800 — 8823 194th STSW.
The Scope of Work for this project included:
• Site visit Lot A - tree data collection for surveyed on property significant trees and
significant trees located off property with overhanging canopies;
• Reporting including but not limited to:
o A description of each tree's health, condition, and viability,
o A description of the methods used to determine canopy size and limits of
disturbance,
o Identification of and reasoning for trees not recommended for retention,
o Description of the impact of recommended tree removals to the remainingtrees,
including those considered to be in a "grove",
o Tree, associated soils and vegetation protection during construction information.
o Instructions outlining how to proceed with work proposed within the limits of
disturbance (trees, associated soils and vegetation protection areas),
o Preliminary tree percentage calculations
o Appraisal values for Landmark Trees to be removed.
On May 19, 2023 1 completed a Level 2 tree assessment and gathered tree data as detailed in
the Scope of Work. All levels of tree assessment are explained in an attachment to this report.
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Tree data summary
Parcel A
22 Significant Trees
• 0 excellent condition
• 0 very good condition
• 2 good condition (743, 762)
• 13 fair condition (741, 742, 747-750, 752-754, 757-760)
• 6 poor condition (745, 746, 751, 755, 756, 761)
• 1 dying (744)
15 candidates for retention (good and fair condition trees)
• Site design provides for the retention of six trees (747, 748, 749, 752, 753, 762).
8 mature good condition but structurally poor trees stand off property west of this parcel. All of
these trees' critical root zones can be reasonably protected to complete this project.
The protection of tree 262 is assuming NO work/improvements will disturb the ROW south of
this tree.
Methodology
To evaluate the trees in the field I combined my field experience and education with current
accepted practices as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The tools I used to make this assessment were limited to binoculars, compass, digging tool,
mallet, hammer tacker, silver numbered tree tags and diameter tape. A visual tree assessment
and other methods are only conclusive for the day of inspection and do not guarantee that
conditions will remain the same in the future.
I used metal numbers tags stapled to each tree to correlate with notes about each tree in the
table "Table of Trees 5-23 Maplewood Estates". I did not staple tags to trees or otherwise tag
trees located off property.
I used a diameter tape to measure the "Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)" of trees as close as
possible to 4.5' from grade. I round measurements to the nearest half inch. For trees with
multiple stems arising from lower than 4.5' from grade I followed EMC 23.10 definition of
measurement for a multiple trunked significant tree: "For trees with multiple leaders at four
and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater
than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the averagegrade."
• I interpreted "branches" to meantrunk(s).
• In the table of trees, cumulative inches for a clump is equal to the total of alltrunks
measuring greater than six inches DBH in the clump.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 2
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Determination of Tree Condition
Condition ratings were based on but not limited to:
(1) the condition of the tree's root crown;
(2) the condition of the trunk, including decay, injury, callusing, or presence of fungus or other
disease;
(3) the condition of the limbs, including the strength of crotches, amount of deadwood, hollow
areas and whether there was excessive weight borne bythem;
(4) the condition and growth rate history of twigs, including visible pest damage and diseases;
(5) the leaf appearance, including abnormal size and density as well as pest and disease
damage.
Using an average of the above factors together with my bestjudgment, the general condition of
each tree was recorded in one of the following categories adapted from the rating system
established by the International Society of Arboriculture and the 10th Edition of the Council of
Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) Guide for Plant Appraisal:
• Excellent (81%-100%): High vigor and near -perfect health with little or no twig dieback,
discoloration, or defoliation. Nearly ideal and free of structural defects. Nearly ideal form for the
species and generally symmetrical.
• Good (61%-80%): Vigor is normal for the species and has no significant damage due to disease
or pests. Twig dieback, discoloration, or defoliation is minor. Well -developed structure with
minor defects that can be corrected easily. Minor asymmetries/deviations from species norm.
Function and aesthetics are not compromised.
• Fair (41%-60%): Reduced vigor. Damage due to insects or diseases may be significant and
associated with defoliation but is not likely to be fatal. Twig dieback, defoliation, discoloration,
and/or dead branches may comprise up to 50% of the canopy. A single structural defect of a
significant nature or multiple moderate defects. Structural defects are not practical to correct or
would require multiple treatments over several years. Major asymmetries/deviations from
species norm. Function and aesthetics are compromised.
• Poor (21%-40%): Unhealthy and declining in appearance. Poor vigor and low foliage density
and poor foliage color are present. Potentially fatal pest infestation. Extensive twig or branch
dieback.
A single serious structural defect or multiple significant defects. Observed structural problems
cannot be corrected. Failure may occur at any time. Largely asymmetrical or abnormal form.
Form detracts from aesthetics or intended use to a significant degree.
• Very Poor (6%-20%): Poor vigor and appears to be dying. Little live foliage. Single ormultiple
severe structural defects. Visually unappealing and provides little or no function in the
landscape.
• Dead (0%-5%)
Determination of Drip Line
I generally rounded measurements for drip lines to be used as the same meaning as "critical
root zone (outer)" and "limits of disturbance" for each tree. Although each tree hasan
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 3
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
asymmetrical canopy, the distance provided in the column "Drip Line" should be considered the
closest intrusion into soils and vegetation around any single tree should occur. A case by case
exception can be considered and determined by the arborist if development intrudes towards
only one side of one tree or a grove of trees or only within a small portion of a critical rootzone.
Table of Trees Notes:
To complete the preliminary tree data I used a tree survey provided to me by Mr. Kiel. At this
time no building plans have been finalized so information about impacts to specific trees is not
included in this report.
Blue highlighted trees are required to have an appraisal number if removed (greater than 24"
DBH= Landmark tree (Landmark trees are those that are viable over 24-inches diameter, per
Edmonds City Development Code (ECDC 23.10.080) ).
Yellow highlighted areas note trees that are viable but being removed.
Table of Trees 5-23 Maplewood Estates (abbreviated notes)
DBH in
Drip
Retain per
Lot
Tree
Tree
inches
line in
project
location
#
species
Condition
Viable?
feet**
design?
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
A►
762
macrophyllum
25,20 (45)
good
yes
30
Yes
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
761
macrophyllum
21
poor
no
17
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
760
macrophyllum
20
fair
yes
17
No
Douglas fir /
Pseudotsuga
759
menziesii
20
fair
yes
17
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
6,7,6,5,11,1
758
macrophyllum
1,7,5 (36)
fair
yes
18
No
Bigleaf maple /
757
Acer
macrophyllum
(11.5).5)
(1
fair
yes
7
No
Bigleaf maple /
15,12,8,13
756
Acer
(48)
poor
no
25
No
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 4
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
macrophyllum
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
755
macrophyllum
29
poor
no
30
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
754
macrophyllum
26
fair
yes
30
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
753
macrophyllum
18
fair
yes
20
Yes
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
752
macrophyllum
6.5,9 (15.5)
fair
yes
10
Yes
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
751
macrophyllum
21
poor
no
22
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
750
macrophyllum
9
fair
yes
10
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
749
macrophyllum
22
fair
yes
25
Yes
Douglas fir /
Pseudotsuga
748
menziesii
13.5
fair
yes
10
Yes
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
747
macrophyllum
25
fair
yes
20
Yes
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
746
macrophyllum
6,12
poor
no
16
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
11.5, 5
745
macrophyllum
(16.5)
poor
no
16
No
Pine / Pinus
744
sp.
11
very poor/ dying
no
5
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
743
macrophyllum
25
good
yes
23
No
Bigleaf maple /
Acer
742
macrophyllum
11
fair
yes
10
No
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 5
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Bigleaf maple /
EF Acer 26,28,11
741 macrophyllum (65) fair yes 30 No
*Inches have been rounded to the nearest whole inch.
**Feet have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
Site Observations and Brief Analysis
The site is very gently sloped and mainly populated by mostly semi -mature and mature trees.
Understory is very sparse. Most of the good or fair condition trees stand in the middle of the
site making adding a home challenging from the perspective of having a very limited area to
accommodate the site design without necessitating tree removal. Developing this parcel will
likely require removing most of the trees but many are currently in poor condition and/or would
not be stable if other nearby trees were removed.
All trees on this parcel qualify as part of a grove.
Per ECDC 23.10.060 30% of all significant trees on site shall be retained (and presumably
protected to emerge at project completion in the condition they were prior to any site work) for
this project. In this case:
Significant Trees: 22
Viable trees: 15
Viable trees being removed: 9
• 30% of 15 = 5 : At least 5 viable condition trees need to be retained.
o The current site plan includes retention of five fair condition trees (747-749,752,
753) and one good condition (762) tree to be retained. The number of retained
viable trees is above the threshold for tree retention for this development.
Replacement Requirements
Per Edmonds City Development Code (ECDC 23.10.080):
Tree replacement is required for tree removal associated with the development types identified
in ECDC 23.10.060(A).
Each viable significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement
tree is required.
• 1 replacement trees needed to mitigate the removal of Trees 750.
For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement
trees are required.
• 4 replacement trees needed to mitigate the removal of Trees 742, 757.
For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less than 24 inches in DBH removed,
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 6
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
three replacement trees are required.
• 6 replacement trees needed to mitigate the removal of Trees 759and 760.
For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of
the tree value using the trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant
Appraisal shall be required.
• This applies to Trees 741, 743, 754, 758.
o Summary appraisal : $18,788, $6,075, $5,476, $10,498 Total: $40,837.
A total of 11 trees to replace all viable significant trees being removed are needed for mitigation
in addition to the appraisal values for Trees 741, 743, 754, 758 or the fee in lieu per square foot
whichever is greater (described below).
Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to planning and
development that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including
arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree
required but not replaced.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to
satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited intothe
city's tree fund.
2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or
associated development permit.
3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required.
4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per
square feet of lot area. [Ord. 4299 § 66 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord.
4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021].
Addendum 1 Landmark Tree Appraisals summarizes the fee in lieu for those on -site Landmark
trees to be removed. The following discussion and appraisal methodology is based on the
Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition, Published by the Council of Tree & Landscape
Appraisers, 2018. The Guide has been developed by consensus of professional landscape,tree
care, forestry and arboricultural representatives. It is not prescriptive, but rather provides
advisory recommendations to the appraisal of landscape plants.
The 10th edition replaces the 9th edition and is updated to more fully align with the larger
appraisal profession and follows the standards of the Appraisal Foundation. It considers Cost,
Income and Sales Comparison Approaches to the valuation of trees and plants. Typically, in
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 7
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
residential tree and plant appraisals the Income and Sales Comparison approaches are not
applicable or are not within the scope of plant appraiser expertise, leaving the Costapproach.
Within the Cost Approach, the Trunk Formula Technique, the Cost Compounding Technique and
Direct Replacement are considered. For purposes of this analysis I observed that the subject
trees provide a significant amenity, utility offsets and environmental forest benefit. As such,
amenity vegetation appraisal techniques are considered as commonly utilized in residential
situations.Appraisal approaches commonly utilized in tree appraisals as found in the Guide
10th edition, Chapter 5 are:
• Repair
• Reproduction
• Functional Replacement
Techniques for estimating Cost are:
• Direct Cost
• Trunk Formula Technique
• Cost Compounding Technique
Common techniques that might be applicable to the subject trees are Functional Replacement
(replacement of equivalent utility, benefits or function) as in the Trunk Formula Technique and
Cost Compounding Technique. Repair techniques are generally utilized for partial treedamage.
Direct Cost techniques are used to replace exact replicas of trees. Repair is not at issue here as
the trees are removed and Replacement is not feasible for trees the size of the subjects.
In the Functional Replacement Technique, the assumption is "that a prudent person would not
spend more to purchase an item or restore its benefits than the cost of a substitute item that
produced similar benefits."(Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition).
The Trunk Formula and Cost Compounding techniques are extrapolations of the cost to plant
and "grow" trees.
The Functional Replacement approach known as the Trunk Formula Technique (TFT) is most
commonly utilized to estimate the value of residential trees and begins the process with "...the
largest commonly available" replacement tree, or Basic Cost and "grows" it to the size of the
tree to be replaced. The basic assumption is that a purchaser of a tree would pay the same unit
cost ($/square inch of trunk) for a large tree as a small one. Adjustments, or depreciation factors
that are basically measures of comparability to perfect trees perfectly located, are then made
for physical deterioration (condition), functional limitations and external limitations.
Functional Limitations are factors associated with the interaction of the tree that affects
its condition or could limit its utility. External limitations are factors outside the property and
out of control of the owner; for instance, the effects of insect infestation. These adjustments
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 8
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
are renamed from the 9th edition that identified the adjustments as species, condition and
location. The approach has applicability in urban landscape situations.
As stated in the Guides, "Application (of the Trunk Formula Method or Technique) is generally
limited to residential and urban landscape settings." Costs of removal, clean-up, etc. will be
incurred at the time of tree cutting and are not applicable to thisappraisal.
I base my cost estimates on a variety of local nursery price solicitations and experience with
similar replacement projects. The Appraisal Summary found in Addendum I provides individual
tree data, adjustments to Basic Cost and finally an estimate of the appraised value.
The appraised values of the four on -site Landmark trees to be removed are: $10,498, $5,476,
$6,075 and $18,778 Totaling: $40,827.
Edmonds code caps fees at $2.00 per square feet of area, or in this case $2.00 x 15,056 =
$30,112.
Replacement Specifications
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can
demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the
purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to
meet the intent of this section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth
area.
If the site plan is not adjusted, there is room on the northern section of this parcel to plant
replacement trees. On this site, Western red cedar, Pacific dogwood, vine maple and shore pine
are all good choices of native tree species that can be selected. Other non-native trees can also
be added to this mix to provide for better future forest resilience.
I very strongly recommend that ALL new plantings have any baskets, burlap or twine removed
from their root balls prior to planting.
Tree, Vegetation and Soil Protection Plan (TVSPP)
Purpose
This Tree, Vegetation and Soil Protection Plan (TVSPP) dictates how trees, associated vegetation
and soils in which they grow should be protected during this development project. This plan
should be reviewed by contractors and incorporated into the Project Schedule and contracts
before any mobilization of construction activities. Tree protection measures detailed in this
TVSPP shall be maintained for the duration of construction activity. Improvements or activities
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
such as new paving, utility, and irrigation trenching and other ancillary activities not detailed on
current permitted plans shall occur outside the Tree Protection area.
Tree Protection and Preservation
Trees in the identified Tree Protection Areas shall be retained and protected from incidental
impacts, injury and damage by permitted or unpermitted construction activities.
1. All trees noted on the Map and in the Kiel data have been tagged with silvernumbered
tags by Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC and are referred to in the attached Table of Trees.
2. To prevent injury to protected trees or areas of trees, no work may occur within the Tree
Protection Zone OR within any single tree's critical root zone (CRZ or 'Zone A' or 'Zone B')
without authorization from the Contractor's Arborist.
a. Zone A is the Perimeter Critical Root Zone (PCRZ) of the tree. Zone B is the inner
critical root zone (ICRZ) represented by the inner circles around trees on the
Plans. No work may occur in or occupy Zone A or B without first contacting the
Arborist.
b. See the description below to define these zones.
c. If plans are modified in any way the effect(s) of intrusion into a tree's inner or
outer critical root zone can and shall be assessed on a case by case basis asthis
project progresses
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) _
12" Radius for every
TirM.e.:.i�b diameter.
Generally considered
optimum protection.
Perimeter Critical
Root Zone (PCRZ)
= the outer half of
the CRZ _}
i
The greater the
disturbance in this
area, the greater Post
Care is required.
Interior Critical
Tree Trunk
Root Zone (IC:RZ)
= the inner half of
i
the CRZ
• �'1•. i�; x
Protecting only this
area would cause
significant in
mto
i
the tree, potentially
_-
life threatening, and
• �
would require
•.•
maximum Post Care
` ••
Treatment
The CRZ, also called the "tree protection zone", is often defined as an imaginary circle on the
ground that corresponds with the "dripline" of the tree. However, the dripline is very irregular
and for this project the average and rounded measurements provided in the Table of Trees as
"dripline" should be referred to to create the CRZ.
The above CRZ drawing also defines the "Perimeter CRZ" (PCRZ) and "Interior CRZ" (ICRZ).
Generally, the full PCRZ is considered the optimum amount of root protection for a tree. (The
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
ICRZ is identified as the inner half of the CRZ radius.) As root impact occurs within the PCRZ,
greater post care will be required for the tree to remain alive and stable. The absolute
maximum disturbance allowed must still leave the ICRZ undisturbed if the tree is to have any
chance of survival.
While this is a generally accepted method for measuring CRZ, root systems will vary in depth
and spread based on size of tree, soil quality, water table, species and other related factors.
Prior to Fencing
All areas of the tree protection areas must be shown on construction plans and reviewed with
contractors prior to the start construction.
Mulch (arborist chips, the product of tree removal, no bark only or beauty bark products)
should be applied to the Tree Protection Areas prior to site disturbance, up to a thickness of
four inches deep.
'Tree Protection Area' (or similar verbiage) signs shall be prominently displayed on every area
tree protection fencing.
*Tree stump removal if it affects the critical root zones of retained trees is not recommended.
Grinding out stumps of those that are determined to disturb any tree in any tree protection
areas is required.
Tree
Protection
Fencing
Tree fencing must be put in place before structure demolition, grading or construction begins
and remain in place until final inspection of the project permit, unless otherwise approved by
the Arborist.
Tree protection areas shall be contiguously fenced off with chain link or orange construction
fencing to prevent entry from any area of the subject property. Enclosures define protection
limits to meet three primary requirements: (1) protect tree canopy and trunks from damage by
equipment, materials, and activities; (2) preserve roots and soil conditions in the protection
area and; (3) inform others — both the public and other contractors —that the areas are not
open for access or construction storage use.
It is possible that some trees along the street will have a portion of their root systems under the
existing road. In these cases, if the road will not be disturbed, tree protection areas may be
reduced to the edge of the permeable area and installed at that point.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 11
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Associated vegetation (shrubs and groundcover) on this property is sparse and will likely be
protected by fencing off areas unless intrusion into these areas occurs. Heavy mulch layering
may impact vegetation health by crushing or smothering but can be assessed on a case bycase
basis if necessary.
Grading activities involve soil disturbance that may damage the soil structure and the biological
environment for tree roots and other vegetation elements. Depending on the scope, any grade
changes within the Tree Protection Area or within critical root zones could require mitigation
and remediation. Any change to plans that involves grading into a Tree Protection Area should
be evaluated by the Arborist prior to disturbance.
Trenching, Excavation, Tunneling and Directional Drilling Below -grade activities may impact
soils, tree roots and the biological systems that support trees and vegetation. Any trenching,
excavation, or directional drilling activity within a Tree Protection Area, within or under the
Critical Root Zones is restricted and requires a case by case assessment and approval by the
Arborist.
a. Allowable effective methods to expose roots prior to cutting include hand digging,
air -spading or water excavation technologies. "This applies to the installation of the
water dispersion trenches extending from the home into the yard area(s).
i. Prior to digging, ensure that mulch has been placed in the tree protection area.
ii. If for ANY REASON the work can not be done by hand, plywood shall be placed
on both sides of the location of the trench on top of mulch for the heavy
machinery to be placed on/run over.
iii. Tree protection fencing shall be closed immediately after the ditch has been dug
and utilities installed.
b. Air spading for access or trenching is preferred over all other options when possible.
Water excavation has a high potential for root damage if nozzles are used too close to
root surfaces and must be used with lower pressures.
c. For excavation necessitating or anticipating pruning of tree roots four inches or larger,
root pruning must be approved and documented by the Arborist prior to execution of
the work and is subject to industry standards for clean cuts back to a lateral root and
sound wood.
d. Pruning of roots outside and at the edge of the Tree Protection area measuring smaller
than four inches diameter exposed by excavation must also be cleanly cut to sound
wood.
Heavy Equipment Use Activities that include heavy equipment have the potential to damage
soil and tree roots by compaction of the air spaces within the soil. The use of backhoes, steel
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 12
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
tread tractors or any heavy vehicles within the Tree Protection Area is prohibited without
protection measures approved by the Arborist. If equipment use is allowed in the tree
protection areas, a protective soil and root buffer is required.
a. To protect surface roots and maintain soil structure a protective buffer of arborists' chips
spread over the area of anticipated compaction to a minimum of six inches in depth
covered by a single layer of % inch thick plywood for light machinery OR arborists' chips
spread over the area of anticipated compaction to a minimum of six inches in depth
covered by a single layer of one inch steel plate for heavy machinery.
b. Mulch can be retained in the tree protection areas after disturbance if the Arborist
determines it will not smother or kill existing trees and vegetation. If used, plywood or
steel shall be removed once the specific activity has been completed.
Watering Mulching Tree Protection Areas prior to work can be sufficient to replace watering
needs UNLESS many roots measuring greater than four inches are cut at the edge of the Tree
Protection Area or a Tree Protection area is disturbed. At that point, supplemental water can be
applied depending on the situation per the following recommendations:
a. Water applications can be applied using hoses, water trucks or other means as the
situation warrants.
b. Watering shall be applied to moisten the layer of mulch and soils under the mulch at
least two inches down.
c. In May through October, water shall be applied to the Tree Protection area once per
week unless watering on this schedule is not sufficient to accomplish b. above.
d. In other months no water needs to be applied unless specified by the Arborist.
Damage Any significant damage or injury to trees or vegetation within the Tree Protection Area
must be reported within 24 hours to the job superintendent and the Arborist to ensure timely
application of mitigation measures. All mechanical or chemical injury to branches, trunk, or
roots over four inches in diameter must be reported.
Soil Remediation Actions listed in this section may only need to be referred to or implemented
in case of activity into the Tree Protections Area or as otherwise specified at any time this
project has change orders that affect the Tree Protection Areas. Soil reconditioning/remedial
measures may include:
a. Aeration: Soil that is damaged or compacted within the Tree Protection areas can be
loosened or aerated to promote root growth and enhance tree vitality. One of the
following aeration methods shall be specified in an effort to correct compacted soil
conditions:
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 13
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
b. Radial Trenching: With an air excavator, excavate a soil trench three to six inches wide
and a minimum of 12 inches deep from approximately three feet from the trunk out to
the dripline area. The trenches shall radiate out from one foot apart at the closest point.
c. Vertical Mulching: Auger holes two to four inch diameter, two to three feet deep, on four
foot centers and backfilled with porous material such as perlite, vermiculite or volcanic
rock.
d. Soil -fracturing: With an air spade or knife. Subsurface injections under moderate
hydraulic pressure using a three foot probe and applied on three foot centers under the
dripline.
e. Or, as dictated by the working tree company and approved by theArborist.
Post Construction Activities Tree protection fencing and supplemental watering schedulesshall
be removed/stopped only when all contractors have completed work in all areas of this project.
Retained trees should be re -inspected for signs of impact that may have gone undetected
during construction and mitigation measures assigned accordingly. The Arborist can provide a
final report regarding the existing tree conditions in the Tree Protection Area listing any
remedial actions if necessary prior to fencing being removed.
Definitions
"Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
"Shall" denotes a requirement that is mandatory whenever the criterion for conformance with
the specification requires that there be no deviation. This word implies obligation.
"Should" denotes a guideline or recommendation whenever noncompliance with the
specification is permissible.
"Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as
measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and
one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than
six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade.
More relevant Definitions pertaining to this project can be found in the Edmonds Municipal
Code section 23.10.020 Definitions.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 14
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Thank you for asking me to assist with this project,
Katy Bigelow
Board Master CertifiedArborist
PNW ISA member #PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
American Society Consulting Arborists RCA 490
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 15
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Map - green dots are retain trees, red lines are approximate tree protection areas/fencing.
I X x x6' �WOODFENCL
X x-
0.3'(W) &------- 9 - 25 ' -- ,
r o I 3'x2' 1 ,
12 M i ti Q DI ERS1 N 7
L w,a T E= 1
0.4 N;� ,
r 14.5 "DF I 18 "M
/ » 48 7;
25 M ---- -�' - ' , ,,7529
47 49 7-
6 "M
12 C L."54 1 7
�,d f-350.10 7 1 Zo
o + _ `s 29
PArCEL 7 8, 4' 1
75 1 0
30 "C o 1 5' 6 1 "P "'Q t o
0
1 z l 4 4 15,1 , 7
"C 581 Z
8
1»M \ ��
28"C 5' 4274
-
20'C 8,26,11 '
32 "C 741 �' 1 �o-
D 348.2 i -
,�p
FENCE(N) FOUND REBAR/CAP 0.3'(N)
OF CORNER STAMPED 59 LL-
L'ENCE(W) BROKKE LS 16194 7 62 1
2 "M
JER IS 1 97.25'
1.2'(N)
R
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
16
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Addendum 1 Appraisal Data
Date:
Client: Maplewood Estates Lot A 10-27-23
Address: 8823 194th ST SW. Edmonds
Subject Tree
Value Notes
Tree #741
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
1. Trunk Diameter (D): @ 4.5'
6 5.0" inches
inches
2. Cross Sectional Area (line 1)2 x0.7854
331 8.3" squared
3. Condition Rating
50% %
Heath (Fair)
50
Structure (Fair)
50
Form (Fair)
50
4. Functional limitations
80% %
5. External limitations
80% %
Replacement tree
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
6. Trunk Diameter (D) caliper 3.0" inches
inches
7. Cross Sectional Area (line 6)2 x0.7854 7.1" squared
8. Replacement tree cost Source: Big Trees Inc. Snohomish $ 125.00 $
Calculations
9. Unit Tree Cost (line 8 / line 7 or RPAC) 1 $ 17.68 $
10: Basic Reproduction Cost (line 2 x line9) 1 $ 58,680.56 $
11. Depreciated Reproduction Cost (if appropriate) (line 10 x line 3 x line
4 x line 5 $ 18,777.78 $
Additional Costs
Cleanup $
Replacement Tree Installation $
Aftercare $
12. Total additional costs I$
13. Total reproduction cost (line 11 + line 12) $ 18,777.78 $
14. Rounded $ 18,778.00 $
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Date:
Client: Maplewood Estates Lot A 10-27-23
Address: 8823 194th ST SW. Edmonds
Subject Tree
Value
Notes
Tree # 743
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
1. Trunk Diameter (D): @ 4.5'
2 5.0"
inches
inches
2. Cross Sectional Area (line 1)2 x0.7854
49 0.9"
squared
3. Condition Rating
72%
%
Heath (Good)
75
Structure (Good)
70
Form (Good)
70
4. Functional limitations
90%
%
5. External limitations
90%
%
Replacement tree
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
6. Trunk Diameter (D) caliper 3.0" inches
inches
7. Cross Sectional Area (line 6)2 x0.7854 7.1" squared
8. Replacement tree cost Source: Big Trees Inc. Snohomish $ 150.00 $
Calculations
9. Unit Tree Cost (line 8 / line 7 or RPAC) 1 $ 21.22 $
10: Basic Reproduction Cost (line 2 x line9) $ 10,416.67 $
11. Depreciated Reproduction Cost (if appropriate) (line 10 x line 3 x line
4 x line 5 $ 6,075.00 $
Additional Costs
Cleanup $
Replacement Tree Installation $
Aftercare $
12. Total additional costs I$
13. Total reproduction cost (line 11 + line 12) $ 6,075.00 $
14. Rounded $ 6,075.00 $
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Client: Maplewood Estates Lot A
Address: 8823 194th ST SW. Edmonds
Subject Tree
Tree # 754
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
1. Trunk Diameter (D): @ 4.5'
2. Cross Sectional Area (line 1)2 x0.7854
3. Condition Rating
Heath (Fair)
Structure (Fair)
Form (Fair)
4. Functional limitations
5. External limitations
Replacement tree
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
6. Trunk Diameter (D) caliper
7. Cross Sectional Area (line 6)2 x0.7854
8. Replacement tree cost Source: Big Trees Inc. Snohomish
Calculations
9. Unit Tree Cost (line 8 / line 7 or RPAC)
10: Basic Reproduction Cost (line 2 x line9)
11. Depreciated Reproduction Cost (if appropriate) (line 10 x line 3 x line
4 x line 5
Additional Costs
Cleanup
Replacement Tree Installation
Aftercare
12. Total additional costs
13. Total reproduction cost (line 11 + line 12)
14. Rounded
Date:
10-27-23
Value Notes
2 6.0"
inches
inches
squared
%
%
%
53 0.9"
60%
60
60
60
90%
90%
3.0" inches
inches
7.1" squared
$ 150.00 $
$ 21.22 $
$ 11,266.67 $
$ 5,475.60 $
I$
$ 5,475.60 $
$ 5,476.00 $
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Client: Maplewood Estates Lot A
Address: 8823 194th ST SW. Edmonds
Subject Tree
Tree # 758
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
1. Trunk Diameter (D): @ 4.5'
2. Cross Sectional Area (line 1)2 x0.7854
3. Condition Rating
Heath (Fair)
Structure (Fair)
Form (Fair)
4. Functional limitations
5. External limitations
Replacement tree
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
6. Trunk Diameter (D) caliper
7. Cross Sectional Area (line 6)2 x0.7854
8. Replacement tree cost Source: Big Trees Inc. Snohomish
Calculations
Date:
10-27-23
Value
3 6.0"
101 7.9"
60%
60
60
60
90%
90%
Notes
inches
inches
squared
3.0" inches
inches
7.1" squared
$ 150.00 $
9. Unit Tree Cost (line 8 / line 7 or RPAC) $ 21.22 $
10: Basic Reproduction Cost (line 2 x line9) $ 21,600.00 $
11. Depreciated Reproduction Cost (if appropriate) (line 10 x line 3 x line
4 x line 5 $ 10,497.60 $
Additional Costs
Cleanup
Replacement Tree Installation
Aftercare
12. Total additional costs
13. Total reproduction cost (line 11 + line 12)
14. Rounded
$ 10,497.60I
$ 10,498.00
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Maplewood Estates Lot C 10-23
Assumptions, Limiting Conditions and General Waiver
I, Katy Bigelow, certify that:
I have personally inspected the tree(s) and or the property referred to in this report;
I have no current or prospective financial or other interest in the vegetation or the property which is the
subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias in favor of or against any of the involved
parties or their respective position(s), if any;
The analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are the product of my independent professional
judgment and based on current scientific procedures and facts, and the foregoing report was prepared
according to commercially reasonable and generally accepted arboricultural standards and practices for
the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound areas;
The information included in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the
condition of the trees as of the time and date of inspection;
This report and the opinions expressed herein are not intended, nor should they be construed, as any
type of warranty or guarantee regarding the condition of the subject trees in the future;
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") may restrict the number, type and height of
vegetation on the subject property, and I have made no investigation regarding whether the property is
subject to such CC&Rs; and
To the best of my knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and
correct and information provided by others is assumed to be true and correct.
I am not an attorney or engineer. This report does not cover these areas of expertise and represents
advice only of arboricultural nature. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, it is
specifically understood that nothing contained in this report is intended as legal advice, or advice or
opinions regarding soil stability or zoning laws, and this report should not be relied upon to take the
place of such advice.
Katy Bigelow
Board Master CertifiedArborist
PNW ISA member #PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
American Society Consulting Arborists RCA 490
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 21