REVIEWED RESUB 2-BLD2023-1474+Arborist Report+4.4.2024_9.15.50_AM+4176214BLD2023-1474 RESUB
Apr 04 2024
APPROVED BY PLANNING
May 03 2024
Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
206.351.1375
arboristkaty@gmail.com
www.katybigelow.com
October 27, 2023
REV. April 2, 2024
Christopher Kiel
KLP Construction
19324 88th Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Mr. Kiel:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide consulting arborist services for your developing site in
Edmonds, Washington at Parcel 27041800313900 — 8817 194th ST SW.
The Scope of Work for this project included:
• Site visit Lot B - 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 remaining trees,
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.
On March 28, 2024 1 revisited the site after minor invasive species removal was completed to
recheck the final tree count.
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
Tree data summary
Parcel B
21 Significant Trees (20 excluding one dead tree)
• 0 excellent condition
• 0 very good condition
• 3 good condition (763, 770, 771)
• 9 fair condition (768, 769, 776, 777, 778, 783, 968-970)
• 7 poor condition (772-774, 779-782)
• 1 dying (775)
• 1 dead (784)
12 viable candidates for retention (fair and good condition trees).
• Site design provides for the retention of seven of the viable trees (763, 776-778,
968-970), 6 in fair and one in good condition. This exceeds the 30% retention threshold.
3 additional trees stand off property to the north that have overhanging canopies to the subject
parcel. These trees to at least their drip lines if not further can be well protected during this
project as detailed below.
Trees 762, 758 and 753 (on Parcel A) have some of their canopies overhanging this parcel and
shall be protected prior to and during construction activities.
The clump of trees including 763, 968-970 shall require and maintain robust tree protection
measures. Its Tree Protection Area should incorporate off property tree 762 on Parcel A and
extend at least to the north edge of 194th St. SW. The protection of this tree is assuming NO
work/improvements will disturb the ROW south of these trees.
Tree 776 is assumed to be shared between Parcels A and B but is included as part of this report
and lot calculations.
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 Kiel 5-23". 1 did not staple tags to trees or otherwise tag trees located off
property.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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 average grade."
• I interpreted "branches" to mean trunk(s).
• In the table of trees, cumulative inches for a clump is equal to the total of all trunks
measuring greater than six inches DBH in the clump.
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 by them;
(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 best judgment, 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.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
• Very Poor (6%-20%): Poor vigor and appears to be dying. Little live foliage. Single or multiple
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 with the same meaning as "critical
root zone (outer)" and "limits of disturbance" for each tree. Although each tree has an
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 root zone.
*** Trees 763 and 968-970 should be enclosed in one tree protection area. If trees directly
west of this clump (another maple clump) is being retained, they shall all be enclosed with one
tree protection area following the recommendations for protection in this report. If the off
property maple clump is NOT being retained, the tree protection area shall extend to at least
the west property line and 25' out from the middle of this clump in all other directions
excluding the street south of the clump.
Table of Trees Notes
Blue highlighted trees are required to have an appraisal 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.
*Inches have been rounded to the nearest whole inch. **Feet are rounded to the nearest whole
foot.
Table of Trees Kiel 3-24 - (abbreviated notes)
Lot Tree DBH in Conditio
location #
784
at
783
Tree species inches* n
Drip
line
in
Viable? feet**
*#in()is
total inches
for a clump
for stems < 6"
Red alder / Alnus
rubra 14 dead No NA
Bigleaf maple / Acer
macrophyllum 24 fair Yes 23
Retain
per
project
design?
No
No
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
Lot
location
Drip
Retain
line
per
Tree
DBH in
Conditio
in
project
# Tree species
inches*
n
Viable?
feet**
design?
Bigleaf maple / Acer
782 macrophyllum
16
poor
No
10
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
781 macrophyllum
10
poor
No
8
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
780 macrophyllum
13
poor
No
8
No
Red alder / Alnus
779 rubra
20
poor
No
15
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
778 macrophyllum
11.5
fair
Yes
10
Yes
Bigleaf maple / Acer
777 macrophyllum
19,8,9 (36)
fair
Yes
9
Yes
Bigleaf maple / Acer
776 macrophyllum
15
fair
Yes
17
Yes
Bigleaf maple / Acer
775 macrophyllum
6.5
dying
No
6
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
774 macrophyllum
15
poor
No
15
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
773 macrophyllum
12,13 (25)
poor
No
15
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
772 macrophyllum
18
poor
No
15
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
11.5,9,10,9,14
771 macrophyllum
(44.5)
good
Yes
25
No
1 0.5,11.5,9,9,
8,4.5,8,1 0,10.
Bigleaf maple / Acer
5,
770 macrophyllum
10.5 (86.5)
good
Yes
25
No
Bitter cherry /
769 Prunus emarginata
14
fair
Yes
12
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
10,8,3,4.5,E
768 macrophyllum
(18)
fair
Yes
20
No
Bigleaf maple / Acer
763 macrophyllum
13.5
good
Yes
15
Yes
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
19
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
Bigleaf maple / Acer
968 macrophyllum 6", 11" fair Yes 15 Yes
Bigleaf maple / Acer 11 ", 11 ", 5",
969 macrophyllum 12" (39) fair Yes 25 Yes
Bigleaf maple / Acer 4", 11", 32"
970 macrophyllum (47) fair Yes 25 Yes
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 being 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:
Existing Trees on
Significant trees
21
Non -viable = "dead", dying or "poor"
Non -viable trees
site
9
condition:
7 poor condition (772-774, 779-782)
TOTAL # SIGNIFICANT, VIABLE TREES
12
1 dying (775)
1 dead (784)
Retained viable trees
N/A
NA
in critical areas
Total # viable trees in
12
Viable = assessed in at least "Fair" condition:
Proposed Tree
Retention
developable area
3 good condition (JW, 770, 771)
9 fair condition (768, 769, 776, 777, 778,
Retained viable trees
7
783,26ft)
in developable area
TOTAL # RETAINED
VIABLE TREES
7
Viable tree removals
2 (see
# Removed
Total
that require
arborist
Viable Trees
Replacement
Req'd
DBH
mitigation:
report)
Ratio
New
Proposed Tree
Removals
Trees #770, 771
Range
Qty.
Trees
6-10"
0
x1 = 0
&
Required
Replacements
10.1-14"
1
x2 = 2
g
14.1-24"
j 2
j x3 = 6
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
(need mitigation>>)
(2)
Appraised Value Total
>24„
2
$53,013
Nonviable tree
removals: Trees
#772-775,
9
Note: mitigation (planting/fees in lieu) is not
required for removed, non -viable trees.
779 782,784
TOTAL # REMOVALS
30% of viable trees
%30/12=3.6
Does applicant meet/exceed the minimum
in developable area
= 7 retained
30% tree retention threshold? Yes
Tree Retention
Thresholds
o
50% of viable trees,
o
%50/12=6
*Does applicant meet/exceed minimum 50%
tree retention threshold, waiving fees in
site -wide
= 7 retained
lieu? Yes
Tree Replacement Requirements Explained
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: (784 is dead - non viable.
776-778 and 968-970 will be retained.)
For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement
tree is required. (0)
For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement
trees are required.
• 2 replacement trees needed to fulfill this requirement for removal of 769.
For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less than 24 inches in DBH removed,
three replacement trees are required.
• 6 replacement trees required to fulfill this requirement for removal of 768, 783.
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 770 and 771.
o Summary appraisal : 771 $ 13,813, 770 $39,200 Total: $53,013
A total of 8 trees to replace viable significant trees being removed are needed for mitigation in
addition to the appraised values for Trees 770 and 771 or the fee in lieu per square foot
whichever is greater (described below).
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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 into the
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
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 Cost approach.
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
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
• 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 tree damage.
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
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 this appraisal. 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 two on -site Landmark trees to be removed are: $13,813 and
$39,200 Totaling: $53,013
Edmonds code cap 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:
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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.
In this case, there is room on the northeast portion of this parcel to plant replacement trees and
in the Right of Way if allowed. 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
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 silver numbered
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.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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 as this
project progresses.
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) _
12" Radius for every
Tre.�..ih.. diameter.
..............
Ge n eral ly.: c arms i di'r ed...
9A.tim: �atxxtia�.
Perimeter Critical
Root Zone (PCRZ)
= the outer half of 1
the CRZ e
1
The greater the ,
disturbance in this
area, the greater Post
Care is required.
`
Interior Critical
Tree Trunk
Root Zone (ICRZ)
= the inner half of
♦� ��
the CRZ
rotecting only this
area would cause
significant impact to
1
the tree, potentially
1
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
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
*** Trees 763 and 968-970 should be enclosed in one tree protection area. If trees directly
west of this clump (another maple clump) is being retained, they shall all be enclosed with one
tree protection area following the recommendations for protection in this report. This
determination shall be made prior to site mobilization.
If the off property maple clump is NOT being retained, the tree protection area shall extend to
at least the west property line and 25' out from the middle of this clump in all other directions
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 11
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
excluding the street south of the clump.
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.
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 by case
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
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 12
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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
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
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 13
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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:
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.
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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 the Arborist.
Post Construction Activities Tree protection fencing and supplemental watering schedules shall
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.
Thank you for asking me to assist with this project,
Katy Bigelow
Board Master Certified Arborist
PNW ISA member # PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
American Society Consulting Arborists RCA 490
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 15
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
Map - green dots are retain trees, red lines are approximate tree protection areas.
•?.4 ti 7•C r
r " 7
- ...... 0. IN I
18• I .
18 - 25'
u7 v•goty d I;
• ilo•
15 �? 79 po th j 23' x 2' I
:779 •r Sion
776 i. I
" ( I I
Alto-92
N
77S 8 E AREA
20 I n2 '71?• 774 • 2,207 I
I I � ~I
I � �I
PARCEL B 783
16 794
8 770 771 ` , � $
$ 0� g I
Al n I $ I
I
�• cot•a I
7toR�\ D HOUSE I
I °�(�bND Rf�l P 0.1 '(S� / 1932
OF COEN& WED
9ROKKE L.S16 4
23' x 2'
• Dispersion q -�
-763 Trench
97.25
968-970 N 9C P00,00" W 71.52' 4--•'�
41
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 16
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
Addendum 1 Appraisal Data
Date:
Client: Kiel 10-27-23
Address: 8817 194th ST SW, Edmonds
Subject Tree
Value Notes
Tree 770
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
1. Trunk Diameter (D): @ 4.5'
8 6.5" inches
inches
2. Cross Sectional Area (line 1)2 x 0.7854
587 6.6" squared
3. Condition Rating
62% %
Heath (Good)
65
Structure (Fair)
60
Form (Fair)
60
4. Functional limitations
78% %
5. External limitations
78% %
Replacement tree
Species:Species: Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
6. Trunk Diameter (D) caliper 3.0" inches
inches
7. Cross Sectional Area (line 6)2 x 0.7854 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) $ 17.68 $
10: Basic Reproduction Cost (line 2 x line 9) $ 103,920.14 $
11. Depreciated Reproduction Cost (if appropriate) (line 10 x line 3 x line
4 x line 5 $ 39,199.51 $
Additional Costs
Cleanup
Replacement Tree Installation
Aftercare
12. Total additional costs
13. Total reproduction cost (line 11 + line 12)
14. Rounded
$ 39,199.51 $
$ 39,200.00 $
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 17
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
Client: Kiel
Address: 8817 194th ST SW, Edmonds
Subject Tree
Tree 771
Species: Bigleaf maple (Acermacrophyllum)
1. Trunk Diameter (D): @ 4.5'
2. Cross Sectional Area (line 1)2 x 0.7854
3. Condition Rating
Heath (Good)
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 x 0.7854
8. Replacement tree cost Source: Big Trees Inc. Snohomish
Calculations
Date:
10-27-23
Value
4 4.5"
155 5.3"
62%
65
60
60
90%
90%
Notes
inches
inches
squared
3.0" inches
inches
7.1" squared
$ 125.00 $
9. Unit Tree Cost (line 8 / line 7 or RPAC) $ 17.68 $
10: Basic Reproduction Cost (line 2 x line 9) $ 27,503.47 $
11. Depreciated Reproduction Cost (if appropriate) (line 10 x line 3 x line
4 x line 5 $ 13,812.24 $
Additional Costs
Cleanup
Replacement Tree Installation
Aftercare
12. Total additional costs
13. Total reproduction cost (line 11 + line 12)
14. Rounded
$ 13,812.24
$ 13,813.00
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 18
Kiel 4-24 REV 4-24
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 Certified Arborist
PNW ISA member # PN-6039B
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
American Society Consulting Arborists RCA 490
Prepared by: Katy Bigelow, Arborist LLC 19