Loading...
Hazard tree removal STF20180001.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION .111C. 189" January 5, 2018 Laura Wagner and Brian Flaherty 304 — 8th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (STF20180001) Dear Ms. Wagner and Mr. Flaherty, The City of Edmonds was contacted on your behalf by certified arborist Justina Kraus of Champion Tree Care regarding the removal of a hemlock tree located on the property adjacent at 306 — 8th Avenue South. The identified tree is located on a steep slope near Shell Creek. The slope and Shell Creek are considered critical areas pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40, 23.80 and 23.90. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. Normal maintenance of vegetation is an allowed activity in critical areas. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" is defined as "removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the past five years." In this case, the hemlock tree is larger than 4" DBH so tree hazard evaluation is required. The subject hemlock tree had been maintained as part of a previous hazard tree exemption in 2015 (STF20150032). According to updated information submitted by Ms. Kraus (attached), the tree has deteriorated since 2015 and has become a higher risk for failure and thus is now a candidate for removal. It is noted that the hemlock is located on an adjacent property owned by Brian Leonard, who has given his permission to remove the tree. An exemption for tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only the identified hemlock maybe cut to a snag. 2. Two replacement trees of a species native to the area must be installed within one year of the tree cutting activity. Evergreen species must be a minimum of 6-feet in height while deciduous species must be a minimum of one to two inches diameter at breast height consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. 3. The downed wood may be left onsite or removed. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely,, Mike Clugston Associate Planner Encl: Arborist report and supporting documentation prepared by Justina Kraus of Champion Tree Care received January 4, 2018 Cc: Brian Leonard Justina Kraus Page 1 of 6 C ampion 1 Tree Care Clients: Laura Wagner and Brian Flaherty Dec 26 2017 304 8th Ave N Edmonds 98020 Parcel#00434208000100 Tree on Parcel #00434208000300 Property Owner Brian Leonard bkllaw1CaDmsn.com RECEIVED To: City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5t" Ave N Edmonds, WA. 98020 JAN - 4 2013 RE: Hazard Tree Removal from Critical Area DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Dear Edmonds City Planner, Thank you for your time. This report is to satisfy documentation requirements for high hazard tree removal from a Critical Area in the City of Edmonds. A Western Hemlock sitting within 20-ft of 304 81n Ave N. (Brian and Laura) on their neighbor's property (Mr. Brian Leonard) has declined past the point of safe retention. Mr. Brian Leonard has given his approval for the removal to us through email (copy attached at end). I believe this removal needs to take place as soon as possible because the canopy of this tree is getting worse, has significant internal hollow and decay, and sheds large branches onto the house every wind storm. The canopy of this large tree has a high likelihood of failure during an average windstorm and could damage the house of Brian and Laura or severely hurt a person. This tree work is currently scheduled for Tuesday January 9, 2018. Husband and wife, Brian and Laura at 304 81h Ave N [Parcel#00434208000100] had their first arborist tree assessment done on May 9, 2015 when they were new homeowners. Their property sits adjacent to the forested, undeveloped lot of Mr. Brian Leonard. One Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) was permitted and removed in 2015. That Hemlock was removed because of proximity to house, known species characteristics and after extensive cut holding roots and presence of internal wood decay were identified. We received City of Edmonds (COE) permit approval to remove the hazardous Western Hemlock from the property of Brian Leonard with his permission. This report documents the need to remove a second Western Hemlock from Mr. Brian Leonard's property. In 2015 it was retained, after canopy inspection results indicated pruning could mitigate the likely potential hazards associated with canopy failure during an average windstorm; English Ivy was also removed. The tree was a moderate risk because it is 120-ft tall and sits within 20-ft of Brian and Laura's house. The canopy looms over the house. Western Hemlock Ganoderma is known to be present in the Page 2 of 6 stand, which is a wood decay fungus that results in hollow trees with compromised flexibility and wood strength. Decayed trees are more likely to fail in average storm conditions. The tree was retained and to be monitored by Brian and Laura for change. But now we are requesting removal after a basal and canopy inspection indicates significant internal decay hollows inside the upper canopy of the trunk. The trunkwood is decayed and so now easily colonized by pileated woodpeckers. The canopy inspection indicates that there are two large entrance holes into a large nest (the decay cavity). Hemlock Ganoderma enters through the roots and the decay column has moved high up into the canopy. Pruning simply cannot mitigate or correct this high likelihood of failure from internal decay. The location, looming over the house means the targets are within the canopy drip line of the tree. The canopy of this tree should be removed down to a tall wildlife snag because this tree offers so much benefit to wildlife. But this tree should not be retained and not allowed to become an imminent threat. ,1h Picture 1. One of the two woodpecker holes located about 75-ft up in the canopy. The amount of living holding wood is thin. This area has another 25-ft of canopy above it. Page 3 of 6 i10 Picture 2. Through the second hole, vertical stress cracks show. Page 4 of 6 A Picture 3. The stress crack from picture 2 from the other side of the tree. This area is likely to be unable to withstand torsion during wind and the canopy is likely to fail in this region falling 70+ ft. Page 5 of 6 Picture 4. Large branches have begun breaking off during every wind event and they fall on the house below. The broken area has internal colonization by wood decay fungi indicating the extent of systemic fungal infection. The flow of water and nutrients through this tree is not like that of a healthy system. Page 6 of 6 Picture 5. The blue arrows point to the area of the two woodpecker holes. Please permit the removal of the tree. I, Justina Kraus, am an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (PN-1583A) and ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ). I am a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) and I hold Bachelor and Master Degrees from the University of Washington in traditional and urban forest ecology. Champion Tree Care, LLC is a licensed, bonded, insured Contractor with the State of Washington #CHAMPTC831D9. We perform all tree care to meet, or exceed, the American National Institute Standards ANSI-A300 standards for tree work. End of Document. " Cit of Edmonds r Y C rn z 304 8th Ave N Edmonds 914, DALEY ST SPRAGUE ST z W Q EDMONDS-ST EDMONDS ST c •, Q iu5 BELL ST 00 DALEY ST rll:' `-SP-RAGUE ST z W - - Q EDMONDS-ST z - � _. s SO r. MAIN ST W W Q _ , Q x 00 tr BELL ST Legend -+yU' 5 • I0caj-ZI-YA 0 1 V O � --i I I 14,514 O Notes 0 188.08 376.2 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for , reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be accurate, WGS 1984__Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_5phere current, or otherwise reliable. @ City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION l' City of Edmonds WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxi liary_Sphere © City of Edmonds 304 8th Ave N Edmonds This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend Ar[SDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLINE: <all other values 1 2 5; 4 9:71; 7; 8 qn`� Notes rn,.,p z .F'a , City of Edmonds 304 8th Ave N Edmonds WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxi liary_Sphere O City of Edmonds This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 10 Legend Contour Lines 2 10; 50 100 ArcSDE. G IS. STRE ET_C ENTERLI N E call other values> 1 2 5; 4 9;71;7;8 Notes MAL? - 0:3 t ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client �� � n V- Date 00-+. Z5 7M-4- Time �� 4CW1 Address/Tree location 7;0Y V'4 L4 t .- i`�'( Tree no. Sheet I of z— Tree species j --hr l j)�e -_1 Yy� dbh ' `( Height Crown spread dia. S L Assessor(s) �tCa LA C- � Tools used � It•�•,, �A (i A���' ^'�✓i�r�ti•:k Time frame Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy ;,• c c c E � = " r '� rate 1-rare $ c ti •f° c Target description rg p Target protection g p 3= 3 2 3 x 2 _occasional °1 t o X Yu 3-frequent �a r4-constant a E cc 1 ND N N 2 I�-2 N N 3 _+_ 4 Site Factors History of failures Dfa Al ,C L p H Lit/1l n& r ad .ta ,,4 0 ✓WHO. Topography Flat[] Slope > 15 % Aspect Site changes None Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe M Vle i -•►-- 1'9 c� Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe i v aj Prevailing wind direction`-, W1 Common weather Strong winds( Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rainX Describe Atl I ^ZIAZZ. Tree Health and Species Profile q" A aAA-'\ a ctil Vigor Low Normal ❑ Hi h ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal Jam% Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biot f Prt1l �Ej(�E' 0,rW 0 A I•y-r Abiotic Q r Species failure profile Brancheo, Trun Roots ❑ Describe r �r�CP ►�'�i V i( A t ) c-e-'�Wx-)'c •t-, j i&Ae Load Factors �a-�U.u�t Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Fulo Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large, Crown density Sparse Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or expected c ange in load factors le • ° "' • Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks,X Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Han ers Number Max. dia. g Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole% circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failtrres�Similar branches present Pruning history Crown cleaneThinned Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced d Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks Heartwood decay� r'._4____ .4�D e Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth a,l,l 1 t r£ 4�ic• SJ -t' _2 Condition (s) of cotncern 2►'\04A) �®l 1? _ Part Sizes /r Fall Distance Part Size ��Et -% Fall Distance ` Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ElModerate❑ Significanj K Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significanx Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable KImminent ❑ Likelihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible Probable Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color d Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Crac4A Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean ' Corrected? Response growth lu't'�I t �'-t.} )� a r.��f A ` „, Response growth • m'L.t- 1.00C 4., + M1s "� Conditions) of concern Condition (s) of concern Part Size �� r� Fall Distance Part Size r Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significanix Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificanL>< Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Posslblexprobable 0 Imminent ❑ Lik Rhood of failure Improbable❑ PossiblK Probable 0 Imminent 11 Risk Categorization Target (Target number or description) Tree part Condition(s) of concern Likelihood Consequences rating (from Matrix Z) Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) N a a N d o c E E o Z' j 3 E a m 2 w M 3 E 'A_, Y Y > m z °c_ (° in i �n Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impact of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely, Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible I Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable I Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Motes, explanations, description_ s / 1,00rNA ao, i !-_e ^V V te? r' Gl n �/l r3lti' Mitigatio I. North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ Hig'hk2p,Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval DataAinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑NoXYes-Type/Reason C11 Inspection IimitationsRNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 771is datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2